5235 GI/2019

(7189)

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- 42]

ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 13—vDrwcj 19] 2019] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 21—vkf'ou 27] 1941

No. 42]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 13— OCTOBER 19, 2019, SATURDAY/ASVINA 21— ASVINA 27, 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)

कामक

कामक, लोक िशकायत और पशन

लोक िशकायत और पशन

लोक िशकायत और पशन मंालय

मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग

कामक और िशण िवभाग

कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई दली, 9 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1830

1830

1830.—क ीय सरकार, दंड या संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) क धारा 24 क उपधारा (8) "ारा

द# त शि तय% का योग करते )ए, दली िवशेष पुिलस .थापना (क ीय अ1वेषण 3यूरो) "ारा रांची, झारखंड म िवशेष

1यायालय% (क ीय अ1वेषण 3यूरो के वाद) और उ9 वाद% से उदभूत अपील, पुनरी;ण और अ1य मामल% के िलए <ी रिव

शंकर, अिधव9ा को वाद सं. आरसी 9 (एस), 10(एस) और 11(एस)/2015/सीबीआई/एससी.1/नई दली के िलए राजप@

म इस अिधसूचना के काशन क तारीख से तीन वषB क अविध के िलए या इन वाद% के िनपटान या अगला आदेश होने तक,

इनम से जो भी पूवBDर हो, िवशेष लोक अिभयोजक िनयु9 करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/05/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. ि@पाठी, अवर सिचव

7190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training )

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2019

S.O. 1830.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate as Special Public

Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of case numbers RC 9(S), 10(S) and 11(S)/2015/CBI/SC.I/New Delhi instituted

by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Special Courts (Central Bureau of

Investigation cases) at Ranchi, Jharkhand and appeals, revisions and other matters arising out of the said cases, for a

period of three years from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette or disposal of the cases or till

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/05/2019-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 16 अ तूबर, 2019

का

का. आ.

. आ.

. आ. 1831

1831

1831.—के1 सरकार एतद"ारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस . थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

संH या 25) क धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) सपKठत धारा 6 "ारा दD शि9य% का योग करते )ए, कनाBटक राM य सरकार, गृह

िवभाग (अपराध) क अिधसूचना सं. ई-एचडी 08 पीसीआर 2019, बंगलुO दनांक 17.09.2019 के माP यम से ाQ त

सहमित से, आई मॉिनटरी एडवायसरी (आईएमए), बंगलुO तथा उसके समूह इकाइय% "ारा कए गए िवDीय

अिनयिमतताS के िलए कनाBटक िनवेशक% के िहत% का संर;ण िवDीय .थापना अिधिनयम, 2004 (2005 के कनाBटक

अिधिनयम सं. 30) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराध तथा उपयुB त एक या अिधक अपराध% के संबंध म कए गए दुTयास%,

दुT ेरणाS और षUं@% तथा उसी संV यवहार म कए गए अथवा उ1 हW तX य% से उ# प1 न कसी अ1 य अपराध या अपराध% का

अ1 वेषण करने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस . थापना के सद. य% क शि9य% और ;े@ािधकार का िव. तार सम. त कनाBटक

राM य म करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/23/2019-एवीडी-II)]

एस. पी. आर. ि@ पाठी, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2019

S.O. 1831.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Karnataka, Home Department (Crimes) issued vide Notification No. E-HD 08 PCR 2019,

Bengaluru dated 17.9.2019 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment in whole State of Karnataka to investigate the financial irregularities of I Monetary Advisory (IMA),

Bengaluru and its group entities for offences punishable under Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors Financial

Establishments Act, 2004, (Karnataka Act No. 30 of 2005) and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in

connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence(s) committed in the course of the

same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/23/2019 –AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

कोयला मंालय

नई दली, 15 अ9ूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.1832

1832

1832.—के1ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक ;े@ (अजBन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे

इसम इसके पYात् उ9 अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 4 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन भारत सरकार के कोयला मं@ालय

क अिधसूचना संHयांक का.आ. 2483, तारीख 16 अ9ूबर, 2017, जो भारत के राजप@, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii),

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7191

तारीख 21 अ9ूबर, 2017 म कािशत क गई थी, "ारा उससे संल] अनुसूची म िविन^दB_ पKर;े@ म 4221.5569 एकड़

(लगभग) या 1708.4061 हे टेयर (लगभग) माप वाली भूिम म कोयले का पूवd;ण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना दी थी;

अत:, अब के1ीय सरकार, उ9 अिधिनयम क धारा 7 क उप-धारा (1) "ारा दD शि9य% का योग करते )ए

21 अ9ूबर, 2019 से ारंभ होने वाली एक वषB क और अविध को, ऐसी अविध के Oप म िविन^दB_ करती है िजसके भीतर

के1ीय सरकार, उ9 अिधिनयम क धारा 4 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन कोयले का पूवd;ण करने के िलए दी गई ऐसी सूचना

के संबंध म , उ9 भूिम को या ऐसी भूिम म अथवा उस पर के कसी अिधकार का अजBन करने के आशय क सूचना दे सकेगी ।

अनु

अनुसूची

सूची

आंf देश पावर जनरेशन कारपोरेशन िलिमटेड

सरापल- नौपारहा कोयला 3लॉक

िजला अंगुल तथा िजला देवगढ़, ओिडशा

(रेखांक संHया एपीजी / एसएनसीबी / 4(1) एन/ सीओएमबी/ Q लान / 2017/17, तारीख 01 िसतiबर, 2017)

.सं.

.सं. ^ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

नाम

थाना

संया

संया ^िजला

िजला

भूिम

भूिम का कार हेटेयर म

का कार हेटेयर म

कुल

हेटेयर

हेटेयर म म म म

!ट"पिणयां

(6)

अिभधृित

वन

गैर

गैर-वन

वन

सरकारी

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(7)

(8)

तेबूदू

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

61.9340

9.5810

9.0410

80.5560

भाग

तेबूदू जंगल

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

1.3460

0.0425

0.7540

2.1425

भाग

भालूखाईधीप छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

260.0230

23.8870

82.9270

366.8370

भाग

पाटकमु1डा

जंगल

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

66.2480

1.56100

5.2100

73.0190

भाग

बाघुवाबोल

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

107.0960

5.1280

28.6590

140.8830

भाग

नौपारहा

कुंदईगोला 94

देवगढ़ 105.0165

9.2584

99.1121

213.3870

भाग

कुसुमपाल

कुंदईगोला 95

देवगढ़

3.5527

1.8668

1.6589

7.0784

भाग

kली

कुंदईगोला 93

देवगढ़ 130.1956

52.1885

253.5010

435.8851

भाग

रायबंधा

कुंदईगोला 92

देवगढ़

0.3040

0.4860

0.3196

1.1096

भाग

10.

खैराबेरनी

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

45.2460

38.7470

26.0405

110.0335

भाग

11.

रायपाल

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

16.7350

1.9120

36.8035

55.4505

भाग

12.

खामरा जंगल छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

2.4615

0.2240

22.2455

24.9310

भाग

7192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

.सं.

.सं. ^ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

नाम

थाना

संया

संया ^िजला

िजला

भूिम

भूिम का कार हेटेयर म

का कार हेटेयर म

कुल

हेटेयर

हेटेयर म म म म

!ट"पिणयां

(6)

अिभधृित

वन

गैर

गैर-वन

वन

सरकारी

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(7)

(8)

13.

सरापाल

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

1.1970

5.0390

35.8900

42.1260

भाग

14.

पाटकमुंडा

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

47.8145

0.0000

20.5555

68.3700

भाग

15.

तंिगरी

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

0.6570

0.4260

30.7660

31.8490

भाग

16. ^{धनगुOमुंडा}

छ दीपाडा

अंगुल

35.0780

0.0585

19.6120

54.7485

भाग

कुल:

884.9048 150.4057 673.0956 1708.4061

कुल: 1708.4061 हे टेयर (लगभग) या 4221.5569 एकड़ (लगभग)

अिधसूिचत कए जाने वाले Q लाट:

(1) lाम: - तेबूदू -Q लॉट संH या :

1 से 32,33(भाग), 34 से 569, 570(भाग), 571, 572, 573(भाग), 574(भाग), 578(भाग), 579(भाग),

593(भाग), 594 (भाग) , 601(भाग), 602(भाग), 603(भाग), 604, 605(भाग), 606 से 612, 613(भाग),

614(भाग), 615, 616(भाग), 617 (भाग), 628(भाग), 631(भाग), 632(भाग), 635(भाग), 636 से 649,

650(भाग), 651 से 668, 669(भाग), 670, 671(भाग), 672(भाग), 675(भाग), 682(भाग), 691(भाग), 692

से 716, 717(भाग), 718 से 729, 730(भाग), 731(भाग), 732(भाग), 733 (भाग), 734(भाग), 746(भाग),

747, 748(भाग), 749(भाग), 750, 751, 752(भाग), 753, 754,755(भाग),756 से 763, 764 (भाग),

765(भाग), 766(भाग), 776(भाग), 797(भाग), 798(भाग), 799(भाग), 800(भाग), 802(भाग), 803(भाग),

806(भाग), 807(भाग),808(भाग), 824(भाग), 825 से 830, 831(भाग), 832 से 841, 842(भाग),

845(भाग), 846, 847(भाग), 848(भाग), 849 (भाग), 3899, 3908, 3928, 3929, 3909, 3920 और

3921.

(2) lाम: - तेबूदू जंगल - Q लॉट संH या:

199(भाग), 200(भाग), 201, 202(भाग), 203(भाग), 204(भाग), 205, 206(भाग), 207, 208, 209, 210,

218(भाग), 219(भाग), 221(भाग), 222(भाग), 223(भाग), 224(भाग) और 283(भाग).

(3) lाम: - भालूखाईधीप- Q लॉट संH या:

45 (भाग), 46, से 103, 104(भाग), 107(भाग), 108(भाग), 111(भाग), 112(भाग), 113(भाग), 117(भाग),

133(भाग), 140(भाग), 141(भाग), 142, 143(भाग), 144, 145(भाग), 146 से 177, 178(भाग), 179, 180,

181(भाग), 183(भाग), 184, 185, 186, 187(भाग), 190(भाग), 191(भाग), 192 से 463, 464(भाग),

465(भाग), 466(भाग), 467(भाग), 468 से 475, 476(भाग), 477 से 514, 515(भाग), 516(भाग),

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7193

519(भाग), 520 से 5400, 5402 से 5448, 5450 से 5478, 5480 से 5486, 5488 से 5494, 5496, 5498 से

5502, 5505 से 5511, 5513 से 5530, 5533 से 5539.

(4) lाम: - पाटकमुंडा जंगल - Q लॉट संH या:

268(भाग), 269(भाग), 270 से 273, 274(भाग), 275 से 277, 279 से 348, 349(भाग), 350(भाग),

354(भाग), 355(भाग), 356(भाग), 358(भाग), 359, 360(भाग), 361 से 366, 367(भाग), 368 से 411,

412(भाग), 413(भाग), 414(भाग), 415(भाग), 416 से 428, 429(भाग), 430(भाग), 431(भाग), 432(भाग),

438(भाग), 462, 712(भाग), 713(भाग), 715(भाग), 716(भाग), 717 से 726, 728(भाग), 729(भाग),

737(भाग), 738(भाग), 739, 740(भाग), 741, 745(भाग), 746 से 750, 751(भाग), 752(भाग), 753(भाग),

754 से 799, 801 से 839, 841 से 891, 893 से 987, 989,990, 994 से 1008, 1010 से 1017, 1020 से

1077, 1080 से 1090, 1092 से 1299, 1300(भाग), 1301 से 1951, 1954 से 1956, 1959, 1960, 1964

से 1968, 1970 से 1977, 1979,1981 से 1988.

(5) lाम: - बाघुवाबोल- Q लॉट संH या:

86(भाग), 93(भाग), 94(भाग), 98(भाग), 99, 100, 101(भाग), 102(भाग), 103(भाग), 104 से 147,

148(भाग), 152(भाग), 153 से 159, 160(भाग), 161(भाग), 267(भाग), 268(भाग), 269(भाग), 270(भाग),

273(भाग), 274(भाग), 275 से 278, 279(भाग), 307(भाग), 531(भाग), 535(भाग), 536(भाग), 537 से

544, 545(भाग), 546 से 567, 568(भाग), 579(भाग), 580 से 582, 583(भाग), 585(भाग), 586(भाग),

722(भाग), 723(भाग), 724(भाग), 725(भाग), 726(भाग), 727 से 733, 734(भाग), 736(भाग), 739(भाग),

740(भाग), 741(भाग), 742 से 744, 745(भाग), 746(भाग), 747(भाग), 748 से 822, 823(भाग), 824 से

859, 860(भाग), 861 से 869, 870(भाग), 871(भाग), 872(भाग), 873(भाग), 874, 875, 876(भाग),

877(भाग), 878(भाग), 881(भाग), 882 से 1039, 1041 से 1277, 1279 से 1935, 1937 से 1947,

1948(भाग), 1949 से 1951, 1955 से 1961, 1963 से 1967, 1968(भाग), 1969, 1971 से 1975, 1993 से

2025, 2027 से 2053, 2055, 2057, 2058, 2060 से 2066, 2069 से 2072, 2076 से 2113,2104(भाग),

2105 से 2114, 2116 से 2130, 2132, 2134 से 2143, 2154 से 2166, 2169, 2186 से 2188, 2190 से

2225, 2231, 2236 से 2294, 2296, 2298 से 2301, 2305, 2308, 2314 से 2316, 2319,2320, 2322,

2324 से 2326, 2329 से 2341, 2346 से 2350, 2353, और 2358.

(6) lाम: नौपारहा -Q लॉट संH या:

53(भाग), 58(भाग), 59(भाग), 60, 61(भाग), 62 से 95, 96(भाग), 102(भाग), 103, 104(भाग), 105 से

115, 116(भाग), 117 से 123, 124(भाग), 125 से 663, 665 से 770, 772 से 2470, 2474 से 2481,

2482(भाग), 2483, 2484, 2485(भाग), 2486 से 2623, 2625(भाग), 2626 से 2629, 2631 से 2657,

2659 से 2662, 2664 से 2669, 2671 से 2675, 2678, 2679, 2682 से 2685, 2687, 2688, 2693 से

2699, 2701, 2704 से 2708, 2710 से 2712, 2715, 2716, 2718, 2720 से 2731, 2738, 2739, 2744

से 2752, 2754 से 2756, 2758 से 2762, 2764 से 2784, 2786 से 2794, 2796, 2799, 2800, 2802,

2803, 2810 से 2814 और 2817.

7194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(7) lाम: - कुसुमपाल- Q लॉट संH या:

484(भाग), 621(भाग), 622(भाग), 624(भाग), 626, 627(भाग), 628 से 632, 633(भाग), 634(भाग),

639(भाग), 654(भाग), 655(भाग), 656(भाग), 657(भाग), 659(भाग), 660(भाग), 661 से 663, 664(भाग),

665, 666, 667(भाग), 668 से 685, 694 और 861.

(8) lाम: - kली - Q लॉट संH या:

215(भाग), 216(भाग), 217(भाग), 218, 219(भाग), 220 से 237, 238(भाग), 241(भाग), 317(भाग),

374(भाग), 407(भाग), 412(भाग), 413(भाग), 414(भाग), 415(भाग), 416(भाग), 417(भाग), 418 से 442,

443(भाग), 444 से 452, 453(भाग), 454 से 600, 601(भाग), 610(भाग), 611 से 638, 640 से 727, 729

से 1735, 1737 से 2107, 2110 से 2208, 2212 से 2218, 2222 से 2225, 2266, 2267, 2274(भाग),

2275 से 2284, 2286 से 2330, 2332 से 2430, 2432 से 2437, 2441 से 2450, 2453(भाग), 2454,

2455, 2468 से 2494, 2998, 2999, 3011 से 3014, 3017, 3018, 3024, 3027, 3030, 3033 से

3037,3042 से 3048, 3050 से 3053, 3095 से 3101, 3105, 3109 से 3112, 3114 से 3116, 3119,

3125, 3126, 3131, 3148, 3153 से 3157, 3165, 3166, 3189, 3190, 3195, 3196, 3203, 3204,

3212, 3214 से 3219, 3221, 3223, 3226 से 3228, 3234 से 3238, 3240 और 3242.

(9) lाम: - रायबंधा -Q लॉट संH या:

221(भाग), 222(भाग), 223 से 225 और 250(भाग).

(10) lाम: - खैराबेरनी- Q लॉट संH या:

28(भाग), 37(भाग), 38(भाग), 39(भाग), 43(भाग), 44(भाग), 45(भाग), 46 से 50, 51(भाग), 52(भाग),

54(भाग), 55 से 124, 125(भाग), 126(भाग), 127(भाग), 128(भाग), 129(भाग), 133(भाग), 135(भाग),

159(भाग), 161(भाग), 162 से 377, 380 से 735, 736(भाग), 737(भाग), 738(भाग), 760(भाग),

907(भाग), 908(भाग), 910(भाग), 911(भाग), 930(भाग), 2489, 2490, 2494, 2496 से 2499,

2500(भाग), 2501(भाग), 2509, 2516 से 2519, 2527, 2530, 2532 से 2540, 2543 से 2545, 2552,

2554, 2565 से 2567, 2581 से 2588, 2590 से 2592, 2595, 2596, 2601, 2604, 2605, 2607, 2608,

2613 और 2621.

(11) lाम: रायपाल- Q लॉट संH या:

1 से 65, 70 से 73, 75 से 673, 905(भाग), 906(भाग), 907, 908(भाग), 922(भाग), 923 से 934,

931(भाग), 932(भाग), 933(भाग), 934, 936(भाग), 937(भाग), 938(भाग), 939(भाग), 940(भाग),

1738(भाग), 1739 से 1745, 1746(भाग), 1750(भाग), 1751(भाग), 1752 से 1754, 1755(भाग), 1794

से 1800, 1801(भाग), 1802(भाग), 1805 से 1813, 1876(भाग), 1879 से 1889, 1890(भाग),

1898(भाग), 1905(भाग), 1906(भाग), 1907(भाग), 1910(भाग), 1911(भाग), 1912(भाग), 1913 से

1927, 1928(भाग), 1929, 1930(भाग), 1931(भाग), 2072(भाग), 2076(भाग), 2077(भाग), 2078 से

2084, 2085(भाग), 2086 से 2088, 2089(भाग), 2090(भाग), 2091,2092(भाग), 2094 से 2127,

2128(भाग), 2129 से 2148, 2149(भाग), 2150 से 2194, 2195(भाग), 2196(भाग), 2197(भाग),

2199(भाग), 2629, 2645, 2646, 2649, 2650, 2653(भाग), 2680, 2686, 2690 से 2692 और 2697.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7195

(12) lाम: - खामरा जंगल -Q लॉट संH या:

1, 2, 3(भाग), 4 से 10(भाग), 11(भाग), 12(भाग), 18(भाग), 19(भाग), 23(भाग), 24(भाग), 25(भाग),

34(भाग), 54(भाग), 55, 56(भाग), 60(भाग), 61 से 71, 72(भाग), 73(भाग), 74(भाग), 78(भाग), 79(भाग),

80(भाग), 89(भाग), 90(भाग), 91(भाग), 92(भाग), 93 से 100, 101(भाग), 102(भाग), 103(भाग), 104,

105(भाग), 107(भाग), 120(भाग), 121, 122(भाग), 144(भाग), 149(भाग), 150(भाग), 151(भाग),

310(भाग), 311(भाग), 312(भाग), 313 से 316, 317(भाग), 318(भाग), 319, 320(भाग), 321(भाग), 322,

323, 324(भाग), 325(भाग), 326, 327, 328(भाग), 329(भाग), 330(भाग), 331(भाग), 332(भाग),

333(भाग) और 1047(भाग).

(13) lाम: - सरापाल- Q लॉट संH या:

1, 2, 3(भाग), 23(भाग), 24, 25(भाग), 26(भाग), 62(भाग), 67(भाग), 68(भाग), 264(भाग), 265(भाग),

266(भाग), 267, 268, 269(भाग), 381(भाग), 388(भाग), 389(भाग), 766(भाग), 767(भाग), 769(भाग),

770(भाग), 771, 772, 773(भाग), 778(भाग), 1291(भाग), 1292 से 1294, 1295(भाग), 1301(भाग),

1302 से 1307, 1308(भाग), 1366(भाग), 1367(भाग), 1368(भाग), 1369 से 1373, 1374(भाग),

1375(भाग), 1388(भाग), 1389(भाग), 1390 से 1397, 1398(भाग), 1399, 1400(भाग), 1401(भाग),

1873(भाग), 1874 से 1876, 1877(भाग), 1878, 1879(भाग), 1880(भाग), 1962(भाग), 1963(भाग),

2047(भाग), 2048(भाग), 2049(भाग), 2050(भाग), 2051(भाग), 3396, 3397(भाग), 3398(भाग),

3399(भाग), 3400(भाग), 3401(भाग), 3402(भाग), 5004 से 5007 और 5011.

(14) lाम: - पाटकमुंडा- Q लॉट संH या:

1 से 993, 995 और 996.

(15) lाम - तंिगरी - Q लॉट संH या:

4(भाग), 10(भाग), 11(भाग), 12 से 17, 18(भाग), 655(भाग), 656(भाग), 736(भाग), 737(भाग),

823(भाग), 824(भाग), 825(भाग), 826(भाग), 827(भाग), 828(भाग), 829(भाग), 864(भाग), 865(भाग),

866(भाग), 867 से 874, 875(भाग), 876 से 895, 896(भाग), 897(भाग), 898(भाग), 899 से 910,

911(भाग), 913(भाग), 915(भाग), 916 से 922, 923(भाग), 924(भाग), 925, 926(भाग), 929(भाग), 930

से 934, 935(भाग), 937(भाग), 939(भाग), 940(भाग), 941 से 943, 944(भाग), 945(भाग), 948,

949(भाग), 950 से 953, 954(भाग), 957(भाग), 958 से 968, 969(भाग), 970(भाग), 971 से 980,

981(भाग), 982 से 993, 994(भाग), 995(भाग), 996, 997(भाग), 1015(भाग), 1016(भाग), 1024(भाग),

1025(भाग), 1029(भाग), 1030, 1031(भाग), 1032(भाग), 1033(भाग), 1041(भाग), 1042(भाग),

1043(भाग), 1145(भाग), 1146(भाग), 1148(भाग), 1149(भाग), 1150(भाग), 1151(भाग), 1155(भाग)

और 3166.

(16) lाम: - धनगुOमुंडा- Q लॉट संH या:

1 से 425, 426(भाग), 427(भाग), 428(भाग), 432(भाग), 433(भाग), 434 से 439, 440(भाग), 441(भाग),

442 से 448, 449(भाग), 450(भाग), 451, 452(भाग), 453 से 466, 467(भाग), 468(भाग), 474(भाग),

7196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

501(भाग), 530(भाग), 531(भाग), 532(भाग), 563(भाग), 565(भाग), 566, 567(भाग) और 840, 841, और

843.

सरापाल – नौपारहा कोयला 3 लाक का सीमा वणBन:

सीमा िब1 दु 1 से 38:

nबंदु 1 – 38 : सरापाल – नौपारहा कोयला 3 लाक क सीमा nबंदु संH या 1 से आरंभ होती है जो 3 लाक क सीमा के िडप

साइड शीषB nबंदु के कोने (पूवB के आिखरी छोर पर) से उ# तर-दि;ण तथा पूवB-पिp चम को जाती )ई सीमा के भाग का शीषB

nबंदु है तथा lाम तेबूदू के सवd;ण 848 म ि. थत है। nबंदु 1 से nबंदु 2 तक सीमा सवd;ण संH या 848,847,33 और 30 से

गुजरती )ई lाम तेबूदू के साथ पिp चम दशा को होती )ई तथा तेबूदू तथा तेबूदू जंगल के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा से

होती )ई nबंदु संH या 2 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 2 से nबंदु संH या 3 तक 3 लाक क सीमा सवd;ण संH या 283, 224,

223, 222, 221, 219,218, 210, 199, 206, 204, 203,202,200 से गुजरती )ई nबंदु संH या 3 पर तेबूदू जंगल तथा

भालूखाईधीप के मPय सिiमिलत lाम क सीमा के साथ तेबूदू lाम के साथ पिp चम दशा म समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 3 से

nबंदु संH या 4 तक 3 लॉक क सीमा सवd;ण संH या 519, 515,516,476,516, 467, 466, 465,464, 190,

191,187,183,181,178,140,141,142, 143,144, 133, 145, 117, 113,112,111,108,107,104 और 45 से

होकर आगे पिp चम दशा म lाम भालूखाईधीप तथा पाटकमुंडा जंगल क सिiमिलत सीमा के साथ nबंदु संH या 4 पर समाq

होती है। nबंदु संH या 4 से nबंदु संH या 5 तक 3 लाक क सीमा सवd;ण संH या 269, 268, 274, 350, 349, 347, 354, 355,

360, 358, 359, 367, 367, 356, 438, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 432, 431, 430, 421, 429, 462, 1300,

753, 752, 751, 745, 746, 747, 748, 741,740, 738, 737, 729, 728, 726, 712, 713, 715, 716 से होकर lाम

पाटकमुंडा जंगले के साथ पिp चम दशा क ओर होती )ई पाटकमुंडा जंगल और बाघुआबोल lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा पर

nबंदु संH या 5 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 5 से nबंदु संH या 6 तक 3 लाक क सीमा सवd;ण संH या 747, 746, 745,

1968, 739, 740, 741, 736, 734, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 1971, 586, 585, 583, 579, 568, 535, 536,

538, 539, 531, 545, 823, 307, 279, 273, 274, 270, 269, 2104, 268, 267, 860, 870, 871, 872, 873,

876, 877, 878, 881, 161, 160, 152, 148, 1948, 86, 103, 102, 101, 93, 94, 98 से होती )ई lाम बाघुआबोल

के साथ पिp चम दशा क ओर जाती )ई बाघुआबोल तथा नौपारहा के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा पर समाq होती )ई

nबंदु संH या 6 पर जाती है। nबंदु संH या 6 से nबंदु संH या 7 तक सीमा सवd;ण संH या 61, 58, 59, 53, 2625, 96, 124,

102, 2482,104, 116, 2485 से गुजरती )ई lाम नौपारहा के साथ पिp चम दशा म होती )ई नौपारहा तथा कुसुमपाल के

मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा nबंदु संH या 7 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 7 से nबंदु संH या 9 तक 3 लाक क सीमा nबंदु

संH या 8 तक शीषB nबंदु तक पिp चम दशा क ओर जाती है और nबंदु संH या 9 तक दि;णाव# तB दि;ण-पिp चम दशा क ओर

सवd;ण संH या 639, 654, 667, 655, 656, 664, 657, 659, 660, 634, 633, 694, 621, 622, 624, 627, 484 से

गुजरती )ई दि;ण-पिp चम दशा क ओर lाम कुसुमपाल के साथ होती )ई कुसुमपाल और kली के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत

सीमा nबंदु 9 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 9 से nबंदु संH या 10 तक 3 लाक क सीमा सवd;ण संH या 610, 601, 2453,

453, 443, 374, 416, 417, 414, 415, 413, 412, 2274, 407, 317, 238, 241, 238, 216, 215, 217, 215, से

गुजरती )ई lाम kली के साथ होती )ई दि;ण-पिp चम दशा म होती )ई kली तथा रायबंधा के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत

सीमा nबंदु संH या 10 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 10 nबंदु संH या 11 तक 3 लाक क सीमा सवd;ण संH या 221,222, 250

से गुजरती )ई lाम रायबंधा के साथ दि;ण – पिp चम दशाक ओर होती )ई रायबंधा तथा खेराबेरनी के मP य lाम क

सिiमिलत सीमा पर nबंदु संH या 11 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 11 से nबंदु संH या 14 तक 3 लाक क सीमा lाम

खेराबेरनी क घेराबंदी करते )ए सवd;ण संH या 54, 52, 51, 28, 45, 37, 38, 39, 44, 43, 133, 127, 128,

1291,128,125,135,159,161, 2501, 738, 737, 738, 736, 760, 907, 908, 760, 910, 911, 930, 760 से

गुजरती )ई nबंदु संH या 12 के शीषB nबंदु पर दि;ण-पिYम क ओर जाती है तथा kली नदी के ऊपरी कनारे के शीषB nबंदु पर

दि;णाव# तB होते )ए nबंदु संH या 13 तक दि;ण दशा क ओर मुड़ती है तथा kली नदी के ऊपरी कनारे के साथ-साथ

दि;ण-पूवB दशा म nबंदु संH या 14 तक दि;णाव# तB होती )ई खेराबेरानी और रायपाल के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा पर

समाq होती है । nबंदु संH या 14 से nबंदु संH या 17 तक 3 लाक क सीमा lाम रायपाल के साथ kली नदी के ऊपरी कनारे के

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7197

साथ सवd;ण संH या 675, 674, 673, 680, 673, 906, 905, 2653, 908, 922, 932, 931,933,934, 2680, 936,

937, 938, 939, 940, 1738,1746, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1794, 1801, 1802, 1806,

1805, 1812, 1813, 1879, 1876,1890,1898,1905, 1906, 1907, 1910,1911,1912, 1928, 1930, 1931,

1925, 2092, 2091, 2090, 2089, 2088, 2087, 2085, 2072, 2076, 2077, 2199, 2197, 2130, 2146, 2148,

2149, 2196, 2195 से गुजरती )ई दि;ण-पूवB दशा क ओर रायपाल तथा खामरा जंगल के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत

सीमा पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 17 से nबंदु संH या 20 तक 3 लाक क सीमा lाम खामरा जंगल के साथ kली नदी के

ऊपरी कनारे के साथ सवd;ण संH या 333, 332, 331, 330, 329, 328, 325, 324, 321, 320, 318, 317, 312, 311,

310, 10, 9, 11, 8, 3, 12, 2, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 34, 80, 91, 90, 89, 91, 78, 79, 72, 74, 73, 60, 56, 54,

101,102, 103, 107, 10, 120, 122, 121, 92, 144, 149, 1047, 150, 151 से गुजरती )ई दि;ण-पूवB दशा क ओर

खामरा जंगल तथा सरापाल के मध् य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा पर nबंदु संH या 20 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 20 से nबंदु

संH या 28 तक 3 लाक क सीमा lाम सरापाल के साथ kली नदी के उपKर कनारे के साथ सवd;ण संH या 3401, 3402,

3396, 3399, 3398, 3397, 3395 ,2, 773, 778, 770, 769, 767, 766, 2, 68, 62, 67, 3, 23, 26, 25,267,

266, 265, 264, 269, 389, 388, 381, 389, 1291, 1295, 1301, 1308,1307, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1375,

1374, 1388, 1389, 2051, 2050, 2049, 2048, 2047, 1963, 1877, 1962, 1877, 1880, 1879, 1873,

1398, 1401, 1398, 1400 से गुजरती )ई दि;ण-पूवB दशा क ओर सरापाल तथा भालूखाईधीप के मP य lाम क

सिiमिलत सीमा nबंदु संH या 28 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 28 से nबंदु संH या 29 तक 3 लाक क सीमा lाम तंिगरी के

साथ kली नदी के उपKर कनारे के साथ सवd;ण संH या 4 से गुजरती )ई उ# तर दशा क ओर भालूखाईधीप तथा तंिगरी क

lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा पर nबंदु संH या 29 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संHया 29 से nबंदु संHया 30 तक 3लॉक क सीमा

lाम भालूखाईधीप के साथ kली नदी के ऊपरी कनारे के साथ सवd;ण संH या 5137 से गुजरती )ई भालूखाईधीप और

तंिगरी lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा पर nबंदु संH या 30 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 30 से nबंदु संH या 37 तक 3 लाक क

सीमा kली नदी के उपKर कनारे के साथ nबंदु संH या 36 से गुजरती )ई kली नदी क िडप साइड के कनारे क ओर 90

िडlी क सीमा तक वायाव# तB दशा म मुड़ती है तथा तंिगरी और धनगुOमुंडा के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा पर nबंदु 37

पर समाq होती है । 3 लाक क सीमा lाम तंिगरी के साथ सवd;ण संH या 10, 11, 12, 18, 655, 994, 995, 997, 1015,

1016, 1024, 1025, 1033, 1032, 1041, 1042, 1043, 981, 970, 969, 957, 954, 948, 949, 945, 940, 939,

937, 935, 929, 924, 926, 915, 913, 911, 1145, 1146, 1148, 1155, 1150, 1151, 866, 865, 864, 827,

829, 828, 827, 825, 824, 823, 737, 736, 656 से गुजरती )ई तंिगरी तथा धनगुOमुंडा के मP य सिiमिलत सीमा पर

nबंदु 37 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 37 से nबंदु संH या 38 तक 3 लाक क सीमा lाम धनगुOमुंडा के साथ सवd;ण संH या

567, 565, 426, 563, 427, 428, 432, 433, 440, 441, 532, 531, 530, 449, 450, 452, 501, 474, 467, 468

से गुजरती )ई उत् तर दशा म जाती )ई धनगुOमुंडा तथा तेबूदू के मP य nबंदु संH या 38 पर समाq होती है। nबंदु संH या 38 से

nबंदु संH या 1 तक सीमा रेखा lाम तेबूदू के साथ उ# तर दशा म सवd;ण संH या 628, 570,574,573,578,579,593, 594,

602, 601, 603, 605, 617, 616, 614, 613, 635, 632, 631,682, 650, 672, 671, 670, 675, 669, 691, 734,

733, 732, 731, 730, 746, 748, 749, 755, 765, 766, 776, 797, 798, 799, 800, 802, 803, 806, 807, 808,

824, 831, 842, 845, 849, 848 से गुजरती है तथा nबंदु संH या 1 पर समाq होती है।

सरापाल – नौपारहा कोयला 3 लाक-वार िघरे )ए lाम- lाम क सीमा का वणBन:

lाम तेबूदू : सीमा nबंदु संH या 1,2,V1,V2, तथा 38 से िघरी )ई है:

lाम तेबूदू nबंदु संH या 1 पर 3 लाक क सीमा रेखा से अtछादत है जो सवd;ण संH या 848 म ि. थत है । nबंदु संH या 1 से nबंदु

संH या 2 तक 3 लाक क सीमा रेखा पिp चम दशा म जाती है। nबंदु संH या 2 से nबंदु संH या V1 तक तेबूदू तथा तेबूदू जंगल के

मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा दि;ण-पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V1 तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या V1 से nबंदु संH या V2 तक

यह तेबूदू तथा भालूखाईधीप के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण दशा म nबंदु संH या V2 क ओर जाती है । nबंदु

7198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

संH या V2 से nबंदुसंH या 38 तक यह तेबूदू तथा धनगुOमुंडा के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या 38 तक पूवB

दशा म जाती है । nबंदु संH या 38 से nबंदु संH या 1 तक 3 लाक क सीमा रेखा है जो उ# तर दशा म जाती है और nबंदु

संH या 1 पर समाq हो जाती है।

lाम : तेबूदू जंगल : nबंदु संH या 2,3 तथा V1 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु 2 से nबंदु 3 तक यह 3 लाक क सीमा है जो पिp चमी दशा म जाती है। nबंदु संH या 3 से nबंदु संH या V1 तक यह तेबूदू

जंगले और भालूखाईधीप के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण-पूवB दशा म nबंदु V1 तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या V1

से nबंदु संH या 2 तक यह तेबूदू जंगल तथा तेबूदू के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर-पूवB दशा म जाती )ई nबंदु

संH या 2 पर समाq होती है।

lाम : भालूखाईधीप : nबंदु संH या 3, 4 ,V3, V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V10, 29, 30, V11, V12, V13, V14, V2,

V1 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या 3 से nबंदु संH या 4 तक यह 3 लाक क सीमा है जो पिp चम दशा म जाती है। nबंदु संH या 4 से nबंदु

संH या V3 भालूखाईधीप तथा पाटकमुंडा जंगले के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण दशा म nबंदु संH या V3 क

ओर जाती है। nबंदुसंH या V3 से nबंदु संH या 7 तक भालूखाईधीप तथा पाटकमुंडा के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु

संH या V4, V5, V6, थोड़ा मोड़ लेती )ई दि;ण दशा म nबंदु संH या V7 तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या V7 से nबंदु संH या 29 तक

यह भालूखाईधीप और सरापाल के मP य nबंदु V7 (पूवB क ओर) मोड़ लेते )ए lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है तथा nबंदु संH या

29 तक उ# तर-पूवB दशा म गुजरती है। nबंदु संH या 29 तक उ# तर-पूवB दशा म गुजरती है। nबंदु संH या 29 से nबंदु संH या 30

तक यह 3 लाक क सीमा है जो उ# तर-पूवB दशा म जाती है । nबंदु संH या 30 से nबंदु संH या V13 तक यह भालूखाईधीप और

तंिगरी के मP य nबंदु संH या V11 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु V12 (उ# तर-पूवB) पर मोड़ लेती )ई lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है तथा

nबंदु संH या 13 क ओर उ# तर-पूवB दशा म गुजरती है। nबंदु V13 से nबंदु V2 तक यह भालूखाईधीप तथा nबंदु संH या V13

(उ# तर क ओर) nबंदु संH या V14 (उ# तर क ओर) मोड़ लेती )ई भालूखाईधीप तथा धनगुOमुंडा के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत

सीमा है तथा आगे उ# तर क ओर nबंदु संH या V2 क ओर जाती है। nबंदु संH या V2 से nबंदु संH या V1 तक यह भालूखाईधीप

तथा तेबूदू के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर क दशा क ओर nबंदु संH या V1 को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V1 से

nबंदु V3 तक यह भालूखाईधीप और तेबूदू जंगल के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर दशा म जाती है तथा nबंदु

संH या 3 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: पाटकमुंडा जंगल : nबंदु संH या 4, 5, V15, V16, V17, V18, V19, V20, V21, V22, V23, V3 से सीमा िघरी )ई

है:

nबंदु संH या 4 से nबंदु संH या 5 तक सीमा पिp चमी दशा म जाती है। nबंदु संH या 5 से nबंदु संH या V19 तक यह पाटकमुंडा

जंगल तथा बाघुवाबोल के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या 5 (दि;ण क ओर) क मोड़ लेती )ई, nबंदु संH या

V15 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V16 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V17 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर) तथा nबंदु

संH या V18(दि;ण-पूवB क ओर) क ओर मोड़ लेती )ई nबंदु संH या V19 तक दि;ण-पूवB दशा म मुड़ती है। nबंदु संH या V19

से nबंदु संH या V3 तक यह पाटकमुंडा जंगल तथा पाटकमुंडा तक nबंदु संH या V20 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V21

(दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या 22 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V23 (दि;ण पूवB क ओर) मोड़ लेते )ए पाटकमुंडा

जंगल तथा पाटकमुंडा के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है और आगे nबंदु संH या V3 के िलए दि;ण-पूवB क ओर जाती

है। nबंदु संH या 3 से nबंदु संH या 4 तक पाटकमुंडा जंगल और भालूखाईधीप के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर

दशा म जाती है तथा nबंदु संH या 4 पर समाq होती है।

lाम : बाघुवाबोल : nबंदु संH या 5, 6, V24, V25, V26, V27, V28, V29, V30, V31, V32, V33, V34, V35, V36,

V37, V19, V18, V17, V16 और V15 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7199

nबंदु संH या 5 से nबंदु संH या 6 तक यह 3 लाक क सीमा है जो पिp चम दशा म जाती है। nबंदु संH या 6 से nबंदु संH या V36 तक

बाघुवाबोल तथा नौपारहा के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या 6 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V24

(उ# तर-पूवB क ओर),nबंदु संH या V25 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V26 (पूवB क ओर) nबंदु संH या V27 (उ# तर क

ओर) nबंदु संH या V28 (पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या 29 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर) nबंदु संH या V30 (पूवB क ओर) nबंदु संH या V31

(दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर) nबंदु संH या V32 (पूवB क ओर) nबंदु संH या V33 (दि;ण क ओर), nबंदु संH या 34 (उ# तर-पूवB क

ओर), nबंदु संH या V35 (दि;ण क ओर) तथा दि;ण दशा म nबंदु V36 के िलए जाती है। nबंदु संH या V36 से nबंदु संH या

V37 तक बाघुवाबोल और सरापाल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है तथा उ# तर पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V37

क ओर जाती है। nबंदु संH या V37 से nबंदु संH या 19 तक बाघुवाबोल तथा पाटकमुंडा के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा

है तथा उ# तर दशा म nबंदु संH या V19 तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या V19 से nबंदु संH या 5 तक बाघुवाबोल तथा पाटकमुंडा

जंगले के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या 19 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V18 (उ# तर-पिp चम

क ओर), nबंदु संH या V17 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V16 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V15 (उ# तर क

ओर) को मुड़ती है और आगे उ# तर दशा म गुजरती )ई nबंदु संH या 5 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: नौपारहा : nबंदु संH या 6, 7,V38, V39, V40, V41, V42, V43, V44, V45, V46, V47, V48, V49, V50,

V51, V52, V53, V54, V55, V56, V57, V58, V59, V60, V61, V62, V63, V64, V36, V35, V34, V33, V32,

V31, V30, V29, V28, V27, V26, V25 और V24 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या 6 से nबंदु संH या 7 तक यह 3 लाक क सीमा है जो पिp चम दशा म जाती है। nबंदु संH या 7 से nबंदु संH या V38 तक

नौपारहा तथा कुसुमपाल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है तथा दि;ण दशा म nबंदु संH या V38 क ओर जाती है।

nबंदु संH या V38 से nबंदु संH या V60 तक नौपारहा और kली के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु V38

(दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V39 (दि;ण क ओर), nबंदु संH या V40 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V41

(दि;ण-पवूB क ओर), nबंदु V42 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V43 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V44 (दि;ण क

ओर), nबंदु संH या V45 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V46 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V47 (दि;ण-पूवB क

ओर), nबंदु संH या V48 (दि;ण क ओर), nबंदु संH या 49 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V50 (पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या

51 (दि;ण क ओर), nबंदु संH या V52 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V53 (दि;ण क ओर), nबंदु संH या V54 (पूवB क

ओर), nबंदु संH या V55 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V56(पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V57 (दि;ण क ओर), nबंदु संH या V58

(पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V59 (दि;ण क ओर) मुड़ती है तथा आगे दि;ण दशा म nबंदु संH या V60 क ओर जाती है। nबंदु

संH या V60 से nबंदु संH या V36 तक नौपारहा तथा सरापाल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या V60

(पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V61 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V62 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V63 (उ# तर-पूवB

क ओर), nबंदु संH या V64 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर) मुड़ती है और आगे उ# तर-पूवB दशा म nबंदु संH या V36 तक जाती है। nबंदु

संH या V36 से nबंदु संH या 6 तक नौपारहा तथा बाघुवाबोल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या V36

(उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V35 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V34 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V33 (उ# तर-

पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V32 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V31 (पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V30 (उ# तर-

पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V29 (पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V28 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V27 (पिp चम

क ओर), nबंदु संH या V26 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V25 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V24 (उ# तर-पिp चम क

ओर) मुड़ती है तथा आगे उ# तर-पिp चम दशा क ओर मुड़ती )ई nबंदु संH या 6 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: कुसुमपाल : nबंदु संH या 7, 8, 9,V65 और V38 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

7200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

nबंदु संH या 7 से nबंदु संH या 9 तक यह 3 लाक क सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या 8 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर) से nबंदु संH या 9 के िलए

मुड़ती है। nबंदु संH या 9 से nबंदु संH या V38 तक कुसुमपाल तथा kली के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु

संH या 9 (दि;ण-पूवB), nबंदु संH या V65 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर) को मुड़ती )ई nबंदु आगे उ# तर-पूवB दशा म nबंदु संH या V38 को

जाती है। nबंदु संH या V38 से nबंदु संH या 7 तक कुसुमपाल तथा नौपारहा के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर

दशा म जाती )ई 7 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: kली : nबंदु संH या 9, 10, V66, V67, V68, V69, V70, V71, V72, V60, V59, V58, V57, V56, V55, V54,

V53, V52, V51, V50, V49, V48, V47, V46, V45, V44, V43, V42, V41,V39,V38,V65 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या 9 से nबंदु संH या 10 तक 3 लाक क सीमा दि;ण-पिp चम दशा म गुजरती है। nबंदु संH या V10 से nबंदु संH या 66

तक kली तथा रायबंधा के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण-पूवB दशा म nबंदु संH या V66 तक जाती है। nबंदु

संH या V66 से nबंदु संH या V67 तक kली तथा खेराबेरनी के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण-पूवB दशा म

nबंदु संH या V67 को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V67 से nबंदु संH या V72 तक kली तथा रायपाल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत

सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या V68 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V69 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V70 (पूवB क

ओर), nबंदु संH या 71 (उDर-पूवB क ओर) को मुड़ती है तथा आगे उ# तर-पूवB दशा म nबंदु संH या V72 क ओर जाती है। nबंदु

संH या V72 से nबंदु संH या V60 तक kली तथा खामरा जंगल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर-पूवB दशा

म nबंदु संH या V60 को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V60 से nबंदु संH या V38 तक kली तथा नौपारहा के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत

सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या V60 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V59 (पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V58 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु

संH या V57 (पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या 56 (दि;ण क ओर), nबंदु संH या V55 (पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V54

(उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V53 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V52 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V51

(पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V50 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V49 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V48 (उ# तर-

पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V47 (उ# तर-पवूB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V46 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V45 (उ# तर

क ओर), nबंदु संH या V44 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V43 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V42 (उ# तर-

पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V41 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V40 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V39 (उ# तर-पिp चम

क ओर), को मुड़ती है तथा आगे उ# तर-पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V38 क ओर जाती है। nबंदु संH या V38 से nबंदु संH या 9

तक kली तथा कुसुमपाल के मP य यह सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या V38 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V65

(उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर) क ओर मुड़ती है तथा उ# तर-पिp चम दशा म गुजरती )ई nबंदु संH या 9 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: रायबंधा : nबंदु संH या 10, V66, 11 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या 10 से nबंदु संH या 11 तक यह 3 लाक क सीमा है जो दि;ण-पिp चम दशा म जाती है। nबंदु संH या 11 से nबंदु

संH या V66 तक रायबंधा तथा खैराबेरनी के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण-पूवB म V66 को जाती है। nबंदु

संH या V66 से nबंदु संH या 10 तक रायबंधा तथा kली के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर-पिp चम दशा म

मुड़ती है तथा nबंदु संH या 10 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: खेराबेरनी : nबंदु संH या 11, 12, 13, 14, V73, V67, V66 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या 11 से nबंदु संH या 14 तक 3 लाक क सीमा दि;ण-पिp चम म nबंदु संH या 12 के िलए मुड़ती है तथा nबंदु संH या 12

(दि;ण क ओर), nबंदु संH या 13 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर) को मुड़ती है तथा आगे दि;ण-पूवB क ओर nबंदु संH या 14 को जाती

है। nबंदु संH या 14 से nबंदु संH या V67 तक खैराबेरनी तथा रायपाल के मP यम यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु

संH या 14 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V73 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर)) को मुड़ती है तथा आगे उ# तर-पूवB दशा म nबंदु V67

को मुड़ती है। nबंदु संHया V67 से nबंदु V66 तक खैराबेरनी तथा kली के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है तथा आगे

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7201

उ# तर-पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V66 को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V66 से nबंदु संH या 11 तक खैराबेरनी तथा रायबंधा के

मध् य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर-पिp चम दशा म जाती है तथा nबंदु संH या 11 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: रायपाल : nबंदु संH या 14, 15, 16, 17, V74, V72, V71, V70, V69, V68, V67 और V73 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या 14 से nबंदु संH या 17 तक 3 लाक क सीमा है जो दि;ण-पूवB दशा म मुड़ती )ई nबंदु संH या 15 को जाती है तथा

आगे दि;ण-पूवB दशा म nबंदु संH या 16 को जाती है और उ# तर-पूवB दशा म nबंदु 17 के िलए मुड़ती है । nबंदु संH या 17 से

nबंदु संH या V72 तक रायपाल तथा खामरा जंगल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या 17 (उ# तर क

ओर),nबंदु संH या V74 (पिp चम क ओर) को मुड़ती है और आगे पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V72 को मुड़ती है। nबंदु संH या

V72 से nबंदु संH या V67 तक रायपाल तथा kली के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु V72 (दि;ण-पिp चम

क ओर), nबंदु संH या V71 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V70 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V69 (उ# तर-पिp चम क

ओर),nबंदु संH या V68 को मुड़ती है तथा आगे उ# तर-पिp चमदशा म मुड़ती )ई nबंदु संH या V67 के िलए गुजरतीहै। nबंदु

संH या V67 से nबंदु संH या 14 तक रायपाल और खैराबेरनी के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या V67

(दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V73 (दि;ण क ओर) को मुड़ती है तथा आगे दि;ण दशा म मुड़कर nबंदु संH या 14

पर समाq होती है।

lाम: खामरा जंगल : nबंदु संH या 17, 18, 19, 20, V63, V62, V61, V60, V72 और V74 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या 17 से nबंदु संH या 20 तक यह उ# तर दशा म nबंदु संH या 18 तक 3 लाक क सीमा है और nबंदु संH या 18 (पूवB क

ओर) मुड़ती है तथा आगे पूवB क दशा म nबंदु संH या 19 के िलए मुड़ती है और उ# तर-पूवB दशा म nबंदु संH या 20 को जाती

है। nबंदु संH या 20 से nबंदु संH या V63 तक खामरा जंगल और सरापाल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो आगे

उ# तर दशा म nबंदु संH या V63 तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या V63 से nबंदु संH या V60 तक खामरा जंगल और नौपारहा के मP य

यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या V63 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V62 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर),

nबंदु संH या V61 (पिp चम क ओर) को मुड़ती है तथा आगे पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V60 तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या V60

से nबंदु संH या V72 तक खामरा जंगल तथा kली के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण- पिp चम दशा म nबंदु

संH या V72 को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V72 से nबंदु संH या 17 तक खामरा जंगल तथा रायपाल के मP य यह lाम क

सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या V72 (पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या V74 (दि;ण क ओर) मुड़ती है और आगे दि;ण दशा म

जाकर nबंदु संH या 17 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: सरापाल :nबंदु संH या 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, V10, V9, V8, V7, V37 और V36 से सीमा िघरी

)ई है:

nबंदु संH या 20 से nबंदु संH या 28 तक 3 लाक क सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या 20 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर),nबंदु संH या 21 (उ# तर-पूवB

क ओर),nबंदु संH या 21 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर),nबंदु संH या 22 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर),nबंदु संH या 23 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर),nबंदु

संH या 24 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर),nबंदु संH या 25 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर),nबंदु संH या 26 (दि;ण-पूवB क ओर),nबंदु संH या 27

(उ# तर-पूवB क ओर) के िलए मुड़ती है तथा आगे उ# तर-पूवB दशा म nबंदु संH या 28 तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या 28 से nबंदु

संH या V10 तक सरापाल और तंिगरी के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर-पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V10

तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या V10 से nबंदु संH या V7 तक सरापाल और भालूखाईधीप के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है

जो nबंदु संH या V10 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर),nबंदु संH या V9 (उ# तर क ओर),nबंदु संH या V8 (पिp चम क ओर) को मुड़ती है

तथा आगे पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V7 तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या V7 से nबंदु संH या V37 तक सरापाल और पाटकमुंडा के

मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो उ# तर-पिp चम दशा म जाती )ई nबंदु संH या V37 तक जाती है। nबंदु संH या V37

से nबंदु संH या V36 तक सरापाल तथा बाघुवाबोल के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण-पिp चम दशा म nबंदु

संH या V36 को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V36 से nबंदु संH या V63 तक सरापाल और नौपारहा के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत

7202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या V36 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर),nबंदु संH या 64 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर) के िलए मुड़ती है तथा आगे

दि;ण-पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V63 को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V63 से nबंदु संH या 20 तक सरापाल और खामरा जंगल के

मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण दशा म जाती है तथा nबंदु संH या 20 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: पाटकमुंडा : nबंदु संH या V37, V7, V6, V5, V4, V3, V23, V22, V21, V20 और V19 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या V37 से nबंदु संH या V7 पाटकमुंडा तथा सरापाल के मP य lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो दि;ण-पूवB दशा म

nबंदु संH या V7 को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V7 से nबंदु संH या V3 तथा भालूखाईधीप के बीच यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है

जो nबंदु संH या V7 (उ# तर क ओर), nबंदु संH या V6 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V5 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु

संH या V4 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर) क ओर मुड़ती है और आगे उ# तर-पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V3 को जाती है। nबंदु

संH या V3 nबंदु संH या V19 तक पाटकमुडा तथा पाटकमुंडा जंगल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या

V3 (पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V23 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V22 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या

V21 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V20 (उ# तर-पिp चम क ओर) को मुड़ती है तथा आगे उ# तर-पिp चम दशा म nबंदु

संH या V19 को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V19 से nबंदु संH या V37 पाटकमुंडा और बाघुवाबोल के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत

सीमा है जो दि;ण-पूवB दशा म जाती है तथा nबंदु संH या V37 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: तंिगरी : nबंदु संH या 28, V10, 29 (तंिगरी Q लाट सं. 4 का टुकड़ा) तथा 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, V13,

V12 और V11 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या 30 से nबंदु संH या V37 3 लाक क सीमा है जो nबंदु संH या 30 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या 31 (उ# तर-पूवB क

ओर), nबंदु संH या 32 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या 33 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या 34 (उ# तर-पूवB क ओर), nबंदु

संH या 35 (पूवB क ओर), nबंदु संH या 36 (उ# तर क ओर) को मुड़ती है तथा आगे उ# तर दशा म nबंदु संH या 37 को जाती है।

nबंदु संH या 37 से nबंदु संH या V13 तंिगरी तथा धनगुOमुंडा के मP य यह सिiमिलत सीमा है जो पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या

V13 को जाती है। nबंदु V13 से nबंदु संH या 30 तंिगरी तथा भालूखाईधीप के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु

संH या V13 (पिp चम क ओर), nबंदु संH या V12 (दि;ण क ओर),nबंदु संH या V11 (दि;ण-पिp चम क ओर) मुड़ती है तथा

दि;ण-पिp चम दशा म मुड़ती है और nबंदु संH या 30 पर समाq होती है।

lाम: धनगुOमुंडा : nबंदु संH या 37, 38, V2, V14 और V13 से सीमा िघरी )ई है:

nबंदु संH या 37 से nबंदु संH या 38 3 लाक क सीमा है जो उ# तर दशा म nबंदु संH या 38 क ओर जाती है। nबंदु संH या 38 से

nबंदु संH या V2 धनगुOमुंडा तथा तेबूदू के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो पिp चम दशा म nबंदु संH या V2 को जाती

है। nबंदु संH या V2 से nबंदु संH या V13 धनगुOमुंडा तथा भालूखाईधीप के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो nबंदु

संH या V2 (दि;ण क ओर), nबंदु संH या V14 (दि;ण क ओर) क ओर मुड़ती है तथा आगे दि;ण दशा म nबंदु संH या V13

को जाती है। nबंदु संH या V13 से nबंदु संH या 37 धनगुOमुंडा तथा तंिगरी के मP य यह lाम क सिiमिलत सीमा है जो पूवB

दशा म जाती है तथा nबंदु संH या 37 पर समाq होती है।

[फा. सं. 43015/17/2016-एलए एuड आईआर]

राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 15^th October, 2019

S.O. 1832.—Whereas, by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2483,

dated the 16^th October, 2017, under 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) and published in the Gazette of India, Part

II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 21^st October, 2017, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7203

prospect for coal in land measuring 4221.5569 acres (approximately) or 1708.4061 hectares (approximately) in the

locality specified in the Schedule appended thereto;

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby specifies a further period of one year commencing from the 21^st October, 2019, as the period within

which the Central Government gives notice of its intention to acquire the said land or any rights in or over the said land

in respect of which notice is given to prospect for coal under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited

Sarapal-Nuaparha Coal Block

District Angul and District Deogarh, Odisha

(Plan bearing number APG/SNCB/4(1)N/COMB/PLAN/2017/17, dated the 1^st September, 2017)

No.

Name of the

Villages

Thana

number

District

Type of land in hectares

(6)

Total

area in

hectares

Remarks

Tenancy

Forest

Non-

forest

Govern-

ment

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(7)

(8)

Tebudu

Chhendipada

Angul

61.9340

9.5810

9.0410

80.5560

Part

Tebudu

Jungle

Chhendipada

Angul

1.3460

0.0425

0.7540

2.1425

Part

Bhalukhaidhip

Chhendipada

Angul

260.0230

23.8870

82.9270

366.8370

Part

Patakmunda

Jungle

Chhendipada

Angul

66.2480

1.56100

5.2100

73.0190

Part

Baghuabol

Chhendipada

Angul

107.0960

5.1280

28.6590

140.8830

Part

Nuaparha

kundaigola

Deogarh

105.0165

9.2584

99.1121

213.3870

Part

Kusumpal

kundaigola

Deogarh

3.5527

1.8668

1.6589

7.0784

Part

Aunli

kundaigola

Deogarh

130.1956

52.1885

253.5010

435.8851

Part

Raibandha

kundaigola

Deogarh

0.3040

0.4860

0.3196

1.1096

Part

10.

khaeraberani

Chhendipada

Angul

45.2460

38.7470

26.0405

110.0335

Part

11.

Raipal

Chhendipada

Angul

16.7350

1.9120

36.8035

55.4505

Part

12.

Khamar

Jungle

Chhendipada

Angul

2.4615

0.2240

22.2455

24.9310

Part

13.

Sarapal

Chhendipada

Angul

1.1970

5.0390

35.8900

42.1260

Part

14.

Patakmunda

Chhendipada

Angul

47.8145

0.0000

20.5555

68.3700

Full

15.

Tangiri

Chhendipada

Angul

0.6570

0.4260

30.7660

31.8490

Part

16. Dhangurmunda

Chhendipada

Angul

35.0780

0.0585

19.6120

54.7485

Part

Total

884.9048

150.4057

673.0956

1708.4061

Total : 1708.4061 hectares (approximately) or 4221.5569 acres (approximately)

Plots to be notified:

(1)

Village: - Tebudu- Plot numbers :

1 to 32,33(P), 34 to 569, 570(P), 571, 572, 573(P), 574(P), 578(P), 579(P), 593(P), 594 (P), 601(P), 602(P),

603(P), 604, 605(P), 606 to 612, 613(P), 614(P), 615, 616(P), 617 (P), 628(P), 631(P), 632(P), 635(P), 636 to

649, 650(P), 651 to 668, 669(P), 670, 671(P), 672(P), 675(P), 682(P), 691(P), 692 to 716, 717(P), 718 to 729,

730(P), 731(P), 732(P), 733 (P), 734(P), 746(P), 747, 748(P), 749(P), 750, 751, 752(P), 753, 754, 755(P),756 to

763, 764 (P), 765(P), 766(P), 776(P),797(P), 798(P), 799(P), 800(P), 802(P), 803(P), 806(P), 807 (P), 808(P),

824(P), 825 to 830, 831(P), 832 to 841, 842(P), 845(P), 846, 847(P), 848(P), 849 (P), 3899, 3908, 3928, 3929,

3909, 3920, and 3921.

7204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2) Village: - Tebudu Jungle- Plot numbers:

199(P), 200(P), 201, 202(P), 203(P), 204(P), 205, 206(P), 207, 208, 209, 210, 218(P), 219(P), 221(P), 222(P),

223(P), 224(P), and 283(P).

(3) Village: - Bhalukhaidhip- Plot numbers:

45(P), 46, to 103, 104(P), 107(P), 108(P), 111(P), 112(P), 113(P), 117(P), 133(P), 140(P), 141(P), 142, 143(P),

144, 145(P), 146 to 177, 178(P), 179, 180, 181(P), 183(P), 184, 185, 186, 187(P), 190(P), 191(P), 192 to 463,

464(P), 465(P), 466(P), 467(P), 468 to 475, 476(P), 477 to 514, 515(P), 516(P), 519(P), 520 to 5400, 5402 to

5448, 5450 to 5478, 5480 to 5486, 5488 to 5494, 5496, 5498 to 5502, 5505 to 5511, 5513 to 5530, 5533 to

5539.

(4) Village: - Patakmunda Jungle - Plot numbers:

268(P), 269(P), 270 to 273, 274(P), 275 to 277, 279 to 348, 349(P), 350(P), 354(P), 355(P), 356(P), 358(P), 359,

360(P), 361 to 366, 367(P), 368 to 411, 412(P), 413(P), 414(P), 415(P), 416 to 428, 429(P), 430(P), 431(P),

432(P), 438(P), 462, 712(P), 713(P), 715(P), 716(P), 717 to 726, 728(P), 729(P), 737(P), 738(P), 739, 740(P),

741, 745(P), 746 to 750, 751(P), 752(P), 753(P), 754 to 799, 801 to 839, 841 to 891, 893 to 987, 989,990, 994 to

1008, 1010 to 1017, 1020 to 1077, 1080 to 1090, 1092 to 1299, 1300(P), 1301 to 1951, 1954 to 1956, 1959,

1960, 1964 to 1968, 1970 to 1977, 1979, and 1981 to 1988.

(5) Village: - Baghuabol-Plot numbers:

86(P), 93(P), 94(P), 98(P), 99, 100, 101(P), 102(P), 103(P), 104 to 147, 148(P), 152(P), 153 to 159, 160(P),

161(P), 267(P), 268(P), 269(P), 270(P), 273(P), 274(P), 275 to 278, 279(P), 307(P), 531(P), 535(P), 536(P), 537

to 544, 545(P), 546 to 567, 568(P), 579(P), 580 to 582, 583(P), 585(P), 586(P), 722(P), 723(P), 724(P), 725(P),

726(P), 727 to 733, 734(P), 736(P), 739(P), 740(P), 741(P), 742 to 744, 745(P), 746(P), 747(P), 748 to 822,

823(P), 824 to 859, 860(P), 861 to 869, 870(P), 871(P), 872(P), 873(P), 874, 875, 876(P), 877(P), 878(P),

881(P), 882 to 1039, 1041 to 1277, 1279 to 1935, 1937 to 1947, 1948(P), 1949 to 1951, 1955 to 1961, 1963 to

1967, 1968(P), 1969, 1971 to 1975, 1993 to 2025, 2027 to 2053, 2055, 2057, 2058, 2060 to 2066, 2069 to 2072,

2076 to 2113,2104(P), 2105 to 2114, 2116 to 2130, 2132, 2134 to 2143, 2154 to 2166, 2169, 2186 to 2188,

2190 to 2225, 2231, 2236 to 2294, 2296, 2298 to 2301, 2305, 2308, 2314 to 2316, 2319,2320, 2322, 2324 to

2326, 2329 to 2341, 2346 to 2350, 2353, and 2358.

(6) Village: - (6) Nuaparha -Plot numbers:

53(P), 58(P), 59(P), 60, 61(P), 62 to 95, 96(P), 102(P), 103, 104(P), 105 to 115, 116(P), 117 to 123, 124(P), 125

to 663, 665 to 770, 772 to 2470, 2474 to 2481, 2482(P), 2483, 2484, 2485(P), 2486 to 2623, 2625(P), 2626 to

2629, 2631 to 2657, 2659 to 2662, 2664 to 2669, 2671 to 2675, 2678, 2679, 2682 to 2685, 2687, 2688, 2693 to

2699, 2701, 2704 to 2708, 2710 to 2712, 2715, 2716, 2718, 2720 to 2731, 2738, 2739, 2744 to 2752, 2754 to

2756, 2758 to 2762, 2764 to 2784, 2786 to 2794, 2796, 2799, 2800, 2802, 2803, 2810 to 2814 and 2817.

(7)

Village: - Kusumpal-Plot numbers:

484(P), 621(P), 622(P), 624(P), 626, 627(P), 628 to 632, 633(P), 634(P), 639(P), 654(P), 655(P), 656(P),

657(P), 659(P), 660(P), 661 to 663, 664(P), 665, 666, 667(P), 668 to 685, 694 and 861.

(8) Village: - Aunli - Plot numbers:

215(P), 216(P), 217(P), 218, 219(P), 220 to 237, 238(P), 241(P), 317(P), 374(P), 407(P), 412(P), 413(P),

414(P), 415(P), 416(P), 417(P), 418 to 442, 443(P), 444 to 452, 453(P), 454 to 600, 601(P), 610(P), 611 to 638,

640 to 727, 729 to 1735, 1737 to 2107, 2110 to 2208, 2212 to 2218, 2222 to 2225, 2266, 2267, 2274(P), 2275

to 2284, 2286 to 2330, 2332 to 2430, 2432 to 2437, 2441 to 2450, 2453(P), 2454, 2455, 2468 to 2494, 2998,

2999, 3011 to 3014, 3017, 3018, 3024, 3027, 3030, 3033 to 3037,3042 to 3048, 3050 to 3053, 3095 to 3101,

3105, 3109 to 3112, 3114 to 3116, 3119, 3125, 3126, 3131, 3148, 3153 to 3157, 3165, 3166, 3189, 3190, 3195,

3196, 3203, 3204, 3212, 3214 to 3219, 3221, 3223, 3226 to 3228, 3234 to 3238, 3240 and 3242.

(9)

Village: - Raibandha- Plot numbers:

221(P), 222(P), 223 to 225 and 250(P).

(10) Village: - khaeraberani - Plot numbers:

28(P), 37(P), 38(P), 39(P), 43(P), 44(P), 45(P), 46 to 50, 51(P), 52(P), 54(P), 55 to 124, 125(P), 126(P), 127(P),

128(P), 129(P), 133(P), 135(P), 159(P), 161(P), 162 to 377, 380 to 735, 736(P), 737(P), 738(P), 760(P), 907(P),

908(P), 910(P), 911(P), 930(P), 2489, 2490, 2494, 2496 to 2499, 2500(P), 2501(P), 2509, 2516 to 2519, 2527,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7205

2530, 2532 to 2540, 2543 to 2545, 2552, 2554, 2565 to 2567, 2581 to 2588, 2590 to 2592, 2595, 2596, 2601,

2604, 2605, 2607, 2608, 2613 and 2621.

(11) Village: -Raipal- Plot numbers:

1 to 65, 70 to 73, 75 to 673, 905(P), 906(P), 907, 908(P), 922(P), 923 to 934, 931(P), 932(P), 933(P), 934,

936(P), 937(P), 938(P), 939(P), 940(P), 1738(P), 1739 to 1745, 1746(P), 1750(P), 1751(P), 1752 to 1754,

1755(P), 1794 to 1800, 1801(P), 1802(P), 1805 to 1813, 1876(P), 1879 to 1889, 1890(P), 1898(P), 1905(P),

1906(P), 1907(P), 1910(P), 1911(P), 1912(P), 1913 to 1927, 1928(P), 1929, 1930(P), 1931(P), 2072(P),

2076(P), 2077(P), 2078 to 2084, 2085(P), 2086 to 2088, 2089(P), 2090(P), 2091,2092(P), 2094 to 2127,

2128(P), 2129 to 2148, 2149(P), 2150 to 2194, 2195(P), 2196(P), 2197(P), 2199(P), 2629, 2645, 2646, 2649,

2650, 2653(P), 2680, 2686, 2690 to 2692 and 2697.

(12) Village: - Khamara Jungle- Plot numbers:

1, 2, 3(P), 4 to 10(P), 11(P), 12(P), 18(P), 19(P), 23(P), 24(P), 25(P), 34(P), 54(P), 55, 56(P), 60(P), 61 to 71,

72(P), 73(P), 74(P), 78(P), 79(P), 80(P), 89(P), 90(P), 91(P), 92(P), 93 to 100, 101(P), 102(P), 103(P), 104,

105(P), 107(P), 120(P), 121, 122(P), 144(P), 149(P), 150(P), 151(P), 310(P), 311(P), 312(P), 313 to 316,

317(P), 318(P), 319, 320(P), 321(P), 322, 323, 324(P), 325(P), 326, 327, 328(P), 329(P), 330(P), 331(P),

332(P), 333(P) and 1047(P).

(13) Village: - Sarapal- Plot numbers:

1, 2, 3(P), 23(P), 24, 25(P), 26(P), 62(P), 67(P), 68(P), 264(P), 265(P), 266(P), 267, 268, 269(P), 381(P),

388(P), 389(P), 766(P), 767(P), 769(P), 770(P), 771, 772, 773(P), 778(P), 1291(P), 1292 to 1294, 1295(P),

1301(P), 1302 to 1307, 1308(P), 1366(P), 1367(P), 1368(P), 1369 to 1373, 1374(P), 1375(P), 1388(P), 1389(P),

1390 to 1397, 1398(P), 1399, 1400(P), 1401(P), 1873(P), 1874 to 1876, 1877(P), 1878, 1879(P), 1880(P),

1962(P), 1963(P), 2047(P), 2048(P), 2049(P), 2050(P), 2051(P), 3396, 3397(P), 3398(P), 3399(P), 3400(P),

3401(P), 3402(P), 5004 to 5007 and 5011.

(14) Village: - Patakmunda- Plot numbers:

1 to 993, 995 and 996.

(15) Village: - Tangiri - Plot numbers:

4(P), 10(P), 11(P), 12 to 17, 18(P), 655(P), 656(P), 736(P), 737(P), 823(P), 824(P), 825(P), 826(P), 827(P),

828(P), 829(P), 864(P), 865(P), 866(P), 867 to 874, 875(P), 876 to 895, 896(P), 897(P), 898(P), 899 to 910,

911(P), 913(P), 915(P), 916 to 922, 923(P), 924(P), 925, 926(P), 929(P), 930 to 934, 935(P), 937(P), 939(P),

940(P), 941 to 943, 944(P), 945(P), 948, 949(P), 950 to 953, 954(P), 957(P), 958 to 968, 969(P), 970(P), 971 to

980, 981(P), 982 to 993, 994(P), 995(P), 996, 997(P), 1015(P), 1016(P), 1024(P), 1025(P), 1029(P), 1030,

1031(P), 1032(P), 1033(P), 1041(P), 1042(P), 1043(P), 1145(P), 1146(P), 1148(P), 1149(P), 1150(P), 1151(P),

1155(P) and 3166.

(16) Village: - Dhangurumunda- Plot numbers:

1 to 425, 426(P), 427(P), 428(P), 432(P), 433(P), 434 to 439, 440(P), 441(P), 442 to 448, 449(P), 450(P), 451,

452(P), 453 to 466, 467(P), 468(P), 474(P), 501(P), 530(P), 531(P), 532(P), 563(P), 565(P), 566, 567(P), and

840, 841 and 843.

Sarapal-Nuaparha Coal Block Boundary Description:

Boundary Points from 1 to 38:

Points 1 - 38: The Sarapal-Nuaparha Coal Block Boundary starts from Point No.1 which is a vertex point of boundary

segments running North-South and East-West at dip side corner(extreme East) of the block boundary and situated in

survey No.848 at village Tebudu. From Point No.1 to Point No.2, the boundary moved towards West direction, across the

village Tebudu, passing through survey No.848, 847, 33 and 30 and intercept by common village boundary between

Tebudu and Tebudu Jungle at Point No.2. From Point No.2 to Point No.3 the block boundary moved towards West

direction, across the village Tebudu Jungle, passing through survey No.283, 224, 223, 222, 221, 219, 218, 210, 199, 206,

204, 203, 202, 200 and intercept by common village boundary between Tebudu Jungle and Bhalukhaidhip at Point No.3.

From Point No.3 to Point No.4, the block boundary moved towards West direction, across the village Bhalukhaidhip,

passing through Survey No.519, 515, 516, 476, 516, 467, 466, 465, 464, 190, 191, 187, 183, 181, 178, 140, 141, 142,

143, 144, 133, 145,117, 113, 112, 111, 108, 107, 104 and 45 and intercept by common village boundary between

Bhalukhaidhip and Patakmunda Jungle at Point No.4. From Point No.4 to point No.5 the block boundary moved towards

West direction, across the village Patakmunda Jungle, passing through Survey No. 269, 268, 274, 350, 349, 347, 354,

355, 360, 358, 359, 367, 367, 356, 438, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 432, 431, 430, 421, 429, 462,1300, 753, 752, 751, 745,

7206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

746, 747, 748, 741, 740, 738, 737, 729, 728, 726, 712, 713, 715, 716 and intercept by common village boundary

between Patakmunda Jungle and Baghuabol at point No.5. From Point No.5 to point No.6 the block boundary moved

towards West direction, across the village Baghuabol, passing through Survey No. 747, 746, 745, 1968, 739, 740, 741,

736, 734, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 1971, 586, 585, 583, 579, 568, 535, 536, 538, 539, 531, 545, 823, 307, 279, 273, 274,

270, 269, 2104, 268, 267, 860, 870, 871, 872, 873, 876, 877, 878, 881, 161, 160, 152, 148, 1948, 86, 103, 102, 101, 93,

94, 98 and intercept by common village boundary between Baghuabol and Nuaparha at point No.6. From Point No.6 to

point No.7 the boundary moved towards West direction, across the village Nuaparha, passing through Survey No. 61, 58,

59, 53, 2625, 96, 124, 102, 2482, 104, 116, 2485 and intercept by common village boundary between Nuaparha and

Kusumpal at point No.7. From Point No.7 to Point No.9 the block boundary moved West direction up to the Point No.8,

the vertex point, and take clock wise turn to move in South-West direction up to the Point No.9, block boundary moved

across the village Kusumpal, passing through Survey No. 639, 654, 667, 655, 656, 664, 657, 659, 660, 634, 633, 694,

621, 622, 624, 627, 484 and intercept by common village boundary between Kusumpal and Aunli at point No.9. From

Point No.9 to Point No.10 the block boundary moved in South-West direction, across the village Aunli, passing through

Survey No. 610, 601, 2453, 453, 443, 374, 416, 417, 414, 415, 413, 412, 2274, 407, 317, 238, 241,238,216,215,217,215,

and intercept by common village boundary between Aunli and Raibandha at Point No.10. From Point No.10 to Point No.

11 the block boundary moved in South-West direction, across the village Raibandha, passing through Survey

No.221,222,250 and intercept by common village boundary between Raibandha and Khaeraberani at Point No.11. From

Point No.11 to Point No.14 the block boundary encircled the village Khaeraberani, moved in South-West direction up to

Point No.12, the vertex point, and take a clock wise turn to move in South direction up to the Point No.13, the vertex

point at the rise side bank edge of the Aunli Nadi, and take a clock wise turn to move in South-East direction along the

rise side bank of the AunliNadi up to Point No.14, passing through Survey No. 54, 52, 51, 28, 45, 37, 38, 39, 44, 43, 133,

127, 128, 1291, 128, 125, 135, 159, 161, 2501 ,738, 737, 738, 736, 760, 907, 908, 760 ,910, 911, 930, 760 and intercept

by common village boundary between Khaeraberani and Raipal at point No.14. From Point No.14 to point No.17 the

block boundary moved in South-East direction along the rise side bank of the AunliNadi, across the village Raipal,

passing through Survey No. 675, 674, 673, 680, 673, 906, 905, 2653, 908, 922, 932, 931, 933, 934, 2680, 936, 937, 938,

939, 940, 1738, 1746, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1794, 1801, 1802, 1806, 1805, 1812, 1813, 1879, 1876,

1890, 1898, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1925, 2092, 2091, 2090, 2089, 2088, 2087, 2085,

2072, 2076, 2077, 2199, 2197, 2130, 2146, 2148, 2149, 2196 and 2195 and intercept by common village boundary

between Raipal and Khamara Jungle at point No.17. From Point No.17 to point No.20 the block boundary moved in

South-East direction along the rise side bank of the Aunli Nadi across the village Khamara Jungle, and passing through

Survey No.333,332,331,330,329,328,325, 324,321, 320, 318, 317, 312, 311, 310, 10,9, 11, 8,3, 12, 2, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25,

34, 80, 91, 90, 89, 91, 78, 79, 72, 74, 73, 60, 56, 54, 101, 102, 103, 107, 105, 120, 122, 121, 92, 144, 149, 1047, 150 and

151 and intercept by common village boundary between Khamara Jungle and Sarapal at point No.20. From Point No.20

to point No.28 the block boundary moved in South-East direction along the rise side bank of the Aunli Nadi across the

village Sarapal, and passing through Survey No. 3401, 3402, 3396, 3399, 3398, 3397, 3395, 2, 773, 778, 770, 769, 767,

766, 2,68, 62, 67, 3, 23, 26, 25, 267, 266, 265, 264, 269, 389, 388, 381, 389, 1291, 1295, 1301, 1308, 1307, 1366, 1367,

1368, 1375, 1374, 1388, 1389, 2051, 2050, 2049 ,2048, 2047, 1963, 1877, 1962, 1877, 1880, 1879, 1873, 1398, 1401,

1398 and 1400 and intercept by common village boundary between Sarapal and Bhalukhaidhip at point No.28. From

Point No.28 to point No.29 the block boundary moved in North direction along the rise side bank of the AunliNadi,

across the village Tangiri, and passing through Survey No.4, and intercept by common village boundary between

Bhalukhaidhip and Tangiri at point No.29. From Point No.29 to point No.30 the block boundary moved in North-East

direction along the rise side bank of the Aunli Nadi, across the village Bhalukhaidhip passing through Survey No.5137,

and intercept by common village boundary between Bhalukhaidhip and Tangiri at point No.30. From Point No.30 to

point No.37 the block boundary moved in North-East direction up to point No.36, along the rise side bank of the Aunli

Nadi, and take the turn in anti clock wise direction to the extent of 90 degrees towards dip side bank of the Aunli Nadi,

and intercept by common village boundary between Tangiri and Dhangurumunda at point No.37. The block boundary

moved along the village Tangiri, and passing through Survey No. 10, 11, 12, 18, 655, 994, 995, 997, 1015, 1016, 1024,

1025, 1033, 1032, 1041, 1042, 1043, 981, 970, 969, 957, 954, 948, 949, 945, 940, 939, 937, 935, 929, 924, 926, 915,

913, 911, 1145, 1146, 1148, 1155, 1150, 1151, 866, 865, 864, 827, 829, 828, 827, 825, 824, 823, 737, 736 and 656 and

intercept by common boundary between Tangiri and Dhangurumunda at point No.37. From Point No.37 to point No.38

the block boundary moved in North direction across the village Dhangurumunda passing through Survey No. 567, 565,

426, 563, 427, 428, 432, 433, 440, 441, 532, 531, 530, 449, 450, 452, 501, 474, 467 and 468, and intercept by common

village boundary between Dhangurumunda and Tebudu at Point No.38. From Point No.38 to point No.1 the boundary

moved in North direction along the village Tebudu, and passing through Survey No.628, 570, 574, 573, 578, 579, 593,

594, 602, 601, 603, 605 ,617, 616, 614, 613, 635, 632, 631, 682, 650, 672, 671, 670, 675, 669, 691, 734, 733, 732, 731,

730, 746, 748, 749, 755, 765, 766, 776, 797, 798, 799, 800, 802, 803, 806, 807, 808, 824, 831, 842, 845, 849 and 848

and closed at point No.1.

Villages bounded by Sarapal-Nuaparha Coal Block wise, village boundary description:

Village: Tebudu: Boundary bounded by Point No.1,2,V1,V2, and 38:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7207

The village Tebudu covered by block boundary at Point No.1, which is situated in Survey No.848. From Point No.1 to

Point No.2 it is block boundary moved in West direction. From Point No.2 to Point No.V1, village common boundary

between Tebudu and Tebudu jungle, which moved in South-West direction to the Point No.V1. From Point No.V1 to

Point No.V2 it is village common boundary between Tebudu and Bhalukhaidhip, which moved in South direction to the

Point No.V2. From Point No.V2 to Point No.38, it is village common boundary between Tebudu and Dhangurumunda,

which moved in East direction to Point No.38. From Point No.38 to Point No.1 it is block boundary moved in North

direction and closed at Point No.1.

Village: Tebudu Jungle: Boundary bounded by Point No.2, 3, and V1 :

From Point No.2 to Point No.3 it is block boundary moved in West direction. From Point No.3 to Point No.V1 it is

village common boundary between Tebudu Jungle and Bhalukhaidhip, which moved in South-East direction to the Point

No.V1. From Point No.V1 to Point No.2 it is village common boundary between Tebudu Jungle and Tebudu, which

moved in North-East direction and closed at Point No.2.

Village: Bhalukhaidhip: Boundary bounded by Point No. 3, 4, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V10, 29, 30, V11, V12,

V13, V14, V2 and V1 :

From Point No.3 to Point No.4 it is block boundary moved in West direction. From Point No.4 to Point No.V3 it is

village common boundary between Bhalukhaidhip and Patakmunda Jungle, which moved in South direction to the Point

No.V3. From Point No.V3 to Point No.V7 it is village common boundary between Bhalukhaidhip and Patakmunda,

taking little flexure at Point No.V4,V5,V6, moved in south direction to the Point No.V7. From Point No.V7 to Point

No.29 it is village common boundary between Bhalukhaidhip and Sarapal, taking flexure at Point No.V7 (towards East),

Point No.V8(towards South), Point No.V9 to Point No.V10 (towards South-East) and moved in North-East direction to

Point No.29. From Point No.29 to Point No.30 it is block boundary moved in North-East direction. From Point No.30 to

Point No.V13 it is village common boundary between Bhalukhaidhip and Tangiri, taking flexure at Point No.V11

(towards North), Point No.V12 (towards North-East), and moved in North-East direction to Point No.V13. From Point

No.V13 to Point No.V2 it is village common boundary between Bhalukhaidhip and Dhangurumunda, taking flexure at

Point No.V13(towards North ), Point No.V14 (towards North), and moved in further North to Point No.V2. From Point

No.V2 to Point No.V1 it is village common boundary between Bhalukhaidhip and Tebudu, moved in North direction to

Point No.V1. From Point No.V1 to Point No.3 it is village common boundary between Bhalukhaidhip and Tebudu

Jungle, moved in North direction and closed at Point No.3.

Village: Patakmunda Jungle: Boundary bounded by Point No.4,5, V15, V16, V17, V18, V19, V20, V21, V22, V23 and

V3:

From Point No.4 to Point No.5 it is block boundary moved in West direction. From Point No.5 to Point No.V19 it is

village common boundary between Patakmunda Jungle and Baghuabol, taking flexure at Point No. 5 (towards South),

Point No.V15(towards South-West), Point No.V16(towards South-East), Point No.V17 (towards South-East), Point

No.V18(towards South-East) andmoved in South-East direction to Point No. V19. From Point No. V19 to Point No. V3

it is village common boundary between Patakmunda Jungle and Patakmunda, taking flexure at Point No.V20(towards

North-East), Point No. V21 (towards South-East), Point No.V22 (towards North-East), Point No. V23 (towards South-

East) andmoved in further South-East to Point No. V3. From Point No. V3 to Point No. 4 it is village common boundary

between Patakmunda Jungle and Bhalukhaidhip, moved in north direction and closed at Point No. 4.

Village: Baghuabol: Boundary bounded by Point No. 5, 6, V24, V25, V26, V27, V28, V29, V30, V31, V32, V33, V34,

V35, V36, V37, V19, V18, V17, V16 and V15:

From Point No.5 to Point No.6 it is block boundary moved in West direction. From Point No.6 to Point No.V36 it is

village common boundary between Baghuabol and NUAPARHA, taking flexure at Point No.6 (towards South-East),

Point No.V24 (towards North-East), Point No.V25 (towards South), Point No.V26 (toward East), Point No.V27 (towards

North), Point No.V28 (toward East), Point No.V29 (toward South-East), Point No.V30 (toward East), Point

No.V31(toward South-West), Point No.V32 (toward East), Point No.V33 (toward South), Point No.V34 (toward North-

East), Point No.V35 (toward South) and moved in South direction to Point No.V36. From Point No.V36 to Point No.V37

it is village common boundary between Baghuabol and Sarapal, and moved in North-East direction to Point No.V37.

From Point No.V37 to Point No.V19 it is village common boundary between Baghuabol and Sarapal, and moved in

North-West direction to Point No.V37. From Point No.V37 to Point No.V19 it is village common boundary between

Baghuabol and Patakmunda, and moved in North direction to Point No.V19. From Point No.V19 to Point No.5 it is

village common boundary between Baghuabol and Patakmunda Jungle, taking flexure at Point No.19(towards North-

West), Point No.V18(towards North-West), Point No.V17(towards North-West), Point No.V16(towards North-East),

Point No.V15(towards North), and further moved in North direction and closed at Point No.5.

7208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Village: Nuaparha: Boundary bounded by Point No. 6, 7, V38, V39, V40, V41, V42, V43, V44, V45, V46, V47, V48,

V49, V50, V51, V52, V53, V54, V55, V56, V57, V58, V59, V60, V61, V62, V63, V64, V36, V35, V34, V33, V32,

V31, V30, V29, V28, V27,V26, V25 and V24:

From Point No.6 to Point No.7 it is block boundary moved in West direction. From Point No.7 to Point No.V38 it is

village common boundary between Nuaparha and Kusumpal, moved in South direction to Point No.V38. From Point

No.V38 to Point No.V60 it is village common boundary between Nuaparha and Aunli, taking flexure at Point

No.V38(towards South-East), Point No.V39(towards South), Point No.V40(towards South-West), Point No.V41(towards

South-East), Point No.V42 (towards North-East), Point No.V43(towards South-East), Point No.V44(towards South),

Point No.V45 (towards South-East), Point No.V46 (towards South-West), Point No.V47 (towards South-East), Point

No.V48 (towards South), Point No.V49 (towards South-East), Point No.V50(towards East), Point No.V51 (towards

South), Point No.V52 (towards South-East), Point No.V53 (towards South), Point No.V54 (towards East), Point No.V55

(towards North), Point No.V56 (towards East), Point No.V57 (towards South), Point No.V58(towards East), Point

No.V59 (towards South), and further moved in South direction to Point No.V60. From Point No.V60 to Point No.V36 it

is village common boundary between Nuaparha and Sarapal, taking flexure at Point No.V60 (towards East), Point

No.V61 (towards South-East), Point No.V62 (towards South-East), Point No.V63 (towards North-East), Point No.V64

(towards North-East), andfurther moved in North-East direction to Point No.V36. From Point No.V36 to Point No. 6 it is

village common boundary between Nuaparha and Baghuabol, taking flexure at Point No.V36 (towards North), Point No.

V35 (towards South-West), Point No.V3 4(towards North), Point No.V33 (towards North-West), Point No.V32 (towards

North-East), Point No.V31 (towards West), Point No.V30 (towards North-West), Point No.V29 (towards West), Point

No.V28 (towards South-West), Point No.V27 (towards West), Point No.V26(towards North), Point No.V25 (towards

South-West), Point No.V24 (towards North-West), and further moved in North-West direction and closed at Point No. 6.

Village: Kusumpal: Boundary bounded by Point No.7,8,9,V65 and V38:

From Point No.7 to Point No.9 it is block boundary taking flexure at Point No.8 (towards South-West) to the Point No.9.

From Point No.9 to Point No.V38 it is village common boundary between Kusumpal and Aunli, taking flexure at Point

No.9(South-East),Point No.V65 (towards North-East) and further moved in North-East direction to Point No.V38. From

Point No.V38 to Point No.7 it is village common boundary between Kusumpal and Nuaparha, moved in North direction

and closed at Point No.7.

Village: Aunli: Boundary bounded by Point No. 9, 10, V66, V67, V68, V69, V70, V71, V72, V60, V59, V58, V57, V56,

V55, V54, V53, V52, V51, V50, V49, V48, V47, V46, V45, V44, V43, V42, V41,V39, V38 and V65:

From Point No. 9 to Point No.10 it is block boundary moved in South-West direction. From Point No.V10 to Point

No.V66 it is village common boundary between Aunli and Raibandha moved in South-East direction to Point No.V66.

From Point No.V66 to Point No.V67 it is village common boundary between Aunli and Khaeraberani moved in South-

East direction to Point No.V67. From Point No.V67 to Point No.V72 it is village common boundary between Aunli and

Raipal, taking flexure at Point No.V68 (towards South-East), Point No.V69 (towards South-West), Point No.V70

(towards East), Point No.71 (towards North-East) and further moved in North-East direction to Point No.V72. From

Point No.V72 to Point No.V60 it is village common boundary between Aunli and Khamara Jungle, moved in North-East

direction to Point No.V60. From Point No.V60 to Point No.V38 it is village common boundary between Aunli and

Nuaparha, taking flexure at Point No.V60 (towards North), Point No.V59 (towards West), Point No.V58 (towards

North), Point No.V57 (towards West), Point No.V56 (towards South), Point No.V55 (towards West), Point No.V54

(towards North), Point No.V53 (towards North-West), Point No.V52 (towards North-West), Point No.V51 (towards

West), Point No.V50 (towards North-West), Point No.V49 (towards North), Point No.V48 (towards North-West), Point

No.V47 (towards North-East), Point No.V46 (towards North-West), Point No.V45 (towards North), Point No.V44

(towards North-West), Point No. V43 (towards South-West), Point No.V42 (towards North-West), Point No.V41

(towards North-East), Point No.V40 (towards North), Point No.V39 (towards North-West), and further moved in North-

West direction to Point No.V38. From Point No.V38 to Point No. 9 it is village common boundary between Aunli and

Kusumpal, taking flexure at Point No.V38 (towards South-West), Point No.V65 (towards North-West), and moved in

further North-West direction and closed at Point No. 9.

Village: Raibandha: Boundary bounded by Point No.10,V66 and 11:

From Point No.10 to Point No.11 it is block boundary moved in South-West direction. From Point No.11 to Point

No.V66 it is village common boundary between Raibandha and Khaeraberani, moved in South-East direction to Point

No.V66. From Point No.V66 to Point No.10 it is village common boundary between Raibandha and Aunli, moved in

North-West direction and closed at Point No.10.

Village: Khaeraberani: Boundary bounded by Point No. 11, 12, 13, 14, V73, V67 and V66:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7209

From Point No.11 to Point No.14 it is block boundary moved in South-West to Point No.12, and taking flexure at Point

No.12(towards South), Point No.13(towards South-East), and moved further South-East to Point No.14. From Point

No.14 to Point No.V67 it is village common boundary between Khaeraberani and Raipal, taking flexure at Point

No.14(towards North-East), Point No.V73(towards North-East), and further moved in North-East direction to Point

No.V67. From Point No.V67 to Point No.V66 it is village common boundary between Khaeraberani and Aunli, moved in

North-West direction to Point No.V66. From Point No.V66 to Point No.11 it is village common boundary between

Khaeraberani and Raibandha, moved in North-West direction and closed at Point No.11.

Village: Raipal: Boundary bounded by Point No. 14, 15, 16, 17, V74, V72, V71, V70, V69, V68, V67 and V73:

From Point No.14 to Point No.17 it is block boundary, moved in South-East direction to Point No.15, and further moved

in South-East direction to Point No.16 and taking flexure moved in North-East direction to Point No.17. From Point

No.17 to Point No.V72 itis village common boundary between Raipal and Khamara Jangle, taking flexure at Point

No.17(towards North), Point No.V74(towards West), and further moved in West direction to Point No.V72. From Point

No.V72 to Point No.V67 itis village common boundary between Raipal and Aunli, taking flexure at Point

No.V72(towards

South-West),

Point

No.V71(towards

North-West),

Point

No.V70(towards

North),

Point

No.V69(towards North-West), Point No.V68(towards North-West), and further moved in North-West direction to Point

No.V67. From Point No.V67 to Point No.14 itis village common boundary between Raipal and Khaeraberani, taking

flexure at Point No.V67(towards South-West), Point No.V73(towards South) and further moved in South direction and

closed at Point No.14.

Village: Khamara Jungle: Boundary bounded by Point No. 17, 18, 19, 20, V63, V62,V61,V60, V72 and V74:

From Point No.17 to Point No.20 it is block boundary, moved in North direction to Point No.18, and taking flexure at

Point No.18(towards East) and further moved in East direction to Point No.19, and moved North-East direction to Point

No.20. From Point No.20 to Point No.V63 it is village common boundary between Khamara Jangle and Sarapal, moved

in North direction to Point No.V63. From Point No.V63 to Point No.V60 itis village common boundary between

Khamara Jangle and Nuaparha, taking flexure at Point No.V63(towards North-West), Point No.V62(towards North-

West), Point No.V61(towards West), and further moved in West direction to Point No.V60. From Point No.V60 to Point

No.V72 it is village common boundary between Khamara Jangle and Aunli, moved in South-West direction to Point

No.V72. From Point No.V72 to Point No.17 itis village common boundary between Khamara Jangle and Raipal, taking

flexure at Point No.V72(towards East), Point No.V74(towards South), and further moved in South direction and closed at

Point No.17.

Village: Sarapal: Boundary bounded by Point No. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, V10, V9, V8, V7, V37 and V36:

From Point No.20 to Point No.28 it is block boundary, taking flexure at Point No.20( towards North-East), Point

No.21(towards North-East), Point No.22( towards South-East), Point No.23( towards South-East), Point No. 24 ( towards

South-East), Point No.25( towards South-East), Point No.26 ( towards South-East), Point No.27( towards North-East),

and further moved in North-East direction to Point No.28. From Point No.28 to Point No.V10 it is village common

boundary between Sarapal and Tangiri moved in North-West direction to Point No.V10. From Point No.V10 to Point

No.V7 it is village common boundary between Sarapal and Bhalukhaidhip taking flexure at Point No.V10 (towards

North-West), Point No.V9(towards North), Point No.V8(towards West), and further moved in West direction to Point

No.V7. From Point No.V7 to Point No.V37 it is village common boundary between Sarapal and Patakmunda moving in

North-West direction to Point No.V37. From Point No.V37 to Point No.V36 it is village common boundary between

Sarapal and Baghuabol moved in South-West direction to Point No.V36. From Point No.V36 to Point No.V63 it is

village common boundary between Sarapal and Nuaparha, taking Flexure at Point No.V36(towards South-West), Point

No.V64 (towards South-West), and further moved in South-West direction to Point No.V63. From Point No.V63 to Point

No.20 it is village common boundary between Sarapal and Khamara Jungle, moved in South direction and closed at Point

No.20.

Village: Patakmunda: Boundary bounded by Point No.V37, V7, V6, V5, V4, V3, V23, V22, V21, V20 and V19:

From Point No.V37 to Point No.V7 it is village common boundary between Patakmunda and Sarapal, moved in South-

East direction to Point No.V7. From Point No.V7 to Point No.V3 it is village common boundary between Bhalukhaidhip,

taking flexure at Point No.V7(towards North), Point No.V6(towards North-West), Point No.V5(towards North-East),

Point No.V4(towards North-West), and further moved in North-West direction to Point No.V3. From Point No.V3 to

Point No.V19 it is village common boundary between Patakmunda and Patakmunda Jungle, taking flexure at Point

No.V3(towards West), Point No.V23(towards South-West), Point No.V22(towards North-West), Point No.V21(towards

South-West), Point No.V20(towards North-West), and further moved in North-West direction to Point No.V19. From

Point No.V19 to Point No.V37 it is village common boundary between Patakmunda and Baghuabol, moved in South-

East direction and closed at Point No.V37.

7210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Village: Tangiri: Boundary bounded by Point No. 28, V10, 29(Triangle piece of plot No.4) and encircled by

30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,V13,V12 and V11:

From Point No.30 to Point No.37 it is block boundary, taking flexure at Point No.30(towards North-East), Point

No.31(towards North-East), Point No.32(towards North-East), Point No.33(towards North-East), Point No. 34 (towards

North-East), Point No.35 (towards East), Point No.36(towards North), and further moved in North direction to Point

No.37. From Point No.37 to Point No.V13 itis village common boundary between Tangiri and Dhangurumunda, moved

in West direction to Point No.V13. From Point No.V13 to Point No.30 it is village common boundary between Tangiri

and Bhalukhaidhip taking flexure at Point No.V13 (towards West), Point No.V12 (towards South), Point No.V11

(towards South-West) and further moved in South-West direction and closed at Point No.30.

Village: Dhangurumunda: Boundary bounded by Point No.37,38,V2,V14 and V13:

From Point No.37 to Point No.38 it is block boundary, moved in North direction to Point No.38. From Point No.38 to

Point No.V2 it is village common boundary between Dhangurumunda and Tebudu, moved in West direction to Point

No.V2. From Point No.V2 to Point No.V13 it is village common boundary between Dhangurumunda and Bhalukhaidhip,

taking flexure at Point No.V2(towards South), Point No.V14(towards South), and further moved in South direction to

Point No.V13. From Point No.V13 to Point No.37 it is village common boundary between Dhangurumunda and Tangiri,

moved in East direction and closed at Point No.37.

[F. No. 43015/17/2016-LA&IR ]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय

(उ

(उ च

च

चतर िशा िवभाग)

तर िशा िवभाग)

नई दली, 10 अ तूबर, 2019

का. आ.

का. आ. 1833

1833

1833.—के1ीय सरकार, सरकारी .थान (अािधकृत अिधभोिगय% क बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971

(1971 का 40) क धारा 3 "ारा दD शि9य% का योग करते )ए, िनw सारणी के .तंभ(1) म उिलिखत अिधकारी को

सरकार के राजपि@त अिधकारी के समक; होने के नाते उ9 अिधिनयम के योजन% के िलए संपदा अिधकारी िनयु9 करती है

जो उ9 सारणी के .तंभ(2) म िविन^दB_ सावBजिनक पKरसर% के संबंध म अपनी अिधकाKरता क .थानीय सीमाS के भीतर

उ9 अिधिनयम के योजन% के िलए संपदा अिधकारी को दD शि9य% का योग करेगा और सxपे गए दािय#व% का िनवBहन

करेगा।

सारणी

अिधकारी का पदनाम

सावBजिनक पKरसर और अिधकाKरता क .थानीय सीमाS के

वगB

(1)

(2)

शासिनक अिधकारी, भारतीय िवyान िश;ा और अनुसंधान

सं.थान, भोपाल।

भारतीय िवyान िश;ा और अनुसंधान सं.थान, भोपाल से

संबंिधत या पzे पर िलए गए या उसके "ारा या उसक ओर

से मांगे गए पKरसर जो भोपाल िजले म इसके शासिनक

िनयं@ण म है।

[फा. सं. 37-06/2019-टीएस-VII]

p वेता राव बी., उप िनदेशक

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7211

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1833.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the

Table below, being the officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of Government, to be the estate officer for the

purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on estate officer for

the purposes of the said Act within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in

column (2) of the said Table.

TABLE

Designation of the officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Administrative Officer, Indian Institute of Science

Education and Research, Bhopal.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by,

or on behalf of the Indian Institute of Science Education and

Research, Bhopal, which are under its administrative

control in Bhopal District.

[F. No. 37-06/2019-TS-VII]

SHWETHA RAO B., Dy. Director

&म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई दली, 10 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1834

1834

1834.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB रा|ीय ताप िव{ुत िनगम, दादरी, जीबी नगर (यू.पी.) और अ1य एवं उनके कमBचारी के बंधतं@ के संब} िनयोजक%

और उनके कमBकार% के बीच अनुबंध म िन^दB_ औ{ोिगक िववाद म के1ीय सरकार औ{ोिगक अिधकरण एवं <म 1यायालय-

2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभB सं. 111/2013) को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 25.09.2019 को ाq )ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/34/2013- आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour

Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to National

Thermal Power Corporation, Dadri, GB Nagar (U.P.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 25.09.2019.

[No. L-42012/34/2013-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

7212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF MS. PRANITA MOHANTY: PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2, NEW DELHI

ID No.111/2013

Surajpal Singh

…Workman

Versus

National Thermal Power Corporation, Dadri, GB Nagar (U.P.)

…Management

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter

No.L-42012/34/2013/IR(DU) dated 22.07.2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as

under:-

“Whether the action of the management of NTPC in terminating the services of Shri Surja Pal Singh, Pump

Operator w.e.f. 18-4-1993 without complying of provisions of Section 25 F,G,H of Industrial Disputes Act is

unjustified & illegal ? To what relief the workman is entitled to ?

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant/workman Surajpal Singh filed his statement of claim with the

averments that he being a graduate was appointed by the Management on 10/7/1989 as Pump Operator at NTPC Campus,

Dadri. His appointment was made by the Interview Board of NTPC after due compliance of eligibility criteria and

verification of his documents. After his initial appointment on 10/7/1989 he performed his duties at Kendriya Vidhyala

of NTPC, Dadri, Vidhyut Nagar, District Ghaziabad (UP) till 3/9/90 and thereafter, he worked at Old bank pump and

worked with the Management under the control & supervision of its Officials namely Shri Maan Singh Verma,

Supervisor and Shri R.K.Aggarwal, Engineer and Shri S.C.Chawla, Manager (Township) etc. He continuously worked

there for more than 240 days in calendar year. His last drawn salary was Rs.3500/- per month. Since his services were

not regularized by the Management, he filed a writ petition bearing No.3919 of 1993 before Hon’ble High Court of

Allahabad inter alia praying for the relief of regularization. The services of the workman/claimant were illegally and

unjustifiably termination w.e.f. 18/4/1993 by senior officers of the Management namely Shri R.K. Aggarwal, Senior

Engineer and Shri Man Singh Verma, Supervisor verbally. The claimant continuously worked with the Management

from the date of his appointment till his services were illegally terminated on 18/4/1993, in violations of the provision of

Section 25-F, G and H of the Act because the Management neither displayed the seniority list of the workers nor

complied with the provisions of “First come Last go”. Neither any memo nor charge sheet nor any notice nor notice

compensation was given to him prior to termination of his services. The job against which the workman was working is

of a regular and permanent nature. It is pleaded that the order of termination was given illegally and non employment

was forced on him. The management has engaged fresh hands in his place as well as on other post Pump Operator . The

claimant/workman approached the Conciliation Officer at Dehradun but to no avail due to adamant attitude of the

Management. It is also pleaded that the workman is unemployed from the date of illegal termination of his services .

He has prayed for reinstatement into service with full back wages and continuity of services & seniority etc. as well as

full consequential benefits.

The Management resisted the claim of the workman by filing written statement and took preliminary

objections inter-alia that there is no relationship of employer & employee between the parties as the claimant was never

employed by the Management of NTPC rather he was employed w.e.f. 1/1/1993 as Operator cum watchman by the

contractor M/s Alankar Nursery & Fams in whose favour contract “Operation & Maintenance of Water Supply &

Sewerage Disposal Pumps” was awarded by NTPC. The workman was paid salary by the contractor. Since the

workman was never appointed by NTPC, there was no question of NTPC, giving him any appointment letter, ESI,

EPF benefit etc. It has been denied that the claimant was working continuously or he completed 240 days of work in

every year. Prayer has been made for rejection of the claim petition.

The workman/claimant filed rejoinder, reiterating his own case as set up in the statement of claim and denied the

allegations made out by the Management.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed 7/8/2014 :-

(1) Whether the action of the Management of NTPC, Dadri, in termination the services of Shri Suraj Pal Singh,

Pump Operator w.e.f. 18/4/1993 without complying of provisions of Section 25 F, G, & H of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is unjustified and illegal ? If so, its effect ?

(2) Whether relationship of employer and employee exsits between respondent and workman ? If so, its effect ?

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7213

(3) To what relief the workman is entitled to ?

In order to prove his case, the claimant examined himself as WW1. He filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and

placed reliance on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/19. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri

Omender Singh as MW1 who claimed to be the Site Manager of M/s Alankar Nursery & Farms besides examining Shri

Nikesh Kumar, Senior Manager (HR) as MW2, who filed his affidavit Ex.MW2/A and relied on documents Ex.MW2/1,

Ex.MW1/1 & Ex.MW1/2.

I have heard Shri S.P. Saxena, A/R for the claimant and Shri Rajesh Mahindru, A/R for the Management and

have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.

Issue No. 2 :-

Firstly I propose to answer issue No.2 which goes to the root of controversy between the parties.

Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Management strongly contended that there is no relationship of employer and

employee between the Management & claimant, nor the claimant has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year,

preceding to his alleged termination. As such, provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are not applicable to the case in

hand. It was also contended that onus is also upon the claimant to prove that he was in the employment of the

Management and has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year.

10.

Per contra, learned A/R appearing on behalf of the Claimant submitted that the workman was appointed by the

Management of NTPC on 10/7/1989 as Pump Operator at NTPC Campus, Dadri. His appointment was made by the

Interview Board of NTPC after due compliance of eligibility criteria and verification of his documents. The workman

worked under the Management for more than three years till 18/4/1993 when his services were illegally terminated. As

such there exists relationship of employee & employer between the parties.

11.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of

Management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his

employment with the Management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record

of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/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 claimant herein. In this respect, it

is appropriate to refer to the affidavit ExWW1/A of the claimant. It is clear from the perusal of the affidavit Ex.WW1/A

that it is in consonance with the pleadings i.e. statement of claim filed by the claimant. He has filed on record a number

of documents viz. copies of Log Book register as Mark-A to J, performance certificates and identity card issued by the

Principal of Kendriya Vidyalya NTPC as Ex.WW1/1, Ex.WW1/2 and Ex.WW1/5 respectively; copy of the identity card;

request letter dated 6/4/92 issued by Shri P.N. Dhyani to Security Staff for permission to the claimant./workman to carry

Jerry Cane of Sodium H/Chloride from T/S office to Pump House as Ex.WW1/3; copy of leave application (Ex.WW1/4)

which the workman had addressed to the Supervisor, Water Supply & Maintenance, NTPC for grant of leave from

20/7/92 to 28/7/92 for (Kaanwar) visiting to Haridwar etc. etc. In cross examination, he explained that he was recruited

by Shri G.M. (General Manager) Narula whom he had met through his father in law and his interview as taken on 3/7/90

and he was ordered to join duty on 10/7/90. He admitted that vacancies were not published against which he was

recruited. Neither any interview letter nor any appointment letter was issued to him. He volunteered that during his

service, the Management had obtained his signatures on log book. He admitted having no written proof that he was paid

salary by NTPC. He also admitted having filed a writ petition bearing No.3919 of 1993 before Allahabad High Court

copy of which is Ex.WW1/M-1. He denied the suggestion that he was working as contractual worker w.e.f. 10/7/89 to

13/8/1991 with M/s Rana Electrical Works and that w.e.f. 14/8/1991 to 31/12/1992 he was working with contractor/s M/s

BCC Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. as watchman cum Operator. He has been cross examined at length but nothing

incriminatory came out to shake his testimony.

13.

MW1 Omender Singh claiming to be Site Incharge of M/s Alankar Nursery & farms testified that his uncle

Dharmender Singh was the Proprietor of aforesaid firm which had entered into contract with NTPC w.e.f. 1/1/1993 and

that the workman/claimant had worked as a contract labour w.e.f. 1/1/93 for about three to four months. According to

him, the workman Suraj Pal Singh was removed from service as his work was not satisfactory and he was paid all dues.

He admitted that documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2 are not original but photocopies.

14.

Affidavit Ex.MW2/A filed by MW2 Nikesh Kumar, Senior Manager (HR) of NTPC is in consonance with the

contents of the written statement. This witness had also filed additional affidavit Ex.MW2/B. In cross examination he

clarified that NTPC issues identity cards to its permanent employees only. Showing his ignorance that the workman had

worked for NTPC from 10/7/89 till his termination, he volunteered that he might have been engaged through contractor

7214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

working for NTPC. He explained that unless records are verified by him, he could not say if in the year 1992 NTPC had

issued Identity Cards to 27 persons and a list in this regard was prepared. He also could not say if persons junior to the

workman/claimant as per list were made regular, ignoring the seniority of the workman.

15.

It is a matter of record that an application under Section 11 read with rule 15 of the Act was filed on behalf

of the claimant,. seeking production of documents by the Management of NTPC, vis-à-vis list of pump operations as

well as seniority list of pump operator of NTPC Dadri Zone who worked during the year 1989 till 1993, log book register

for the period intervening 10/7/89 to 29/5/1992 in respect of duties performed at Old Bank Water Supply Pump of the

Management etc. but the same were not produced simply on the plea that summoned documents were not in possession

of the Management. There is categorical version of the workman /claimant that after his initial appointment/recruitment

on 10/7/1989, he had performed his duties at Kendriya Vidhyalaya of NTPC, Dadri, Vidhyut Nagar, District Ghaziabad

(UP) till 3/9/90 and thereafter, he worked at Old bank pump and worked with the Management under the control &

supervision of its Officials namely Shri Maan Singh Verma, Supervisor, Shri R.K.Aggarwal, Engineer and Shri

S.C.Chawla, Manager (Township) etc. His version finds support from the documents Ex.WW1/1, Ex.WW1/2 and

Ex.WW1/5 respectively which are performance certificates and identity card issued by the Principal of Kendriya

Vidyalya NTPC. Moreover there appears signatures of the workman Suraj Pal Singh pertaining to the entries made in the

log book register, copies of which have been filed on record as Mark-A to J. Since the Management failed to produce

the record pertaining to Log Book entries, this Tribunal has to draw adverse inference against it and to presume that

documents Mark-A to J are genuine one. The Management has not produced originals of documents Ex.MW1/1 and

Ex.MW1/2 to show that the workman Suraj Pal Singh was engaged by M/s Alankar Nursery & Farms w.e.f.1/1/1993. On

the other hand, documents Ex.WW1/1, Ex.WW1/2, Ex.WW1/5 as well as documents Mark A to J clearly show that the

claimant performed duty of Pump Operator under the control and supervision of the Management continuously from

10/7/1989 to 18/4/1993 and as such he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his

termination.. Even if it is presumed that the claimant was engaged by the Management on casual or daily rated or

temporary basis, in that eventuality also there existed relationship of employer-employee between the Management and

claimant. 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. Consequently, it is held that

there existed relationship of employee –employer between the workman/claimant and the Management. This issue is

decided accordingly in favour of the workman.

Issue No.1 and 3:-

16.

Both these issues being inter-connected are taken up together. It is the case of the claimant/workman that

although he continuously worked under the Management from 10/7/1989, his services were terminated w.e.f. 18/4/1993

without issuing any notice or without any notice pay/compensation. Entire case of the Management is based on the plea

that the claimant was not its employee. This Tribunal has already held that there existed relationship of employer-

employee between the parties. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that any notice or compensation

in lieu of notice period was given to the claimant by the Management prior to termination of his services w.e.f.18/4/1993.

As such termination of the claimant/workman by the Management was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the

Act.

17.

I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to

retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

“25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7215

(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

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from

giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the

Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the

Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

18.

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 illegal and void under the law.

19.

Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the

time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, such action of the Management in

terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 18/4/1993 is held to be illegal and void.

20.

Now the residual question is whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of

back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. Testimony of the claimant that he continuously

worked with the Management from 10/7/1989 to 18/4/1993, has gone unrebutted. There is no show cause notice or

charge-sheet issued to the claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the workman as Pump Operator

is considered to be of perennial and regular nature. The claimant has pleaded and testified that he is totally unemployed

since his termination on 18/4/1993. No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by the Management. Even if it is

assumed that the workman/claimant is doing intermittent job, that can not be considered to be regular gainful

employment of the claimant/workman herein. As per own version of the claimant, his services were illegally terminated

w.e.f. 18/4/1993. Prior to that he had filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3919 of 1993 (Ex.WW1/M-1) before Hon’ble

High Court of Allahabad, seeking regularization of his services and the said writ was dismissed on 27/7/2005 as stated in

para 8 of the Statement of Claim. He had given representation dated 27/8/2012 to the ALC/Conciliation Officer and

conciliatory efforts ended in failure on 29/1/2013, resulting into the present reference. A considerable period has gone

between the date of his termination of service and the present reference, which is an important aspect. There is nothing

on record to show that the workman was holding permanent post or that he was a permanent/regular employee of NTPC

drawing salary in proper pay-scale . As per his own case, his last drawn wages were Rs.3500/- per month.

21.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as

2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-

“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination

of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors

like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy

or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short

term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like

should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important

factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered

with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are

wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age

and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However,

where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the

complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is

often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be

compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”

7216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22.

In the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190, it

was observed by the Apex Court as under :-

“Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given

fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure.

Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment

passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,

however, automatically be passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the

workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wager

has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The

Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post of a permanent employee.

The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the

termination is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as

mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always

open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment

compensation.

23.

Having regard to the judicial trends and facts & circumstances of the present case, this Tribunal considers

that compensation amount of Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs) will be just and reasonable. Therefore, compensation

amount of Rs.Three Lakhs is hereby awarded in favour of the claimant/workman which shall be paid by the Management

within three months from the date of publication of the Award, failing which the claimant will be entitled to recover the

same alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of publication of Award till realization. Award is passed accordingly.

Let copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Date :

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 10 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1835

1835

1835.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB महाबंधक, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, देहरादून, उDराखंड और अ1य एवं उनके कमBचारी के बंधतं@ के संब}

िनयोजक% और उनके कमBकार% के बीच अनुबंध म िन^दB_ औ{ोिगक िववाद म के1ीय सरकार औ{ोिगक अिधकरण एवं <म

1यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभB सं. 92/2015) को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 25.09.2019 को ाq

)ए थे।

[सं. एल-40012/32/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 25.09.2019.

[No. L-40012/32/2014-IR (DU)]

V. K.THAKUR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7217

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 92/15

Date of Passing Award- 22^nd July, 2019

Between:

Shri Roshan Lal,

S/o Shri Jaya Das,

C/o Shri Govind Singh Bisht,

State President Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,

16A, Rajpur Road, Dehradun,

Uttarakhand.

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Dehradun Telecom District,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Govind Singh, (A/R)

: For the Workman

None for the management (A/R)

: For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between

employer i.e. the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of

sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 40012/32/2014

(IR(DU) dated 09.09.2014 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of Dehradun Telecom District, BSNL, Dehradun in retrenchment from

the services of workman Shri Roshan Lal S/o Shri Jaya Das w.e.f. 01.08.2012 is legal and justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?’’

As per the claim statement the claimant was engaged in the office of the BSNL Dehradun on 01.10.1997 as a casual

employee on a daily wage of Rs. 80/-. He was entrusted with the job of laying of cables. In March 1998 he was appointed

on a monthly salary of Rs, 1200/- but no appointment letter was issued to him. Not only that for payment of salary, no

salary slip was provided to him. After 2010 the management continued to credit his salary in his Bank Account. Besides

the salary the claimant was not getting any other benefit. On several occasions the demand raised by him ended with

assurance by the management that his service will be regularized soon. Though on periodical intervals his salary was

enhanced and in December 2010 he was getting Rs. 4500 per month his request for regularization was turned down. On

the contrary in March 2012 he was informed that the Managing Director has instructed for his termination and if he so

wishes can continue to work on monthly salary of Rs. 2500/-. By that time the claimant had completed 240 days of work

for the management in the preceding Calendar year. On 01.08.2012 when the claimant was travelling to Vikas Nagar for

collection of his 3 months’ salary, the bus met with an accident leading to death of 27 passengers and the claimant was

admitted in hospital having sustained serious and grievous injuries. He remained confined to bed for 7 months. On

01.03.2013 when he went to the office of the management was informed that his service has been terminated and another

person has been employed in his place. Till 12.11.2014 the claimant made several representations for his reinstatement.

Having failed in his effort he raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner where steps were taken for conciliation.

The conciliation proceeding also failed and appropriate government referred the matter to this tribunal for adjudication.

Being noticed the management appeared and filed WS denying employer employee relationship with the workman. It has

been stated that the claimant was never engaged by the management either as a casual or as a regular employee. He was

working as a need based worker on wage basis. The management had engaged contractors through proper tendering

process for execution of different works. If at all the claimant was engaged through any contractor, he cannot claim

reinstatement or any other benefits from the management. Thereby the management has denied the claim and submitted

for dismissal of the same.

7218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the rejoinder the claimant has stated that in 1997 he was engaged by the Sub Divisional Engineer Tyuni and continued

to work there till 2000. In the year 2000 he was deputed to work at Chillahad where a new exchange was opened for

installation of meters. During that period he was also executing the work of cable laying and also discharging all the

duties of Class-IV employees in the office of the management.

On the basis of this pleading following issues were framed for adjudication.

Whether the action of the management Dehradun Telecom District in retrenchment of service of the

workman is legal and justified.

To what relief the workman in entitled to and from which dated.

During course of hearing the claimant examined himself as WW1 but did not exhibit any document to prove his stand

though he has filed photocopies of several documents. On behalf of the management the proceeding was abandoned after

filing of WS and as a result thereof no cross examination was made to the witness of the claimant and management has

been proceeded ex-parte and no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the management.

FINDINGS

At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the claimant submitted that the case of Roshan Lal is a clear example of

unfair labour practice in the hands of the employer. He also argued that the claimant started working for the management

on 01.10.1997 as a casual worker and subsequently in the month of March 1998 he was appointed on a monthly salary of

Rs. 1200/-. No appointment letter was issued to the claimant but he was assured about the regularization of his service.

At that time he was getting his salary by cash on furnishing vouchers. Since the year 2010 the management was crediting

the salary in the bank account. In the year 2001 the department of Telecommunication was changed to the BSNL and at

that time new Telephone Exchanges were opened at various places. He was asked to discharge the work as Cable

Joinder, Telephone Repair and redressal of the complaints of the customers. Then he was known as the Telephone

Lineman. In the year 2011 his monthly salary was Rs. 4500/- and since October 1997 he was working continuously for

the management and had completed work for 240 days and more in a calendar year. When he was discharging his duty

with utmost satisfaction of the management on 16.09.2011 he was informed that the General Manager has instructed for

his removal from service and ultimatum was given to him to work on a reduced monthly remuneration of Rs. 2500/-.

Being the only bread earner of the family he had no option than to accept the same and continued to work on the monthly

remuneration of Rs. 2500/-. For all practical purposes he was discharging his duty as an employee of BSNL. On

01.08.2012 when he was travelling from Tyuni to Vikas Nagar to collect his salary, met with a serious accident and

remained confined to bed for 7 months. After recovery when he reported for duty, was told that his service has been

terminated. Through two numbers of Cheque Rs. 4182/- and 8719/- was deposited in his bank account towards his PF

dues. From 01.10.1997 to 01.08.2012 the claimant had worked for the BSNL continuously for 14 years and 11 months.

The management illegally terminated his service without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the ID Act

and at no point of time any disciplinary action was taken against him. Thereby the claimant has prayed for reinstatement

to service and other consequential benefits.

The claimant adduced evidence as WW1 exactly in the line of his averment made in the claim statement. He also filed

some documents to prove his continuous employment with management No.1 BSNL. This oral and documentary

evidence of the claimant has not been controverted in any manner by the management since the management did not

cross examine him. The documents relied upon by the workman are series of letter written by different customers to the

sub Divisional Engineer BSNL expressing satisfaction that the claimant Roshan Lal attended the fault of the Telephone

and made it functional. Those letters relate to the period between 2000 to 2012 on different dates. The claimant has also

filed the bank statement showing credit of his salary. The documents also include the directions issued by the SDE to the

claimant Roshan Lal for repair of the faulty telephones. Of course all these documents are photocopies and relate to the

time period between 2006 to 2012. On the basis of these documents the Ld. A/R for the workman argued that the

officials of the management were treating the claimant as their employee for all practical purposes and for that reason he

was being given direction to attend the faults in the telephone lines of the customers. He also drew the attention of the

tribunal to the photocopy of the FIR lodged by the claimant for theft of telephone cables as an employee of BSNL. At the

cost of repetition be its stated here that the evidence of the workman has not been challenged or controverted by the

management. Thus from the material on record it is to be seen if the claimant was the employee of the management and

if he was a victim of unfair labour practice and entitled to the relief sought for.

In order to decide the legality of the alleged act of termination it is necessary to decide first if there existed any employer

employee relationship between the claimant and the management. Except BSNL no other person or establishment is a

party in this proceeding. Since, the management has not adduced any evidence the WS filed by him is to be looked into

for this purpose.

The management has denied its relationship as employer with the claimant. It has also taken a stand that at no point of

time the claimant was even engaged as a daily wager or casual worker by the management and thus, the question of his

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7219

termination by the management doesn’t arise. With this the management has challenged the claim as baseless and not

maintainable.

In his pleading and oral statement the claimant has admitted not to have received any appointment letter or other

documents to prove his employment with the management. Since the management was proceeded ex-parte, he could not

compel the management to produce the originals of the document which have been filed by him as photocopies. In such a

situation from the given materials a heavy duty is cast upon the tribunal to find out the alleged employer employee

relationship.

In absence of documents regarding employment the employer employee relationship can be ascertained from the

circumstances like effective control of the management over the workman. In the case of Chintaman Rao reported in

1958(II) LLJ 252 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ruled that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients. (I)

Employer (II) Employee (III) the contract of employment. The employer is one who engages the service of the other

person. The employee is one who works for another for hire. The employment is the contract of service between the

employer and employee where under the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to this control and supervision.

In the case of Shankar Balajiwale vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1962(1) LLJ 119 the Hon’ble Supreme

Court have clarified that the control of the management which is a necessary element of the relationship of master and

servant is not directed towards providing or dictating the nature of article to be produced but refers to other incident

having bearing on the process of work the person carries out. Thus, from the above analysis of the principle of law, it

emerges that the effective control is a test to determine the employer employee relationship between the parties.

In this proceeding the workman has all along maintained that he was working under the supervision and control of the

SDE BSNL and discharging the functions of a regular employee. He has also stated so while testifying as WW1. On his

behalf photocopies of document have been filed which in absence of better evidence lead to a conclusion that being

directed by the SDE he was attending the faulty telephones and at the end of the day reporting compliance to the SDE.

The copy of the bank statement filed by him also discloses remittance of the monthly salary in his account by BSNL and

deposit of his EPF dues by the BSNL when his service was terminated. Against this oral and documentary evidence the

bald denial of the management holds no good to disbelieve the contention of the claimant/workman.

Once it is proved that the claimant/workman was working for the management and the evidence suggest that the tenure

of work was from 1997 to August 2012 spreading over 14 years it is to be seen if the service of the claimant was

terminated illegally and he was made a victim of unfair labour practice. In this regard the Ld. A/R for the claimant drew

the attention of this tribunal to the provisions of section 25T of the Industrial Dispute act 1947 read with schedule 5 of

the Act and submitted that discharge or dismissal of the workman by way of victimization amounts to unfair labour

practice and no employer shall commit any unfair labour practice to the employee. He also submitted that the

management while terminating the service of the workman/claimant failed to comply with the provisions of section 25-F

of the Industrial dispute act which amounts to victimization and unfair labour practice. To support his contention he has

placed reliance in the case of Krishna Bahadur vs. M/s Purna Theater and others reported in 2004(6) Supreme 313

and submitted that compliance of the provision of section 25-F is mandatory and contravention of the same would render

the termination illegal.

The claimant has pleaded that the provisions of section 25-F were not complied when his service was terminated. The

management has not replied to the same in any manner except denying the employer employee relationship. Thus, from

the materials on record it is evident when the service of the claimant was terminated the provisions of section 25-F were

not complied.

It is now to be seen what would be the consequence when the provisions of section 25-F is not complied. The workman

by filing various documents and by adducing oral evidence has successfully proved that he had work for 240 days and

more in a calendar year for the management. Thereby the workman has discharged his primary burden of proving the

same. No evidence contrary to the same has been adduced by the management. In the case of Jasmer Singh vs. State of

Haryana and another reported in (2015) 4 SCC 458 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that when the workman proved

completion of 240 days of work in a calendar year by the management, the termination would be void abinitio for non

compliance of section 25-F,25-G, 25-H of the industrial dispute act. It is the case of the claimant that neither he was

served with retrenchment notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation. Hence, it is held that the termination of

service of the claimant who had completed work for 240days or more in a calendar year for non compliance of the

provisions of section 25-F, 25-G, 25-H of the Industrial Dispute Act is illegal.

The claimant has prayed for reinstatement into service with full back wages. The settled position of law that if the

termination for non compliance of 25-F is held to be illegal it would be deemed as if the said order was never in

operation and therefore the employee would be deemed to be continuing in service. In the case of Municipal Council

Dena Nagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court reported in 2014(4) SCT 514 the

full bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana have culled out the following principles for adjudication of

the claims of the claimant by the Labour Court.

7220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i)

keeping in view the recognized power of Industrial Tribunal to direct reinstatement on account of the

violation of section 25-F of the Act the same cannot be denied solely on the ground that appointment

were made by the public body against the public posts and were not in accordance with the relevant

statutory recruitment rules.

(ii)

The settled position of law is that the provisions of section 25-F being mandatory, on account of

violation of the same the retrenchment would be void ab initio as if it was never in operation and,

therefore the employee would be deemed to be continuing in service.

(iii)

The right of reinstatement, however, is not an automatic right and as such while directing reinstatement

the Labour Court will have to take into consideration various aspects as the nature of appointment

availability of post, length of service etc.

In this case the admitted position is that the claimant had worked for the management for a period of 14 years and had

completed 240days of work in a calendar year. The nature of work discharged by him was of permanent character and

the order of termination was passed without following the procedure laid u/s 25-F,G,H of the ID Act, which makes the

order illegal and ab initio void. All these circumstances taken together lead to a conclusion that the claimant is entitled to

the relief of reinstatement with all back wages for his victimization of unfair labour practice by the management. Hence,

ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimant and it is held that the order of termination dated

01.04.2012 passed by the management Dehradun Telecom District BSNL is illegal and unjustified. The workman is

entitled to the relief of reinstatement with all back wages. Management is directed to reinstate the workman to service

with immediate effect after this award is made enforceable. The Back wages accrued shall be paid to the workman within

2 months from the date when the award would become enforceable failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per

annum from the date of accrual till the final payment is made. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government

for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

.22^nd July, 2019

नई द ली, 10 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1836

1836

1836.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय

सरकार मेससB ऑल इंिडया रेिडयो, आकाशवाणी भवन, नई दली और अ1य एवं उनके कमBचारी के बंधतं@ के संब}

1यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभB संHया 108/2018) को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 25.09.2019 को

ाq )ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2019- आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के . ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The All

India Radio, Akashwani Bhawan, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 25.09.2019.

[No. L-42025/07/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7221

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 108/2018

Date of Passing Award- 6^th August, 2019

Between:

Smt. Priyanka,

D/o Shri Virender kukreja,

R/o B.G-65, Madangir,

Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,

New Delhi- 110062.

Through- Industrial Workers Union, Office- F-328,

Gali No.- 22, Sadh Nagar-2, Palam Colony,

New Delhi- 10045.

… Workman

Versus

M/s. All India Radio, Akashwani Bhawan,

Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001.

M/s. Trio Security & Intelligence Pvt. Ltd.

I-36, Lajpat Nagar, 1^st Basement,

New Delhi.

…Managements

Appearances:-

Shri Piyush Sharma (A/R)

: For the Workman.

None for the management (A/R)

: For the Management

AWARD

This is an application filed u/s 2-A of the ID Act by the claimant praying inter alia a direction to the management No.

1and 2 for reinstating her into service alongwith all benefits like back wages unemployment compensation continuity of

service and cost of litigation etc.

As per the claim statement the claimant was working with the management No.1 as a data Entry operator since

15.08.2008 on a monthly salary of Rs. 17,710/-. During the course of her employment she was discharging her duties

with sincerity and efficiency giving no scope to her employer of complaint. But she was not getting the benefits like

leave salary, overtime salary etc. The management was not providing pay slip attendance card etc to her though she was

demanding the same again and again. During this period the claimant had to go for maternity leave. After returning from

maternity leave when she wanted to join her duty the management did not allow her. On the contrary on 22.02.2018

terminated her service. During such termination no termination compensation, duty pay, notice of termination or notice

pay in terms of section 25-f of the ID Act was allowed. When her request for engagement in work was turned down she

served a demand notice and lodged a claim before the Labour Commissioner on 13.03.2018. The attempt for conciliation

failed and the claimant filed the present claim petition, praying the relief of reinstatement of service with back wages.

Though notice was issued to management No.1 All India Radio and management No.2 M/s Trio Security and intelligence

Pvt. Ltd., none appeared. Thus by order dated 11.02.2019 both the management was set ex-parte and workman was asked

to adduce evidence.

The claimant/workman filed affidavit as her evidence alongwith some documents. The documents have been marked as

WW1/1 to WW1/4. These documents include the temporary entry pass issued by All India Radio the I-card issued by All

India Radio the maternity leave application submitted by the claimant to the ADG-E(development) All India Radio and

the postal receipt of the demand notice, copy of the demand notice etc.

7222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The claimant submitted her evidence in the line of the claim statement and has stated that she was appointed by the

management No.1 as a Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 15.08.2008 on a monthly salary of Rs. 17,710/- she was issued I-card

for her entry into the work place by the management. She is not aware of any contract or understanding between

management No.1 and 2. While working so on 02.08.2017 submitted a application for grant of maternity leave for a

period of 6 months from 21.08.2017 to 21.02.2018. Her leave application was recommended for approval by the

Additional Director General All India Radio. After availing the maternity leave when she reported for work on

22.02.2018, was informed about termination of her service by the management without giving any notice and complying

with the provisions of section 25 of the ID Act. Being aggrieved she had raised a claim before the Assistant Labour

Commission where conciliation was taken up. By filing the failure report issued by the Conciliation officer she has stated

that for the non cooperation of the management the conciliation could not reach the desired conclusion. With such

assertion she has pleaded that the action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice and she is entitled to the

relief of reinstatement to service with back wages and other consequential benefits.

As stated above the evidence of the claimant has remained uncontroverted. The document marked as WW1/1, WW1/2,

and WW1/3 has proved that during the relevant period the claimant was working for management No.1 which was

exercising and supervision and control over her work. The management No.1being a Government of India department is

expected to be a model employer but acted in an illegal manner in terminating the service of the claimant without

following the provisions of section 25-F of the ID Act. Hence it is held that the claimant is entitled to the relief sought

for. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The claim be and same is allowed in favour of the claimant and against the respondent. The management No.1 All India

Radio is directed to reinstate the claimant into service with immediate effect and maintain continuity of her service

between the period of alleged termination and reinstatement. It is further directed that the management shall pay 30% of

the monthly salary of the claimant which accrued between the date of alleged termination and reinstatement without

interest. This amount shall be paid to the claimant within 2 months from the date when the award becomes enforceable.

Failure on the part of the management to comply the direction shall entail upon the management to pay the compensation

as directed above for the intervening period between the termination and the reinstatement alongwith interest @ 9% from

the date of accrual till the final payment is made. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for

notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

6^th August, 2019

नई द ली, 10 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1837

1837

1837.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB रिज.~ार, जािमया हमददB (डीiड यूिनवसBटी), नई दली और अ1य एवं उनके कमBचारी के बंधतं@ के संब}

1यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभB संHया 114/2013) को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 25.09.2019 को

ाq )ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/55/2013- आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 114/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Registrar, Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University) New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 25.09.2019.

[No. L-42012/55/2013-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7223

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF MS. PRANITA MOHANTY: PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2, NEW DELHI

ID No. 114/2013

Mohd. Merajuddin s/o. Shri Alla Mehar Khan,

R/o. J-3 Hamdard Nagar Campus,

New Delhi 110062

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University),

Hamdard Nagar,

New Delhi 110012.

Through Registrar

…Management

AWARD

A reference was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter No. L-42012/55/2013-IR(DU)

dated 9/92016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in

short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

‘Whether the action of the Management of Jamia Hamdard University in terminating the services of the

workman Md. Merajuddin s/o. Shri Alla Sher Khan is llegal and unjustified ? To what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant/workman Mohd. Merajuddin filed statement of claim, with the

averments that he was appointed by the Management as Library Attendant vide appointment letter dated 12/8/1977. He

served the Management for 27 years till his services were illegally terminated on flimsy grounds. According to him, in

the month of August/September, 2002 he visited his hometown at Aligarh and because of his severe illness he could not

join his duty. However, as a dutiful employee he communicated to the Management about his illness through FAX and

even furnished a medical certificate about his illness. Though the workman was not fully well, but inspite of that he

joined his duty on 20/1/2003 and also submitted his medical certificate. Subsequently it came to his knowledge that he

was charge-sheeted for his absence from duty, on 26/2/2003, for minor penalty proceedings under Rule 10, Section IV of

the General By Laws of Jamia Hamdard for his misconduct of leaving station without permission and not informing the

Competent Authority for more than three months. It is pleaded that because of his person work, he visited his native

place & unfortunately fallen ill and took treatment from local doctor. But his illness persiste3d and aggravated to such an

extent that it was basically impossible for him to join duty immediately. He again intimated to the concerned authority

about his illness to avoid any complication. Somehow he joined his duty on 24/3/2003 and furnished medical certificate

alongwith the application seeking leave but the same was not considered by the University. Though an enquiry was

initiated against him, yet he was not aware as to who were the Members of the Enquiry Committee. The Authority

concluded the enquiry in a hurried and arbitrary manner, without giving any opportunity to the workman. The

Management published the summons in the English newspaper “The Hindu” which is having least circulation even in

Delhi what to talk of a town like Aligarh (UP), though the workman happens to be a lower class Muslim. Basically it

was ex-parte enquiry and on the basis of enquiry report, the Management without giving opportunity to the workman to

represent himself, passed order dated 17/1/2004, thereby imposing extreme punishment of dismissal from duty. Even

appeal of the workman was rejected by the University on 20/9/2004, without giving him fair opportunity. Thereafter the

workman had given application for voluntary retirement on 15/8/2003 but the same was not considered by the University.

The workman approached the ALC/Conciliation Officer but to no avail. In nut shell case of the workman is that his

services have been terminated without following the principle of natural justice. He has prayed for reinstatement into

service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement and took preliminary

objections inter alia that statement of claim is time barred because the workman was removed from service on 17/1/2004

after a duly constituted Committee found him guilty of misconduct and instated of assailing the same in any court of law,

he filed the present petition after lapse of 8 years with oblique purpose to retain the official accommodation after the

Management initiated proceeding against the workman, seeking eviction and possession of the official accommodation.

The workman was charge=sheeted for having committed misconduct of leaving station without permission/information

and willfully committing insubordination to a lawful order of University whereby he was asked to report to Medical

Superintendent for his medical examination. It is alleged that department enquiry was conducted as per the principles of

natural justice and charges were held proved against him. On the basis of enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority

decided to imposed punishment of removed from service upon him and accordingly he was removed from service vide

7224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

order dated 17/1/2004, against which the workman had preferred an appeal. Executive Council of the University after

examining the matter rejected his appeal vide order/resolution dated 20/9/2004. It is alleged that when t he University

had proceeded against him for major punishment, his request for VRS was totally untenable and same was rightly not

considered. The workman was given ample opportunity to defend himself before the DE but he evaded the same and

abandoned duty himself. The workman is not entitled to any indulgence. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the

claim petition.

The claimant/workman filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations made by the Management and

reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 18/2/2015 :-

Whether the action of the management of Jamia Hamdard University in terminating the services of the

workman Md. Merjauddin s/o.Shri Alla Sher Khan is illegal and unjustified ? If so, its effect ?

To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?

6. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied

upon the documents Mark-A to Mark-Y.

On the other hand, the Management did not adduce any evidence to rebut the case of the claimant despite

number of opportunities granted to it and ultimately this Tribunal was constrained to close evidence of the Management

vide order dated 9/5/2019.

I have heard Shri T.S. Rajput, A/R for the claimant and have carefully gone through the record. My findings on

the above issues are as follows.

Issue No 1 and 2 :-

Both the issues are taken up together as the same can be disposed conveniently by common discussion.

10.

The Management has taken an objection that the claim petition is time barred and as such not maintainable.

However, nothing has been shown on behalf of the Management as to how the claim petition is barred by limitation. I

may mention that this is a reference under Section 10 of the Act and not a petition directly filed under Section 2-A of

the Act, clause (3) of which provides that an application/claim shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal

before the expiry of three years from the date of his/her discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination. It is fairly settled that once a reference under Section 10 of the Act is made to the Court/Tribunal,

same is required to be adjudicated irrespective of time limit. As such, the contention of the Management that the

statement of claim is time barred is misconceived & not tenable.

11.

It is clear from the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced on record that the claimant was working to the

post of Library Attendant under the Management and he continued to work as such for about 27 years, w.e.f. August,

1977 till his services were terminated by the Management vide order dated 17/1/2004. Affidavit Ex.WW1/A submitted

by the workman is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. He has filed on record a number of documents

viz. copy of the application dated 25/1/2003 seeking leave sent to the Management, as Mark-A and its postal receipt as

Mark-B; application for extension of leave from 27/1/2003 to 31/1/2003 on the ground of illness as Mark-C and its

postal receipt as Mark-D; another application dated 3/2/2003 for extension of leave from 1/2/2003 to 28/2/2003 as

Mark-F and its postal receipt as Mark-G; documents Mark-H & I are photocopies of documents Mark-F & G as

aforesaid; copy of application for extension of leave from 1/3/2003 to 21/3/2003 as Mark-J and its postal receipt as

Mark-K: copy of the joining report dated 24/3/2003 as Mark-L; copy of application for casual leave for two days from

16/4/2013 to 17/4/2013 for visiting Aligarh due to urgent work as Mark-M; his application for extension of leave from

10/5/2003 to 11/6/2003 as Mark-N; copy of medical cum fitness certificate dated 22/4/2003 as Mark-O; his application

for extension of leave from 12/6/2003 to 5/7/2003 on the ground of domestic problems and ill health as Mark-Q and its

postal receipt as Mark-R; another application for extension of medical0 leave from 5/7/2003 to 14/8/2003 as Mark-S and

its postal receipt as Mark-T; his reply dated 13/11/2003 to the show cause notice of the Management as Mark-U;

representations given to the Management for allowing him to join duty and cancellation of his application for VRS as

Mark-V and W and its postal receipt as Mark-X; copy of the appeal against the dismissal order as Mark-Y.

12.

From the aforesaid documents it is evident that the workman/claimant sent applications by post to the

Management from time to time for grant of leave and/or extension of leave on the ground of illness and his inability to

join duty. The testimony of the workman/claimant in this respect has gone unchallenged and unassailed. The

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7225

Management has neither adduced any evidence to rebut the contention of the claimant that he was not given proper

hearing in the enquiry proceedings and that enquiry proceedings were conducted in a hurried and arbitrary manner, nor

has proved the enquiry proceedings & enquiry report so as to show that enquiry proceedings were conducted in a fair and

proper manner. Domestic enquiry being a quasi judicial one, the principle of natural justice are required to be complied

with. There is nothing on record to show that the workman/claimant was allowed to represent his defence through his

representative during the enquiry proceedings. As such, to my mind, the enquiry proceedings were erroneous and

enquiry report was not sustainable. Resultantly, action of the Management in terminating the services of the

workman/.claimant on the basis of enquiry report is held to be illegal and unjustified.

13.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R appearing for the workman submitted that the punishment of

dismissal from service imposed upon the workman /claimant on account of his misconduct of unauthorized

absence from duty and/or misconduct of leaving station without permission information was very harsh and the

workman /claimant should be ordered to be reinstated into service. I may mention that Section 11-A of the Act

empowers this Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of punishment in appropriate cases (See. - decisions of Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Versus Rawel Singh, 2008 AIR (SCW) 2099; of

Punjab & Hayana High Court in the case/s of Punjab National Bank Vs. The Presiding Officer, CGIT & another

2012 (2) SLR 631; Harnek Singh Versus State of Haryana & others 2010(3) SLR 276 and Joginder Lal Versus

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & another 1996() SCT 436). The discretion is to be exercised

judiciously in such cases where order of punishment is quite harsh & disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct of the

official concerned. No doubt the punishment awarded by the Management to the workman/claimant for his misconduct

regarding unauthorized absence from duty and/or for going outstation without permission/intimation is very harsh but the

fact remains that the workman/claimant by now must have attained the age of 60 years, because in his affidavit dated

30/11/2016 enclosed with the application u/order IX rule & CPC seeking recall/setting aside of order dated 8/9/2016

whereby his evidence was closed, he had disclosed his age as 58 years. As such, no useful purpose is going to be served

if the workman/claimant is ordered to be reinstated.

14.

Furthermore, it seems that by his own conduct of proceeding on long leave on one pretext or the other and going

outstation without intimation/permission of the Management, the workman/claimant has lost confidence of the

Management. In the recent decisions titled as Nanak Chand Versus M/s Indian Port Association, 2019 LLR 953 and

Gulab Singh Versus M/s Presidium School & another, 2019 LLR 956, our own High Court has held that in case of

loss of confidence, only lumpsum compensation can be awarded & not reinstatement, even if domestic enquiry is not

fair and proper and termination is also illegal.

15.

It is also a matter of record that for the reasons best known to him, the workman/claimant did not initiate action

against the Management immediately after his termination rather he approached the ALC/Conciliation Officer only in the

year 2013. The workman/claimant neither in his Statement of claim nor in the evidence has stated as to what was his last

wages/salary prior to his termination/dismissal from service vide order dated 17/1/2004.

16.

Having regard to the ratio of law and facts & circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, this

Tribunal considers that compensation amount of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs) will be just and reasonable. Therefore,

compensation amount of Rs. Five Lakhs is hereby awarded in favour of the claimant/workman which shall be paid by the

Management within three months from the date of publication of the Award, failing which the claimant will be entitled to

recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of publication of Award till realization. Award is passed

accordingly. Let copy of this Award be sent to the Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Date : 20.8.2019

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 10 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1838

1838

1838.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB एम.एस.टी.सी. िलिमटेड, ए 31, जीवन दीप िबnडंग, नई दली और अ1य एवं उनके कमBचारी के बंधतं@ के संब}

7226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1यायालय-2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभB संHया 27/2013) को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 25.09.2019 को

ाq )ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/179/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1838.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

M.S.T.C Ltd., A-31, Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 25.09.2019.

[No. L-42012/179/2012-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF MS. PRANITA MOHANTY: PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2, NEW DELHI

ID No. 27/2013

Shri Veer Singh s/o. Shri Kali Charan (since deceased),

Through his legal heirs

(i) Smt. Imerti Devi –wife;

(ii) Shri Sunil Kumar –son

(iii) Shri Ajeet Kumar –son

(iv) Ms. Preeti – daughter.

All R/o. B-18/471, ,

Indra Camp Jhuggi, Block-18,

Kalyanpuri, Delhi-110091

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

M/s. M.S.T.C Ltd.,

A-31, Jeevan Deep Building,

Asaf Ali Road,

New Delhi-110006.

M/s. Goel Services through Partner,

Shri Rajesh Aggarwal,

207, Jain Bhawan, 18/12, WEA,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

… Managements/Respondents

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter

No. L-42012/179/2012-IR(DU) dated 7/32013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:—

‘Whether the action of M/s Goel Services in terminating the services of the workman Shri Veer Singh on

20/5/2010, is fair and just ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant/workman Veer Singh filed statement of claim, with the

averments that that he was appointed as a cleaner in the year 1993 by Management No.1 through Management No. 2 and

he continuously worked upto 20/5/2010 at a last drawn salary of Rs. 6000/- per month. He worked with utmost

dedication, sincerity and without any complaint throughout. Management No. 2 was flouting all the rules and regulations

regarding providing legal facilities to the workman and when the workman demanded the same, Management became

annoyed and started creating troubles for the workman. Since 20/5/2010 the workman was not allowed to join his duties

and his services were orally terminated, without issuance of any charge-sheet, show cause notice and holding of enquiry

and without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman sent a legal notice dated 10/2/2011 but

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7227

the Management No.1 sent a false & frivolous reply dated 15/4/2011 instead of reinstating the workman. The workman

then filed a complaint before the Regional Labour Commissioner but the conciliation proceeding failed. The

claimant/workman was working against a post of permanent nature. It is pleaded that the workman has not been able to

get any alternative employment despite best efforts and is unemployed. He has prayed for reinstatement into service with

full back wages and continuity of services.

Management No. 2 did not cause appearance despite issuance of notice, whereas Management No.1 resisted the

claim petition by filing written statement and took preliminary objections inter alia that the workman was never

employed by them and therefore there was no relationship of employee and employer between the workman /claimant

and Management No. 1. Management No.1 had awarded contract for rendering different office works including

housekeeping services to Management No. 2 who used to deploy different persons according to their skill, ability etc.

The workman/claimant was neither employed nor dismissed/discharged by Management No. 1 and as such no dispute

exists between the workman and Management No.1. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition with

exemplary costs.

The workman filed rejoinder, reiterating his own case as set up in the statement of claim and denied the

allegations made by the Management No.1 in its written statement.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30/7/2014 :-

1) Whether the action of M/s. Goel Services in terminating the services of the workman Shri Veer Singh on

20/5/2010, is fair and just ? If so, its effect ?

2) To what relief the workman is entitled to ?

During pendency of the claim petition, the workman Veer Singh expired and his legal heirs were brought on

record vide order dated 5/1/2016. In order to prove the case, Smt. Imerti Devi widow of the workman late Shri Veer

Singh entered into the witness box as WW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A and placed

reliance on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/5. Shri Sunil – son of the deceased workman Veer Singh also

examined himself as WW2 and he tendered his affidavit Ex.WW2/A. On the other hand, the Management No.1

examined Shri Parimal Kishore Sinha, Chief Manager as MW1 who tendered his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the

documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/2.

I have heard Parimal Kishor, A/R for the Management No.1 as none appeared on behalf of the claimants to

address arguments. I have also gone through the record 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 as the same can be disposed of conveniently by

common discussion.

I may mention that affidavits Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A filed by the claimants are in consonance with the

averments made in the claim petition. WW1 Smt. Imerti Devi filed on record documents viz.- copies of the vouchers

regarding reimbursement of conveyance/travelling expenses as Ex.WW1/1 (colly.) photocopy of the identity card of her

husband as WW1/2; copy of GPF statement for the year 1993--98 as Ex.WW1/3; copy of the representation which the

workman Bir Singh had given to the Chairman cum Managing Director of Management No.1; copy of the reply to the

legal notice received on behalf of Management No.1 as Ex.WW1/5 In cross examination WW1 Smt.Imerti Devi while

admitting the contents of para 2 of her affidavit, showed her ignorance if her husband had applied for job or that her

husband was a contractual employee with M/s Goel Services – Management No. 2 herein.

MW1 Parimal Kishore Sinha in his affidavit Ex.MW1/A has categorically stated that the workman was never

employed by Management No.1 rather he was deployed by Management No.2 with the Management No.1. His testimony

has gone unchallenged and unassailed as none appeared on behalf of the claimant to cross examine him.

10-

Perusal of the statement of claim and testimony of WW1 & WW2 vide para 2 of their affidavits Ex.WW1/A and

Ex.WW2/A clearly shows that the deceased workman Veer Singh was working as a cleaner under Management No.1

through Management No.2 from 1993 till 20/5/2010. In the representation Ex.WW1/4 the workman while making

prayer for reinstatement stated that suddenly on 20^th May, 2010 Mr. Rajinder Sood, Contractor of MSTC had told

him not to come on duty from 21^st May, 2010 without mentioning any reason. It, thus, stands proved on record that

the workman was not the employee of Management No.1 rather he was employed by Management No.2. The workman

worked as cleaner in the office of Management No.1 through Management No.2 from 1993 till 20/5/2010 and that it was

Management No.2 who terminated services of the workman Veer Singh w.e.f.21/5/2010, by oral orders, without

specifying any reason. The Management No.2 has not come forward either to deny or rebut the allegations of the

claimant/workman or to show that services of the claimant were retrenched/terminated after serving him a prior notice or

7228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

payment of compensation in lieu of notice period as required under Section 25-F of the Act. 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 whole action of the Management illegal and wrong under the law.

11-

I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to

retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

“25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a) The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the

period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of

the notice;

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen

days’ average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months; and

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from

giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the

Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the

Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

12-

There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management illegal and void under the law.

13-

Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management No.2 to the workman

at the time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, action of the Management No.2

in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 21/5/2010 is held to be illegal and void.

14-

Testimony of the claimants that the workman Veer Singh worked under the Management No.2 from the year

1993 till 20/5/2010 has gone unchallenged. Perusal of the application for substitution moved by the legal heirs of the

workman shows that the workman Veer Singh expired on 27/6/2015 due to mouth cancer and he is survived by his

widow, two sons and daughter. Therefore, the prayer for reinstatement of the workman into service has become

infructuous, due to death of the workman. However, the legal heirs of the deceased workman are entitled to

compensation for illegal termination of services of the workman by Management No.2 herein. Testimony of the

claimants that last drawn wages of the workman were Rs.6000/- per month and that the workman had not been able to get

any alternative employment till his death despite his best efforts, has gone unrebutted.

15-

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the considered view that

compensation amount of Rs.4 lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs) will be just and reasonable. Therefore, compensation amount

of Rs. Four Lakhs is hereby awarded in favour of the claimants (viz. legal heirs of deceased workman) which shall be

paid by the Management No.2 within three months from the date of publication of the Award, failing which the claimant

will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of publication of Award till realization.

Award is passed accordingly.

Let copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Date :____________

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7229

नई द ली, 10 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1839

1839

1839.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB बेल सुर;ा सेवाएँ, ितवनंतपुरम केरल और अ1य एवं उनके कमBचारी के बंधतं@ के संब} िनयोजक% और उनके

कमBकार% के बीच अनुबंध म िन^दB_ औ{ोिगक िववाद म के1ीय सरकार औ{ोिगक अिधकरण एवं <म 1यायालय, कोचीन के

पंचाट (संदभB संHया 29/2014) को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 17.09.19 को ाq )ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2019- आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1839.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Cochin, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Bell Security

Services, Thiruvananthapuram Kerala. & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on

17.09.19.

[No. L-42025/07/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULUM

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

(Friday the 5^thday of September 2019, 14 Bhadra 1941)

ID No. 29/2014

Workman

Shri V.S. Gopinathan,

Vattaparambil House, Pamboor,

Kuttoor PO, Thrissur- 680013.

By Adv. C. Anil Kumar

Managements

Bell Security Services, IRA-45,

Gokul, Near S.L. Clinic,

Viswambaran Road,

Pappanamcode,

Thiruvananthapuram-695018

By Adv. Sinu G.Nath

General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Sanchar Bhavan, Kovilakathupadam,

Thrissur

By Adv. K.M. Jamuludheen

This case coming up for final hearing on 8-7-2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 5^th September 2019 passed

the following:

7230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This is an application filed by workman under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1952.

According to the workman, he was appointed as a Security Guard in the BSNL office at their Kovilakathupadam

office, Thrissur on 1-2-2010. His initial appointment was under M/S Kore Security Services, a security agency supplying

security guards to BSNL. The workman worked under that agency for 2 ½ years. Thereafter the contract of providing

security to 1^st management was taken over by the 2^nd management. Ever since his appointment on 1-2-2010, the

workman had continuous and uninterrupted service. 3 security guards were working with BSNL Kovilakathupadam.

They were Shri Valson, Shri Alexandar and the workman. One of the security guard, Shri Valson resigned on 30-4-2012

and Shri Alexandar and workman were required to work 12 hours on each day from 1-5-2012 to 8-5-2012. On 9-5-12,

the vacancy of Shri Valson was filled up by one Shri John Joseph. The management refused to pay overtime wages for

the additional work done from 1-5-2012 to 8-5-2012. The workman submitted a complaint to the Chief Minister in his

Sutharya Keralam programme. The workman was transferred to BSNL exchange at Chembukavu, Thrissur as a

consequence of the complaint filed by workman. In the meanwhile BSNL revised the wages of security guards from

1-2-2013 and the workman requested the management to revise the salary as per the revised instructions. Due to severe

back pain, the workman availed leave from 12-11-2013 till 21-11-2013. The workman reported for duty on 22-11-2013.

After a few hours of work, he was informed that his services are terminated by the 1^st management. The termination of

employment of the workman amounts to illegal retrenchment. The workman was not issued with any notice alleging any

misconduct before termination by the 1^st management. The termination of the workman is against principles of natural

justice and fairness. While terminating the workman, his juniors were retained by the 1^st management. His termination is

in violation of Section 25- F & 25-G of the I.D. Act. Ever since his termination, the workman is not alternately and

profitably employed or engaged anywhere. In these circumstances, the workman claimed that he may be reinstated with

all consequential benefits.

The 1^st management filed reply to the above allegations after considerable delay. In the written statement, the

1^st management denied all the allegations. According to the 1^st management, it is a security agency sponsored and

empanelled by Director General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Government of India on a resettlement

programme providing employment to ex-servicemen. The 1^st management as per terms of contract can extend its services

only to Government establishments or public sector undertakings. The workman is a Director General (Resettlement)

empanelled employee and he is governed by the rules and regulations of DGR (Resettlement) programme. The

1^st management denied that they have taken over the contract from a former employer of the workman. The

1^st management entered into an agreement with the 2^nd management from 1-2-2012 for providing security Guards till

31-1-2013. The contract was terminated by the 2^nd management on 31-1-2014. The workman entered the service of the

1^st management only after the commencement of the contractual agreement w.e.f. 1-2-2012. The workman is an

employee of 1^st management. The workman is enjoying all pensionary benefits as an ex-servicemen during his

employment. The workman is not terminated from the services of the 1^st management. On the contrary, the workman is

keeping himself away from his duties since 12-11-2013 without applying for leave or intimating the 1^st management or

the 2^nd management. The 1^st management issued a showcause notice dated 17-11-2000 to the workman for which he filed

no reply. It is true that the workman filed a complaint before the State Government but the complaint was closed as false

after due investigation by the Government. The workman was transferred to an adjacent BSNL exchange on the basis of

the terms of contract that the security guards deployed by the agency should be rotated in every six months. The wages

and allowance in respect of the Security Guards are revised periodically by Department of Resettlement, Government of

India and the 1^st and 2^nd management are bound to comply with such revisions. The allegation that the 2^nd management

revised the wages of the security guards and issued a circular to that effect is against the rules of resettlement. The

workman did not avail leave from 12-11-2013 but he was on unauthorized absent from duties since 12-11-2013 i.e.

immediately after transfer of the workman to Chembukavu Exchange. Despite the efforts taken by the 1^st management,

the workman remained absent and unavailable and hence the 1^st management was compelled to substitute another guard

at Chembukavu. It is false that the workman reported for work on 22-11-2013 and later he was informed that his services

were terminated. Infact the workman rushed to Chembukavu Exchange and has brutally beaten one Shri Joy C.V who

was posted in place of the workman. The alleged termination of his employment is a fiction of imagination of the

workman. The 1^st management also confirmed that inspite of all the above incidents, he did not take any steps for

termination of the workman. The 1^st management is ready to accommodate workman in any available vacancy in

Ernakulam District where his active contract subsists. But the workman was insisting for a posting in Thrissur District.

The workman still remains unauthorisely absent. However on the basis of the complaint filed by him before the Labour

Authorities, the 1^st management arranged a posting from a similar empanelled agency and offered him employment at

M/S Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. Ambalamugal from 1-2-2014 onwards with increased rate of wages and

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7231

allowances being at Kochi. But this said offer was not accepted by the workman. The workman is still earning pension

and other benefits from Government of India as Ex-servicemen and he and his family are not dependent on his earnings

from the 1^st management.

The 2^nd management also filed written statement denying the allegations of the workman. According to them,

there is no employer- employee relationship between the workman and the 2^nd management. The workman is an

employee of M/S Bell Security Services, Trivandrum and Bell Security services is an establishment registered with

Director General of Resettlement (DGR) for providing security guards to Government and Public Sector undertakings.

The pay and allowances of the security guards are fixed by the DGR. The 2^nd management is one of the organizations to

which Security Guards are provided by the agencies. The contract with the 1^st management expired on 31-1-2014. The

workman was previously working as Security Guard under other agencies who were providing security guards to BSNL

during previous years. The workman has no relationship with BSNL and BSNL is not a necessary party in the dispute.

At present the 1^st management is not working with BSNL at Thrissur District. The claim of the workman regarding

wages and overtime wages are to be settled between the workman and the 1^st management and the 2^nd management has

no role in the same. The workman has not claimed any relief from the 2^nd management.

The 1^st management remained exparte after filing written statement. They failed to produce any evidence to

substantiate their claims in the written statement filed by them. The workman did not claim any benefit from the 2^nd

management. 2^nd management being a formal party did not adduce any evidence in the Industrial Dispute. The workman

gave evidence as WW-1 and marked documents Exhibits W-1 to W-9.

The issue to be decided in this Industrial Dispute is;

Whether denial of employment to the workman by the 1^st management is legal and justified and if not, whether he is

entitled for reinstatement in service.

The workman through his evidence has adequately proved that he was in service of the 1^st management atleast

from April 2012. Exhibit W-2 produced by the workman shows that he was in employment of the 1^st management from

August 2010 which is denied by the 1^st management. However Exhibit W-6 series will clearly show that the workman

was working at BSNL, Kovilakathupadam atleast from April 2012. This is further supported by Exhibit W-1 series

which shows that the workman was working with the 1^st management from April 2012. Exhibit W-2 is a reply given by

District Labour Officer, Trivandrum to the workman stating that the investigation conducted by the State Labour

Department did not disclose any arrears of wages. It is also a fact that the appointment of the workman as a Security

Guard from 1-4-2012 is not denied by the 1^st management. According to them, the workman remained unauthorisely

absent. However they have not taken any action to terminate him from service and only a substitute is posted in his place

as he was unauthorisely absent. According to the reply filed by the 1^st management, they even offered an employment

through another agency in Ernakulam since their contract with BSNL in Thrissur district was already over in 2014. In

view of the position taken by the 1^st management, the only question that requires to be answered is whether there was any

denial of employment by the 1^st management to the workman. Though the 1^st management failed to produce any

evidence, it is very clear from the documents produced by the workman himself that they only substituted another ex-

servicemen in the place of workman when he remained absent. Exhibit W-7 & W-8 will clearly show that the workman

was absent from his duties w.e.f. 12-11-2013 without any intimation and one Mr. Joy C.V is temporarily posted in his

place and later made it permanent. In view of this evidence and the position taken by the 1^st management, I am of the

considered view that the 1^st management can be directed to provide employment to the workman with continuity of

service but without backwages.

In view of the above, an award is passed directing the 1^st management to provide employment to the workman with

continuity of service but without backwages.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribedand passed by me on this the 5^th day of September 2019.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

7232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

Workman Shri V.S.Gopinathan on 14^th June 2019

Witness for the Management

Nil

Exhibits for the workman

W-1

Copy of attendance Register maintained by 2^nd management

W-2

Letter dated 30-1-2013 issued by District Labour Officer to Workman.

W-3

Letter dated 26-10-2013 regarding transfer/posting of Security Guards.

W-4

Letter dated 14-8-2013 regarding revised wage structure calculation.

W-5

Copy of Bills for months of December 2011, June 2013 & July2013 submitted by Ist management to

2^nd management in series.

W-6

Wage statement of August 2010, March 2012, May 2012 & September 2013 in series.

W-7

Copy of letter dated 20-11-2013 regarding appointment of Ex-servicemen Security Guard.

W-8

Copy of letter dated 21-11-2013 issued by Ist management.

W-9

Attendance register for the period 1-11-2013 to 22-11-2013.

Exhibits for the Management

Nil

नई द ली, 10 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1840

1840

1840.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB महाबंधक, ए.पी.ई.डी.ए, नई दली और अ1य एवं उनके कमBचारी के बंधतं@ के संब} िनयोजक% और उनके

कमBकार% के बीच अनुबंध म िन^दB_ औ{ोिगक िववाद म के1ीय सरकार औ{ोिगक अिधकरण एवं <म 1यायालय, गुवाहाटी

के पंचाट (संदभB संHया 02/2013) को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 04.10.19 को ाq )ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/133/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Manager, APEDA, New Delhi. & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on

04.10.19.

[No. L-42012/133/2012-IR (DU)]

V. K.THAKUR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7233

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

Ref. Case No. 02 of 2013

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

Workman Sri Binod Ch. Barman, Guwahati.

… Claimants/Union

-Vrs-

The Management of (1) The General Manager, APEDA, New Delhi,

(2) The A.G.M., APEDA, G.S.Road, Guwahati.

…O.Ps/Managements

APPEARANCES

For the Workmen

Mr. J.K.Kar, Advocate,

Mr. H.K.Dey, Advocate.

For the Management. :

Mr. M.K.Das, Advocate,

Mr, R.Kaman, Advocate,

Ms Z.Anjum, Advocate.

Date of Award: 01.10.2019

AWARD

This industrial dispute between workman Binode Chandra Barman and management of APEDA was referred by

the appropriate government vide Notification No.L-42012/133/2012-IR(DU) dated 24.12.2012 with the following

Schedule.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development

Authority (APEDA), under M/o Commerce & Industry in terminating the service of Sh. Binod Chandra

Barman w.e.f. 01.01.2012 without notice and without any terminal benefits as well as refusal to reinstate him

on completion of 13 yrs into service is proper and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the concerned parties. They appeared and submitted their

respective written statements. The management raised a preliminary objection claiming that the reference is not

maintainable under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the plea that the APEDA is not an

industry within the meaning of the Act. After hearing both parties this Tribunal decided the preliminary issue holding

that the “Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority” (APEDA) is an industry within the

meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. The parties were thereafter asked to adduce their respective evidences. Both parties

examined one witness each.

The plea of the claimant was that he was engaged in the Regional Office of Agricultural & Processed Food

Products Export Development Authority, Guwahati (APEDA) on 06.10.1998 and he worked there continuously till

31.12.2011 with certain notional breaks. He claimed that in each calendar year he had worked for more than 240 days in

the Office of the management but ultimately his services were terminated illegally with effect from 01.01.2012. Initially

the Head Office of the management in New Delhi appointed the claimant/workman as a casual/contract employee with

effect from 06.10.1998 and posted him at the Regional Office, Guwahati for a period of three months and thereafter by

different appointment orders his services were extended on each occasion by six months showing certain notional breaks.

He also claimed that the appointment orders would reveal that he was paid monthly wages on consolidated basis but

suddenly on 31.13.2011 his service was discontinued and the management admittedly engaged another person in the

similar manner to perform the job. According to the claimant his termination was in violation of the provisions of Section

25F of the Act. He prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages.

The case of the management was that the contractual engagement of the concerned workman ended on

31.12.2011 and thereafter the management did not extend his contract. The management claimed that non-extension of

the contract of the concerned worker does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of the Act. It was also stated

that the Regional Office of APEDA at Guwahati had only 2 officers who constantly keep moving throughout the North

7234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Eastern States to assist and instruct the agriculturalists about the specified products and hence, they did not require any

regular Peon. But to do certain odd works, contractual appointments were given to the claimant with fixed monthly salary

which came to an end on 31.12.2011. It was also stated that initially the concerned workman was engaged from

06.10.1998 to 05.01.1999 vide letter dated 28.09.1998 on consolidated pay of Rs.3,111/-. It was also stated that in the

said contract it was specifically mentioned that there will be no employer employee relationship between the

management and the concerned workman. He was never appointed on regular basis and his services were hired on

contractual basis for a specific period. It was also stated that in the given facts and circumstances it would not be justified

to compel any management to provide contractual engagement in the office. It was also stated that the concerned

workman claimed to have submitted a representation dated 02.02.2012 before the management to allow him to continue

in service followed by similar representations on 26.03.2012 and on 11.06.2012. But according to the management, they

did not receive such representations. On 22.02.2012 the workman raised Industrial Dispute before the Appropriate

Authority. The management also took the plea that APEDA is not an Industry within the meaning of the Act.

This Tribunal decided the preliminary issue against the management holding that the reference is maintainable.

Thereafter both the parties examined one witness each. Concerned workman Sri Binod Ch. Barman in his examination-

in-chief stated that he served as a Casual Peon in the Office of the management for about 13 years 3 months but suddenly

his service was terminated. He also stated that at the time of his initial engagement his monthly wages was Rs.3,111/-

and then from the year 2000 the monthly wages was Rs. 3494/- and at the time of his retrenchment his monthly wage was

Rs.8400/-. He stated that he used to do manual work in the office and even the AGM, sometime, made him to work in his

residence even on holidays. He further stated that initially for 2 years 6 months he worked as casual Peon without any

break but later certain breaks were shown in his service but actually he worked continuously. He also stated that P.F. etc

were deducted from his wages. He further stated that after his dismissal he was not paid gratuity although there was an

order for payment of gratuity. He exhibited Exhibit-1, 2 & 3 which are 3 original Attendance Registers to show that he

was in employment of the APEDA. He further stated that he was given a photo copy of appointment letter which he

marked as Exhibit-X. He further claimed that he was not given any termination letter and was verbally told that his job

was terminated. He further stated that after his dismissal he submitted two representations which he marked as Exhibit-5

& 6. He further submitted that during his engagement he was paid bonus and the connected document was exhibited as

Exhibit-7. He also exhibited a sanction letter in respect of uniform which he had to wear while in service. He further

stated that he was also paid conveyance allowance as and when necessary by the management. Exhibit-10 is the said

document. During cross-examination he admitted that his engagement initially got extended every 3 months and after

about 2 and ½ years the said engagement used to be extended every six months. He also admitted that he had been

working as per terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. He further admitted that after 31.12.2011 his service

was not extended. He also admitted that no interview took place during his selection. He further stated that he did not

know whether the management filed a case before the Hon’ble High Court when he claimed the gratuity. He further

admitted that after termination of his service he put up a Pan shop before the APEDA Office to sustain his livelihood. He

however denied the management suggestion that the post in which he was working became unnecessary resulting in his

disengagement. He also denied the suggestion of the management that he was not made to work in the house of the then

AGM during his employment in the office.

In examination-in-chief Ms Sunita Rai, the present AGM of APEDA, Guwahati exhibited Exhibit-A to show

that she is the authorized representative of the management. She also stated that the concerned workman was engaged in

the APEDA on contractual basis from time to time for fixed periods on fixed terms and conditions and such contract was

not renewed after 31.12.2011. The witness also exhibited copy of the Memorandum dated 08.07.2011 as Exhibit-B

wherein it was clearly mentioned that the engagement was purely on contractual basis and the contract was subject to the

terms and conditions mentioned therein. The witness thereafter went to recite the terms and conditions mentioned in

Exhibit-B. The witness further stated that the concerned workman put his signature on the memorandum and thereby

agreed to the terms and conditions. It was also stated that Annexure-10 which the workman submitted is a confidential

official communication and the concerned workman had stolen the copy from the office as he was not supposed to have

access to that document. The witness further stated that the workman used to steal confidential documents from office for

which the local management lost faith on him and as such his contractual engagement was not renewed. The witness

further stated that even after receiving many complaints against the workman the management was generous and never

deprived the workman of his dues. It was also stated that on demand of gratuity by the workman the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Guwahati directed the management to pay Rs.68,250/- as gratuity. It was also stated that the

management challenged the aforesaid direction by filing the W.P(C) No.857/2013 before the Hon’ble Gauhati High

Court and in view of order dated 25/02/2013 passed in the aforesaid W.P.(C), the management deposited the entire

amount of Rs.68,250/- in the Registry of the Hon’ble High Court. The witness also proved certified copy of the order as

Exhibit-E. It was also stated that presently the workman is gainfully employed and doing business of tea stall and pan

shop in front of the APEDA Regional Office, Guwahati. During cross-examination the witness stated that she joined in

Guwahati Office in the year 2015 and the facts relating to the concerned workman are not within her personal

knowledge. Her knowledge about the matter was based on related documents available in office. The witness also stated

that the original engagement of the concerned workman was by the head quarter of APEDA at Delhi but there was no

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7235

advertisement for the post but the appointment letter was issued from the Head Office. The witness also admitted that the

concerned workman was engaged in their Office from 6.10.1998 to 13.12.1999 and then from 20.12.1999 to 21.8.2000

and again from 24.08.2000 to 27.04.2001 and later with some periodic breaks he was engaged up to 31.12.2011. When

the Attendance Register Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-2(1) against the “name column” of the concerned workman was shown to

the witness the witness admitted that there was some over writing and below the over writing the word “BREAK” is

written. The witness also admitted that the work of Peon/MTS was to be supervised by the concerned official in the

office but it might be so that on some occasions the concerned workman might have been the only staff in the office.

During argument learned counsel appearing for the workman side submitted that since the engagement of the

concerned workman was directly made by the management and the wages etc were directly paid by the management,

there clearly existed a relationship of employer and employee between the management and the concerned workman. In

view of the above admitted facts, according to the counsel, termination/retrenchment of the concerned workman ought to

have been dealt with in accordance with the provisions mentioned in Section 25F of the Act. He further submitted that

the management tried to malign the workman without giving him any opportunity and if the ground for disengagement

was such “alleged misconduct”, due process ought to have been followed. But the management did not follow the

accepted procedure and the action of the management was in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further

argued that since his termination was illegal and arbitrary, he should be reinstated in the job with full back wages.

The management side argued that it would be evident that the concerned workman was paid his wages as per the

agreed terms and conditions and since his engagement was purely contractual up to a certain period, non-extension of the

period of contractual engagement cannot be held to be termination/retrenchment. His engagement was purely on the basis

of terms and conditions mentioned in Ext-B & B(i). It was also argued on behalf of the management that the conduct of

the worker, while in engagement, was also found to be detrimental to the interest of the employer.

On perusal of the materials on record it appeared that engagement of the workman on the basis of

contract/agreement for more than thirteen years with certain breaks is not in dispute. Admittedly, his engagement was

discontinued from 1.1.2012. In other words, the primary facts are not in dispute. It was clear from the materials on record

that from the year 1998 to 2011 the workman was working as peon in the office of APEDA, Guwahati with certain

breaks. His wages were directly paid by the management. His original appointment was given by the head office of

APEDA in New Delhi. Accordingly, there appeared a clear “employer and employee” relationship between the

management and the concerned worker.

10.

The management has taken two pleas in support of disengagement. Firstly, his engagement was purely on

contract basis and was as per the terms and condition set out in Ext-B & B(i). He therefore, could not be treated as an

employee within the meaning of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. Secondly, his conduct was not proper and he

even used to steal things from the office. The management witness also gave an example of Annexure-10, submitted by

the workman, and claimed that it was stolen by the workman from the office. It is interesting to note that the management

witness did not challenge the authenticity of the document. I have, therefore, gone through the above document since it’s

authenticity was not denied by the management witness. The document appeared to be a letter written by the AGM of

APEDA, Guwahati on 26.3.12 to the head office virtually recommending re-engagement of the workman on contract

basis as, according to them, he has realized his mistakes. It was also indicated that for smooth functioning of the office,

such engagement is necessary. Only objection of the management was that Annexure-10 was “stolen by the workman”.

But even in farfetched imagination “such access” of the workman to that “document” cannot be held to be an act of theft.

It was not clear from the material on record as to how the workman accessed the document. But such access cannot be

termed as an act of stealing. The other plea of the management was that the engagement was purely on contract basis and

is guided by the terms and condition mentioned in the engagement contract [Ext-B & B(i)]. Any contract between two

highly unequal is always to be read and understood in the context of the related facts and circumstances. Perusal of the

Ext-B & B(i) clearly revealed that the terms and conditions set out therein was heavily loaded in favour of the

management. When a poor workman is asked to enter into an agreement/contract with a mighty management in regard to

employment, no workman of grade-IV level can perhaps be expected to put in any condition from his side because of the

simple and natural apprehension of losing out the job. We therefore, have to appreciate the matter in the context of the

relevant facts and circumstances. The workman, admittedly, worked with the management for about 13 years. After such

a long engagement he simply cannot be treated as a worker purely engaged on terms and conditions which are heavily

loaded in favour of the management.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it appeared to me that though

technically engagement of the concerned worker was in terms of Ext-B & B(i), the sheer length of his continuity

(13 years) in the job is bound to lead to a natural inference that he was an employee of the APEDA, Guwahati, though

not a regular one. Admittedly, he was not a regular employee. But the materials on records clearly suggested that the

nature of the works done by him was of perennial nature. The workman worked for 13 years in the APEDA, Guwahati.

Hence, the action of the management of APEDA, which is a unit under the Ministry & Commerce of Government of

7236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

India, in terminating the service of the concerned workman Sri Binod Chandra Barman without adhering to the

provisions laid down in Section 25 F of the Act was illegal and arbitrary.

12. The concerned workman is therefore, entitled to be reinstated. His engagement/reinstatement in the same category

shall be with effect from the date of his actual reinstatement. The management shall also pay him a lump-sum amount of

Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One lac only) in lieu of the back wages. The award shall be fully implemented by the management

of APEDA within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the award. The reference, accordingly, stands

disposed of with an award as indicated above.

Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal this 1^st day of October, 2019.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1841-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@140@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 19 of 2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/140/2004-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 19/2005

Employer in relation to the management of S.D.Q.III Tarmi Project of M/s. CCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Adv.

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 29.08.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/140/2004-IR (C-I) dated 17/12/2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7237

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of S.D.Q.III Tarmi Project of M/s. CCL not to provide

employment to Shri Santosh Bhuiya, the dependent son of late Rameshwar Bhuia, Ex workman is

justified? If not, to what relief is the said dependent son of the concerned workman entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter again a notice was issued to the parties and one of the notices

returned unserved. The Case is pending since long and workman is not appearing before the Tribunal. It appears that the

workmen has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No Dispute” Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1842-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@715@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 22 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/715/1997-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 22/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Gopalichuk Colliery of M/S. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri N.M. Kumar. Adv.

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated 29.08 .2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/715/1997 -IR (C-I) dated 20/12/1995 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

7238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union for regularization of S/Sri Ram Prasad Pandit

and 13 others as per annexure by the management of Gopalichak Colliery is legal and justified? Whether

the action of the management in stopping the concerned workmen from service was legal, justified and

according to law? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from which date?”

List of workmen

Sl.

No.

Name

Father name

Village

P.S.

Dist

Ram Prasad Pandit

Late. Dilo Pandit

Sabal Bigha

Sikandra

Jamui

Suresh Prasad

Disheshwar Prasad

Bhojdih

Ariary

Shekhpura

Mashudan Pandit

Birju Pandit

Gohda

Ariary

Shekhpura

Shideshwar Pandit

Rohan Pandit

Sabal Bigha

Sikandra

Jamui

Arjun Pandit

Bishundeo Pandit

Upharaur

Barahiya

Lakhisaray

Devendra Pandit

Shukar Pandit

Haripur

Ariary

Shekhpura

Shiv Shankar Prasad

Baleshwar Prasad

Bhojih

Ariary

Shekhpura

Devendra Prasad

Basudeo Pandit

Uphraur

Barahiya

Lakhisaray

Bachu Pandit

Rameshwar Pandit

Thalposh

Pakri Barama

Nawada

10.

Rajendra Pandit

Ram Pandit

Karki

Ariary

Shekhpura

11.

Suresh pandit

Chhotan Pandit

Shekhpura

Halri

Lakhisaray

12.

Md. Ajay

Late. Irdhan Mia

Lorighna

Simriya

Chatra

13.

Md. Riasat

Saphrudin Mia

Lorighna

Simriya

Chatra

14.

Upendra Pandit

Shukar Pandit

Haripur

Ariary

Shekhpura

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued to the workmen but even then no one

appeared on behalf of the workmen. Case is pending since long and workmen are not appearing before Tribunal so, it is

left that workmen have lost their interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1843-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@106@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 24 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/106/1999-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7239

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 24/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Tetulmari Colliery under Sijua Area of M/S. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Adv

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 30.08.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/106/1999 -IR (C-I) dated 18/08/1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Tetulmari Colliery under Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL in not

regularizing the services of Ram Charitra, Dozer Operator (Excvn), Gr. ‘A’ as Foreman in Technical &

Supervisory Gr. ‘B’ the post on which he has been working since 11.08.1992 is justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled ?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

the workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued to the workman but even then no

one appeared on behalf of the workmen. Case is pending since long and workman is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it

is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1844-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@168@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 25 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/168/1999-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

7240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 25/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/S. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Adv.

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated 28.08.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/168/1999 -IR (C-I) dated 24/08/1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union to regularize Shri Janardan Singh & 4 others named below in service

paying Cat. I wages is justified? If yes, to what relief these workmen are entitled?”

2. Whether the termination of these workman by the management is justified? If not, to what relief these

workmen are entitled & from what date?’’

Name of the workmen:-

Shri Janardan Singh, S/O Indradeo Singh,

Shri Binod Chaudhary, S/O Sambhu Chaudhary,

Shri Krishnendu Das, S/O Sunil Das,

Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, S/O Ramakant Mishra,

Shri Dinesh Mahato, S/O Kashi Mahato.

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

the workmen left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued to workmen but even then no

one appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long and workmen are not appearing before Tribunal. so,

it is felt that workmen have lost their interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1845-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2000½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@245@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7241

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 39 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/245/1999-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 39/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Colliery of M/S. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Adv.

For the workman. : Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 29/08 /2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/245/1999 -IR (C-I) dated 20/01/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BCCL Govindpur Area No. III in not regularizing Sri Bansi

Oraon as Explosive Issue Clerk/Magazine Clerk w.e.f. 30.06.1989 with back wages and other

consequential benefits is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but

subsequently workmen left taking step in this case. Further in course of hearing of the case, the Secretary of Sponsoring

Union has informed that workman is not interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman has lost his

interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1846-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- &1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 48@2000½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@258@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

7242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 48 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/258/1999-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 48/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Central Workshop, Barkakana of M/S. CCL

AND

Their workmen

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma. Adv.

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated : 30/08 /2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/258/1999 - (C-I) dated 20/01/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh for regularization of 17 workmen (as per

list) engaged in Canteen Cooperative Society from the management of Central Workshop, Barkakana of

M/s. C.C.L is justified and legal? If so, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”

Shri Surendra Prasad Lal

Shri Uma Shankar Lal

Shri Tarun Kumar Rai

Shri Dinesh Bedia

Shri Sukhdeo Munda

Shri Sahdeo Kachchap

Shri Sukhla Prajapati

Shri Mukund Karmali

Shri Rima Prajapati

10.

Shri Bal Kishun Karmali

11.

Shri Lalka Pahan

12.

Shri Deonandan Sharma

13.

Shri Kamal Prajapati

14.

Shri Rajeshwar Singh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7243

15.

Shri Rohan Munda

16.

Shri Deepak Kumar

17.

Shri Madan Prajapati

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

the workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued but even then no one appeared

on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long and workman is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that

workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1847-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 72@2000½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@327@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 72 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/327/1999-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXUR

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 72/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Swang Washery of M/S. CCL.

AND

Their workmen

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Adv.

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated : 29.08.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/327/1999 - (C-I) dated 28/01/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

7244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Union/workmen for regularization of Sri Raja Ram Saw, Category-II,

Arjun Singh, Category-I and Mahangu Ram, Category-I of Swang Washery CCL as D.G. Set Operator

Gr. ‘C’ is correct and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from what

date?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter again a notices were issued to the workmen and one of the

notices returned with endorsement that “Addressee left”. The Case is pending since long and workmen are not appearing

before the Tribunal. It appears that the workmen has lost their interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No Dispute” Award

is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1848-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 139@2000½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@509@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1848.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 139 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/509/1999-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 139/2000

Employer in relation to the management of W.J.Area of M/S. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Adv.

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated 29.08.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/509/1999 -IR (C-I) dated 01/03/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7245

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Moonidih M/s. BCCL is not Promote Sri Nageshwar Singh

Electricial Fitter as he working of Cat-6 from 1993 and not giving salary and other allowances is proper

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

workman left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter again a notice was issued to the parties and subsequently

management appeared but the notice of the workman returned with endorsement that address left the place. The Case is

pending since long and workman is not appearing before the Tribunal. It appears that the workmen has lost his interest to

resolve the matter. Hence “No Dispute” Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1849-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 193@2000½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@56@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 193 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/56/2000-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 193/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Joyrampur Colliery under Lodna Area of M/S. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Adv.

For the workman. : Sri S.C. Gour. Rep.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated 28.08.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/56/2000 - (C-I) dated 29/06/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

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

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

7246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Joyrampur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in superannuating Sri

Ramayan Singh, Pump Operator w.e.f. 09.09.1999 is justified with particular reference to the age assessed

by the Medical Board as 07.12.1940? if not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but

subsequently workman left taking step in this case. Further in course of hearing of the case, the Vice President of

Sponsoring Union has informed that workman is not interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman has lost

his interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1850-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u

cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@47@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.11/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No

2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-12012/47/2012-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF MS. PRANITA MOHANTY: PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No. 2, NEW DELHI

ID No. 11/2013

Sunil Kumar s/o. Shri Mahender Singh,

r/o. H.No.261, Pandav Nagar,

near Karan Public School, District Meerut,

C/o. Shri Praveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate,

Veer Sadan, B-239 Shastri Nagar, Meerut.

…Workman

Versus

The Branch Manager,

Union Bank of India, RG College Branch,

Western Court Road, Meerut.

Chief Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

In Front of Govt. Inter College,

Meerut.

…Management

AWARD

By this award I propose to decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide

letter No.L-12012/47/2012/IR(B-II) dated 14.12.2012 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:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7247

“Whether action of Union Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, w.e.f.

02-01-2011 without complying with provisions of Section 25 F,G,H of Industrial Disputes Act is justified ?

What relief the workman is entitled to ?’’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant/workman Sunil Kumar filed his statement of claim with the

averments that he has been working as Safai Karamchari/Waterboy under the Management for the last 15 years. His

work and conduct was always satisfactory and he gave no chance of any complaint. He continued to work upto 1/1/2011

and when on 2/1/2011 he reported for duty, he was not allowed to perform his duty. He continuously worked under the

Management for 240 days in every calendar year. The services of the workman/claimant were illegally and unjustifiably

terminated without giving him any notice or notice pay/compensation prior to termination of his services and the

Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman was working against permanent

vacant post, which is still available with the Management. The Management is getting the work done from Shri Charan

Singh who is junior to the workman/claimant and as such the Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-G

and H of the Act. He got sent a demand/legal notice by registered post vide communication dated 14/2/2011 but to no

response. Even the conciliation proceedings resulted into failure. The workman/claimant is unemployed since the date

of his termination and he has not been able to get employment despite best efforts. He has prayed for reinstatement into

service with full back wages and continuity of services & seniority etc. as well as full consequential benefits, besides

claiming litigation expenses of Rs.15000/-.

The Management resisted the claim of the workman by filing written statement and took preliminary objections

inter-alia that the claimant was not at any point of time a workman in the Bank of the Management and hence, there is no

question of any illegal termination or violation of Section 25-F,G & H of the Act.. It is alleged that the mode of

recruitment to the post of subordinate staff/part time staff is to make a requisition to the Employment Exchange to

sponsor candidates or by advertisement in the newspaper and by following due procedure of recruitment. It is not

permissible for a Branch Manager or any other Officer to make any appointment for the post of attender or part time

sweeper. The Branch Manager only has the discretionary power to engage personal servants for carrying out his personal

works and such servants are purely engaged by the Manager in his personal capacity, whereas the Management Bank has

nothing to do with such engagement. Prayer has been made for rejection of the claim petition.

The workman/claimant filed rejoinder, reiterating his own case as set up in the statement of claim and denied the

allegations made out by the Management.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 23/3/2015 :-

Whether action of Management of Union Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Sunil Kumar Singh,

w.e.f. 02/1/2011 without complying with Section 25 F, G, & H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified ? If so, what

effect ?

To what relief the workman/claimant is entitled to and from what date ?

Number of opportunities were given to the workman/claimant to lead evidence in support of his case but the

claimant failed to do so and ultimately, this Tribunal was constrained to close evidence of the claimant vide order dated

1/10/2018. Though opportunity was also afforded to the Management to adduce evidence, however it opted not to lead

any evidence.

I have heard Shri Rajat Arora, A/R for the Management as none appeared on behalf of the claimant. I have also

gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 and 2 :-

Both these issues being co-related are taken up together and same can be disposed of conveniently by common

discussion.

Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Management strongly contended that there is no relationship of employer and

employee between the Management & claimant, as the Management never recruited/appointed the claimant at any point

of time. It was also contended that onus is also upon the claimant to prove that he was in the employment of the

Management and had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year.

10.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of

Management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his

employment with the Management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record

of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/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.

7248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

I may mention that number of opportunities were granted to the workman. No evidence has been adduced on

his behalf. The claimant/workman even did not enter the witness box either to substantiate the averments made in the

claim petition or to rebut the case of the Management that there existed no relationship of employer-employee between

the Management & claimant. Perusal of the record shows that the claimant did not appear before the Tribunal from

27/4/2017 despite the fact that matter was adjourned time and again and ultimately this Tribunal was constrained to close

his evidence vide order dated 1/10/2018.

12.

In view of the fact that the claimant has not led any evidence in support of his case, it may be presumed that the

workman/claimant does not want to prosecute the case as against the Management on merits. In these circumstances,

this Tribunal has no option but to pass “No Dispute Award” in the matter. Award is passed accordingly.

Date :___________

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1851-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wukbVsM

cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@52@2017&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of United Bank of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-12011/52/2017-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 02 of 2018

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

Workmen represented by United Bank of India Employees

Association, Assam State, Guwahati.

…Claimants/Union

-Vrs-

The Management of United Bank of India, Regional Office,

Jorhat & Another.

…O.Ps/Managements

APPEARANCES

For the Workmen. : Mr. B.Kakoti, Union Secretary

For the Management. : Mr. B.Deb, Asstt. Manager,Law, UBI

Date of Award: 30.09.2019

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7249

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute between “United Bank of India Employees’ Association” and the management of

“United Bank of India” was referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide Notification

No.-L-12011/52/2017-IR(B-II) dated 20.02.2018 with the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India represented by GM (Resource

Management), Head Office, 11, Hemantabasu Sarani, Kolkata-700001 and Chief Regional Manager,

Sibsagar Region, Regional Office, Dohabora Road, Jorhat-785001 in deduction of excess wages paid in one

installment and thereby non-payment of wages to Shri Moromjeet Gogoi and 03 other part time sweepers

continuously for four months from June, 2016 to September,2016 in contravention of provisions of payment

of Wages Act, 1936 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which

date?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the concerned parties i.e. United Bank Employees

Association, Assam, Guwahati, the claimant Union and the management of United Bank of India Regional Office, Jorhat

and another representing the management.

By filing the claim statement the workmen side stated that the management resorted to unfair labour practice by

depriving 4 numbers of part time sweeper (concerned workmen) from their legitimate salary consecutively for 4 months

namely June, July, August and September, 2016 in the name of recovering the amounts “paid in excess to them” in the

month of salary for May, 2016. The action of the management caused serious hardship to the employees which deserves

to be redressed. It was further stated that the concerned workmen namely Sri Moromjeet Gogoi, part time Sweeper of

Kamarbandha Branch, Sri Partha Jyoti Borah, part time Sweeper, Amguri Branch, Md. Majibul Rahman, part time

Sweeper of Padumani Branch and Sri Laxmi Narayan Dey, part time Sweeper of Barua Bamun Gaon branch have been

deprived of their salary for the months of June to September, 2016. It was further stated that the reason for non-payment

has not been made known to the employees concerned which according to the management was enforced due to mistake

of excess payment made to the aforesaid employees in the month of May,2016. It was also stated that even if an

employee is under suspension he is paid by the management @ 1/3^rd of his salary. But in the present case the entire salary

for the aforesaid 4 months were deducted in the name of the recovery of the excess amount paid in the month of May,

2016. The workmen Union has prayed for refund of the amount recovered by the management along with interest.

The management, in their written statement, stated that at the relevant time all the aforesaid part time Sweepers

were drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 6512.75 and they are still in service. It was further submitted that in the year 2016

the management initiated a process for elevation of its part time Sweeper to House Keeper–cum-Sub Staff in pursuance

to its policy as circulated vide Circular No. PA(AS)/ELEVATION/4/OM-715/15-16 on 20.02.2016. As per the said

Circular Sweepers who had completed 5 years of service as on 31.12.2015 were eligible to be promoted to House

Keeper-cum-Sub Staff with effect from 01.04.2016 and thereafter they will be entitled to get salary as applicable under

new fitment to full time Subordinate employee of the Bank and other benefits, as per the Bipartite Settlement dated

19.10.1966. It was further stated that for providing monitory benefits and higher service benefits all part time Sweepers

were asked to exercise their options for promotion as House Keeper-cum-Sub Staff on phased manner. In response to the

said Circular of the Bank the concerned part time Sweepers also submitted their applications for the promotion. It was

also stated that through inadvertence, office letters were issued to the above workmen though they were not eligible for

consideration of promotion as House Keepers-cum-Sub Stafff w.e.f. 01.04.2016 in the first phase of such process as per

rules. However, they were treated as promoted and accordingly the salary for the month of May, 2016 was paid to the

part time Sweepers under new fitment as applicable only to House Keeper-cum-Sub Staff. Consequently the concerned

employees had received salary of Rs. 26983/- in the month of May 2016 though in the aforesaid month they were eligible

for salary of Rs. 6512.75. It was also stated that during the review of the process the above error was noticed by the Bank

Authority and necessary corrective measures were taken for recovery of the excess salary paid to them by the Bank.

According to the Bank, any amount which is erroneously paid in excess to the staff can be lawfully recovered. On the

aforesaid ground the management stated that the management did not commit any unfair labour practice by recovering

excess payment made to the concerned workmen by deducting their entire salary for the subsequent four months.

Both sides examined one witness each. Workmen side examined Sri Biswajit Kakoti, who is the Secretary of

United Bank of India Employees Association, Assam. He stated that while the salary for the month of June, 2016 was not

received by the concerned 4 workmen as a result of sent percent deduction in the name of recovery of excess payment

released to them wrongly, the matter was informed to the concerned General Manager at Head Office of United Bank of

India, Kolkata requesting him to release the salary for the sake of livelihood of the concerned workmen. However no

reply was given by the management. Accordingly, an Industrial Dispute against the management of United Bank of India

for unlawful labour practice was raised and ultimately the matter was referred to this Tribunal. He further stated that the

7250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management in its written statement has admitted that excess payment was made to the concerned workmen in the month

of May, 2016 and subsequently when the error was detected the recovery was made by deduction of entire salary of

subsequent 4 months i.e. from June to September, 2016. During cross-examination the witness admitted that at the time

of deduction of the salary the concerned workmen were working as part time Sweepers and he knew that the wages of

part time Sweeper is 1/3^rd of the wages of regular Sweeper. He further stated that he did not know as to whether the

concerned workmen intimated the Bank Authority about the excess amount being credited to their respective bank

accounts. He also admitted that at the time of deduction of the concerned amount all the workmen were working as part

time workers.

The management side examined one Sri Bhaskar Deb, Asstt. Manager, United Bank of India at Guwahati. He

stated that the amount which was recovered was wrongly credited to the account of the concerned workmen as the salary

for the month of May,2016. He also stated that such excess amount was paid inadvertently and accordingly it was

subsequently recovered. During cross-examination the witness admitted the correctness of Exhibit-A exhibited by the

workmen side. He also admitted that while making the recovery the management deducted the entire salary component of

the concerned staffs in 4 months. He also admitted that a circular was issued in respect of excess payment to Class-III

and Class-IV employees of the Bank.

During argument the Secretary of the Union, who conducted the matter before this Tribunal himself stated that

because of the recovery of the entire salary for 4 consecutive months from, June 2016 to September, 2016 the concerned

workmen had to suffer immense hardship. He further stated that the nature of deduction was completely in violation of

rules and as such, the management be directed to refund the recovered amount along with interest.

Argument for the management side was made by the concerned Bank Officer who examined himself as witness.

He stated that the recovery of excess payment is not unjustified. He categorically stated that the management did not

resort to unfair labour practice and only such amount was recovered which erroneously paid in excess.

9. On consideration of the evidence as well as submission made by the rival parties it appeared that the primary

fact of excess payment to the concerned workmen is not in dispute. The workmen side has challenged the nature of

recovery in the form of entire salary of the four consecutive months. There is no denial of the fact that deduction of entire

salary towards recovery of excess payment from a Class-IV staff is bound to cause extreme hardship. The excess amount

could have been recovered in installments keeping aside a part of salary so that the employees could sustain. But the

management did not appear to have shown that sensitivity. The fact of the matter, however, is that the recovery has

already been made and now the refund of the entire recovered amount and subsequent recovery of excess payment in

installments also does not appear to be justified or workable. The management admitted that the excess amount was

made due to human inadvertence. But, at the same time, it is also true that extreme hardship was caused to the employees

by the sheer nature of recovery. The nature of recovery was indeed wrong. Every wrong should have a remedy and the

only workable remedy in this matter would be to award at least a token compensation to the concerned employees.

10. Accordingly, it is directed that the concerned management shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the

concerned employees within a period of 90 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this Award. The reference,

accordingly, stands disposed of with the Award as indicated above.

Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal this 30^th day of September, 2019.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1852-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dksjiksjs”ku cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 60@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@120@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7251

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2019

S.O. 1852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Corporation Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-12011/120/2006-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 30^TH SEPTEMBER 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 60/2007

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

Corporation Bank Employees Guild,

Ananda Plaza, Anand Rao Circle,

Bangalore - 560 009.

The Chief Manager,

Corporation Bank,

Head Office,

Mangaladevi Temple Road,

P B No. 88,

Mangalore - 575 001.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. K. Srinivasa

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Pradeep S Sawkar

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/120/2006-IR(B-II) dated 01.05.2007 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 Corporation Bank in refusing to consider the restoration of

reduced basic pay of Shri M.V. Manjunatha consequent to the decision on O.S. No. 353/1999 is justified

or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

The claim of the workman Sh. M.V Manjunatha is espoused by the Union. The fact is,

The 1^st Party workman joined the 2^nd Party Bank as a Peon in March 1983 and was promoted as a Clerk in 1988. While

working at Kenchammana Hoskote Branch he was placed under suspension under certain allegation pending

departmental enquiry; vide order dated 01.01.1994, Enquiry was initiated, Enquiry Officer held him guilty of charges of

tampering of ledger entry. Based on the enquiry finding the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service vide

order dated 08.09.1994. During the Conciliation proceedings settlement was reached between the parties on 14.12.1995;

he was appointed as Clerk on 13.01.1996 without any back wages. He filed the Civil suit seeking declaration that the

alleged tampering of the ledger entry is not made by him and the suit was decreed as prayed for vide judgment dated

31.08.2005. Said judgment and decree has become final. He sought monetary entitlement on the basis of the said

judgment from the date of his suspension. But the Bank has refused to consider his prayer. The judgment and decree

passed in his Original Suit No. 353/19 is binding on the Bank.

The claim is contested on the ground that, during conciliation meeting the Management agreed to reinstate him

purely on humanitarian grounds, accordingly a settlement u/sec 12(3) of ‘the Act’ was entered. In pursuance of the

settlement he is reappointed as Clerk subject to terms and conditions stipulated in the settlement. After re-joining the

service and serving the Bank for 3 years in the year 1999, he filed the Civil Suit and judgment on decree is passed as

prayed for. Since the settlement entered into under sec 12(3) of ‘the Act’ is final and binding u/sec 18(3) of ‘the Act’ the

terms of settlement cannot be nullified in a collateral proceeding. The request of the 1^st Party workman in his letter dated

01.04.2006 requesting to restore the woes and consequential benefits is not accepted. He has neither questioned the

7252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

terms of settlement arrived before the ALC (C) Bangalore nor challenged the order of dismissal in the Civil Suit. The

mere declaration of the Court cannot be a ground for re-opening of the Settlement. In the absence of any specific

direction by the Civil Court with reference to the terms of the settlement and the order of dismissal of the 1^st Party from

the service of the 2^nd Party, his application for recalling of the earlier settlement dated 14.12.1995 entered before ALC

(C) does not merit consideration. There is considerable delay of 13 years in raising the dispute, on that ground itself the

reference is liable to be rejected. It was clearly stipulated in the Memorandum of settlement dated 14.12.1995 wherein it

was inter alia agreed that the 1^st Party would be reinstated in the Bank and the period from the date of his termination till

the date of reporting for duty based on the Settlement would be reckoned for the purpose of Payment of Gratuity and

continuance of his membership in the Bank’s Provident Fund Scheme only. It was clearly stipulated that this period shall

not be reckoned for payment of any age, grant of any increment or extend any other service benefits. The reference is

liable to be rejected.

Evidence is adduced and written argument is submitted by both the parties.

Effort was made by the 2^nd Party by examining the Enquiry Officer to demonstrate that the Punishment order

was passed consequent upon a valid Domestic Enquiry and the Enquiry Report held him guilty of the misconduct. But

that is not the crux of the matter. The scope of the present reference is limited only to the extent of monetary benefit that

may arise consequent upon the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S No. 353/1999 on the file of the

Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) & J.M.F.C DD 31.08.2005.

It is not in dispute between the parties that the workman was found guilty of the charges alleged in the charge

sheet dated 27.12.1993. The essence of the allegation was he had issued cheque No. 790533 on 04.06.1993 for Rs.

1,000/- in favour of one Smt. Rukmanvathi R Chandr which was purchased by Hassan Branch and sent for collection to

K Hoskote Branch were the 1^st Party was working. As there was no sufficient balance in his SB Account, to meet the

said cheque he fraudulently altered the closing balance in his SB ledger Account he entered the cheque No. 790533 in his

SB ledger Account and arrived at the closing balance of Rs. 43.24/- thus tampered the Bank records.

Now it is the history that a Domestic Enquiry was conducted on the charges and he was found guilty and was

dismissed from service by an order dated 08.09.1994.

The Trade Union / Corporation Bank Employees Guild espoused his cause and raised the Industrial Dispute.

During the course of conciliation, a Tripartite Settlement was entered on 14.12.1995 on the following terms (Ex M-22)

Terms of Settlement:

The management has agreed that

It shall appoint Sh. M.V Manjunath as clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 1750-5500 and the appointment

order will be issued within thirty days from the date of Settlement.

It shall fix the basic pay of Sh. M.V Manjunath at Rs. 2,530/- pm and allow him to draw his next

annual increment on completion of twelve months from the date of his joining duty.

It shall reckon the period from the date of his termination till the date of his reporting for duty based

on this Settlement for the purpose of payment of gratuity and continuance of his membership in the

Bank Provident Fund Scheme only.

It shall not pay any wages, grant any implement or extend any other service for the above period.

It shall post Sh. M.V Manjunath as clerk in any of its Branches in Hassan region.

The union has accepted the above terms and also agreed that it shall not quote this settlement as

precedent while deciding any past / pending / future dispute / cases.

The parties have agreed to send their compliance report before 25.01.1996 failing which it shall be presumed that the

Settlement has been implemented in full.

The settlement is signed by the Chief Manager and Personnel Officer representing the Management the General

Secretary, Organising secretary and Authorised Representative representing Union, witnessed by the Stenographer and

one LDC in the presence of Conciliation Officer and A.L.C (C)-II, Bangalore.

The Settlement was complied, the 1^st Party was taken on duty. Three years thereafter he filed the Civil Suit

(Supra) seeking the relief,

To declare that the entries made out in the Account extract on 31.05.1993 and 01.06.1993 in his Account No.

3593 in the Bank are not the entries made out by him.

The suit was contested and was decreed as below:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7253

ORDER

The suit is decreed with cost.

Accordingly, it is declared that the entries made out in the ledger account pertaining to SB Account No. 3593

belonging to the plaintiff are not made out by the plaintiff.…..

Two years thereafter the very same Union has raised the dispute and the claim statement is verified by the

General Secretary of the Union. The ground urged in the claim statement is contrary to the terms of Settlement of

14.12.1995 for which very same Union was a Party. To reiterate the ground

the workman has not tampered the ledger entry to his SB Account No. 3593 and as such the basis of

allegation of the allegation of misconduct, placing the 1st Party workman under suspension w.e.f

01.01.1994, his removal from the services of the Bank by Order dated 08.09.1994 and the Settlement

dated 14.12.1995 entered into when the workman was placed in such a difficult situation, taken away

and all such proceedings have been void ab initio and the 1^stParty workman throughout

uninterruptedly and becomes entitled to salary and all other service benefits.

that the judgment on Decree of the Civil Court passed and issued on 31.08.2005 in O.S No. 353/1999 is

binding on the Bank, the Bank is not justified in refusing to consider the restoration of reduced basic

pay of a workman and to pay his all monetary entitlements.

Not only the first ground is beyond the scope of the referred issue but also contradicts the terms of Settlement of

14.12.1995. He had not sought for any consequential relief pursuant to the declaration prayed by him against the

defendants therein perhaps with a hidden agenda. He never sought for a Decree nullifying the settlement dated

14.12.1995. There is no semblance between the Decree passed by the Civil Court and the second ground raised by him

in his claim. The referred issue (supra) does not call for an adjudication to hold that the entire settlement proceedings

and the settlement are void ab initio.

So much is placed by way of evidence by him about the innocence of the 1^st Party workman viz a viz the

charges held proved against him, his helpless situation subsequent to his dismissal, to accept the terms of settlement and

the misconduct not being so grave so as to attract the punishment of dismissal. During their rebuttal evidence the

Management has gone on to produce evidence about the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry conducted by them and the

promotions granted to the workman on his reinstatement and his pay scale etc. Unfortunately, all the above evidence is

redundant and is of no avail for adjudication of the referred issue.

10.

Thirteen years after the Settlement and its compliance of the same the dispute is raised. By any number of

judicial pronouncements, the Higher Court have held delay and laches in raising the dispute is sufficient to disentitle the

workman for the relief. The judgment of the larger Bench of the Apex Court relied by the 2^nd Party in the matter of

National Engineering Industrial Limited and State of Rajasthan & Others, 2000-I-LLJ-247, answers to the dispute raised

in this matter. Accordingly, a Tripartite Settlement challenged by the workers without any specific allegation was not

appreciated in that case. It was held “Industrial Dispute can be raised where Settlement is not bona fide and are arrived

at, on account of fraud, misrepresentation or concealed fact or corruption of other inducements.” It was further held at

para 26 of the judgment “A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority

union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even whose who belong to the minority union which had

objected to the same. Recognised union having majority of members is expected to protect the legitimate interest of

labour and enter into a settlement in the best interest of labour. This is with the object to uphold the sanctity of

settlement reached with the active assistance of the Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or

minority union from scuttling the settlement. When a settlement is arrived at during the conciliation proceedings it is

binding on the members of the Workers’ Union as laid down by section 18(3)(d) of the Act. It would ipso facto bind all

the existing workmen who are all parties to the industrial dispute and who may not be members of unions that are

signatories to such settlement under section 12(3) of the Act. Act is based on the principle of collective bargaining for

resolving industrial dispute and for maintaining industrial peace. “This principle of industrial democracy is the bedrock

7254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the Act”, as pointed out in the case of P. Virudhachalam & Ors. Vs Management of Lotus Mills & Anr. (Supra). In all

these negotiations based on collective bargaining individual workmen necessarily recedes to the background.

Settlements will encompass all the disputes existing at the time of the settlement except those specifically left out”.

11.

Without seeking a Decree from the Civil Court to nullify the settlement and without raising a Industrial Dispute

challenging the fairness of the Settlement the dispute raised for the monetary benefit which was beyond the scope of the

Legal settlement is baseless.

Order (ii) Rule 2 and 3 of the CCP contemplates

Suit to include the whole claim -

Every suit shall include the whole claim the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of cause of action;

but plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of

any court.

ii)

Relinquishment of part of claim -

Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he

shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

iii)

Omission to sue for one of several reliefs -

A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue or all such relief; but if he omits,

except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.

Without seeking an order from the Civil Court enabling him to execute the declaratory Decree obtained, now 1^st Party

cannot blame anyone except himself. The dispute raised in respect of monetary relief since seized long back under the

legal settlement there is no Industrial Dispute between the parties which calls for adjudication in this reference. Hence,

AWARD

The reference is rejected. 1^st Party workman is not entitled for any relief

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 30^th September 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 11 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1853

1853

1853.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB भारतीय िवमानपDन ािधकरण एवं अ1 य के बंधतं@ के संब} िनयोजक% और उनके कमBकार% के बीच अनुबंध म

िन^दB_ औ{ोिगक िववाद म के1ीय सरकार औ{ोिगक अिधकरण एवं <म 1यायालय-2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभB संHया

30/2018) को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 09.10.2019 को ाq )आ था।

[सं. एल-11012/2/2017-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2019

S.O. 1853.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, 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 others and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 09.10.2019.

[No. L-11012/2/2017-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7255

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 30/2018

Date of Passing Award- 6^th August, 2019

Between:

Shri Bodan Ram,

S/o Shri Surjan Singh,

Through Airport Employees Union,

BTR Bhawan, 13-A, Rouse Avenue,

New Delhi- 110002.

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Airport Authority of India,

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi- 110003.

M/s. DIAL, New Udan Bhawan,

IGI Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi-110037.

M/s. Sea Hawak Cargo Carriers (P) Ltd.,

26M Block, Grater Kailash Part-II,

New Delhi.

M/s. Celibi Delhi Cargo,

Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.,

Room No. 23, Import Building, 1^st Floor,

International Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport,

New Delhi- 110037.

M/s. APM Aircargo Terminal Services,

107, Transport Enter, Punjabi Bagh,

New Delhi- 110035.

…Managements

Appearances:-

None for the workman (A/R)

For the Workman.

Shri Sunil Dutt

For the AAI

Shri Vijay Yadav

For the Celibi

Shri Ashok Kumar

For the Sea Hawak

Shri Digvijay Rai & Manish Sehrawat

For the DIAL

None for the APM (A/Rs)

For the APM

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between

employer i.e. the management of M/s Airport Authority of India, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of

sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-11012/2/2017

(IR(M) dated 09.03.2018 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the service of Shri Bodan Ram S/o Shri Surjan Singh have been terminated w.e.f. 16.11.2014 illegally

and/or unjustifiably by M/s APM Air Cargo, contractor for the management of Celebi Delhi Cargo, Terminal

management India Pvt. Ltd. and if so, what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this

respect?”

7256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference was received from the Appropriate Government following schedule. Pursuant to the same notice was

issued to the claimant and all the respondents. The claimant and all the 5 respondents were noticed to appear and submit

their pleading. The claimant though appeared and took time for filing of claim statement later on abundant the

proceeding. The A/Rs for the management No.1,2,3, and 4 appeared through their authorized representatives but could

not filed their pleadings. Since no claim statement was filed by the claimant.

It seems the claimant has no dispute for adjudication and it is felt proper to pass a no claim award with relation to the

reference received from the appropriate government. It is accordingly ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is dismissed for non advancement of the claim by the claimant. Send a copy of this award

to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 11 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1854

1854

1854.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB नेशनल इंp योर स कं. िलिमटेड के बंधतं@ के संब} िनयोजक% और उनके कमBकार% के बीच अनुबंध म िन^दB_ औ{ोिगक

िववाद म के1ीय सरकार औ{ोिगक अिधकरण एवं <म 1यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभB संHया 18 एवं 25/2013-14)

को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 10.10.2019 को ाq )आ था।

[सं. एल-17012/7/2013-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2019

S.O. 1854.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18 & 25/2013-14) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-17012/7/2013-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/18 & 25/2013-14

Date: 30.09.2019

Party No. 1:

The Branch Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Branch Manager, Bhandara-441904,

Maharashtra.

V/s.

Party No. 2:

Shri Ramesh S/o Waman Bhagat,

Ambedkar Ward, Bhandara,

Tah. & Distt. Bhandara-441904,

Maharashtra.

AWARD

(Dated:-30^th September, 2019)

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred in form of two same

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7257

references having same date and order, which were received on same date, but different inward numbers i.e. Dy. Nos.

132 and 139 and Case Nos. CGIT/NGP/18/2013-14 and CGIT/NGP/25/2013-14 were marked, in the industrial dispute

between the employers, in relation to the Management of National Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, Ramesh

Bhagat for adjudication (which were consolidated thereafter as per order dated 27.08.2013 and tagged with

CGIT/NGP/18/2013-14), as per letter No. L-17012/7/2013-IR (M) dated 23.05.2013, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhandara in terminating the

services of Shri Ramesh S/o Shri Waman Bhagat, ex-office boy/peon with effect from 08.03.2011 is just

fair & legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

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

statement, in response to which, the workman, Shri Ramesh Bhagat (“The workman” in short) filed the Statement of

Claim and the Management of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (“Party No.1” in short) filed its Written Statement.

On behalf of workman, he filed Statement of Claim with asserting that, he was initially appointed as a water boy

for summer season w.e.f 22.04.1993 to 30.06.1993. Thereafter, every year he was engaged by Party No.1 till the year

2000 for the same purpose. In November 2000, the workman was appointed as Office Boy cum Peon by the Party No.1

and since then workman was in continuous service with the Party No.1 till the date of his illegal termination i.e.

08.03.2011. The past service record of workman was clean and unblemished.

Workman also asserted that, he was in continuous service with the Party No.1 i.e. Insurance Company and had

completed more than 240 days of continuous service long back. By virtue of this, workman had acquired the status of

permanent employee as per clause 4C of Model Standing Orders. As the workman had acquired the status of deemed

permanent employee therefore, his services cannot be terminated without following the due procedure of law. However,

the Party No.1 Branch Manager orally terminated the service of the workman w.e.f. 08.03.2011 without assigning any

reason in writing and without complying with mandatory provisions of ID Act and the workman was getting merely Rs.

1500/- (Rs. Fifteen hundred only) p.m. towards his wages. Workman was required to work from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

As Office Boy he was required to clean the office, arrange files, do outdoor works and occasionally had to visit Nagpur

office of Party No.1 for official work as per their directions.

Workman also asserted that, he was working with the Party No.1 at Bhandara as Office- Boy cum Peon since

November 2000, without any break and Party No.1 i.e. Insurance Company maintains a common seniority list of class IV

employees at the Division level. However, no seniority list was published or exhibited as required under section 25G of

ID Act.

According to workman, Party No.1 did not issue termination order in writing, so it is treated as void abinitio and

prayed that, termination order dated 08.03.2001 declared to be illegal and arbitrary and also prayed that, he entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service, with full back wages and cost of litigation Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five thousands only)

in the interest of justice.

Party No.1 filed written statement by denying all material facts, asserted in statement of claim. They specially

denied that, workman initially appointed as water boy for summer season w.e.f 22.04.1993 to 30.06.1993 and he was

continue in service till date of illegal termination. According to management i.e. Party No.1, he was not employee of the

Party No.1. He never appointed as Office-Boy cum Peon.

Party No.1 denied facts mentioned in the para no.3 of statement of claim. According to management it is denied

that, the workman was in continuous service with Party No.1 and had completed more than 240 days of continuous

service long back. It is submitted the documents placed on record is contrary to his pleading, the workman should be put

to strict proof of having completed 240 days of continuous service long back. It is denied that, by virtue of this workman

had acquired the status of deemed permanent employee therefore, his service cannot be terminate without following the

due procedure of law.

According to the Party No. 1, on few occasions the Party No.1 was called for 2 to 3 hours to clean the office

floor, in absence of full time sweeper, and some times during summer for filling water in cooler and was paid wages for

his work and also submitted that, he was continuously requesting to Party No.1 to make him permanent in service. It is

further denied that, every time the Party No.1 assured that, his case for permanency would be sent to the Head Office at

Calcutta. It is specifically denied that, as Party No.1 was giving the assurance.

10.

According to management, workman was not given employment. Hence, the question of termination and giving

of one months notice does not arise. According to them, Party No.1 maintains a common seniority list of Class IV

employees at the Divisional level only of those employees who are given employment and the workman was not given

7258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appointed, hence the question of giving written termination order does not arise and pray that, workman is not entitled

any relief, because a false story has been concocted by the workman hence, he prayed that, reference needs to be

answered in the negative.

11.

On behalf of workman, he filed rejoinder in same footing as per statement of claim by asserting that, the

payment of workman was enhanced from time to time. According to him, in the year of 2004, payment of workman was

enhanced up to Rs.1500/- (Rs. Fifteen hundred only) per month. He also asserted that, he was continuous in employment

with the Party No.1 till his termination. According to workman Minimum Wages Act is applicable to Party No.1. He also

asserted that, he is out of employment and facing economic hardship.

Point of determination:-

“Whether order of termination is just fair & legal?”

“Whether workman is entitled to any relief?”

Reason for decision:-

12.

In case law, Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, AIR 2010 Supreme

Court 1236, in which following principles are laid down:-

The appellant claim that, the respondent did not work 240 days. The respondent was a workman hired

on a daily wage basis. So it is obvious, as this court pointed out in the above case that, he would have

difficulty in having access to all the official documents, muster roll etc. in connection with his service.

He has come forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the

employer/appellants to prove that, he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to

constitute continuous service. It is the connection of the appellant that, the services of the respondent

were terminated in 1988.

The appellants have inexplicably failed to produce the complete records and muster rolls from 1985 to

1991, in spite of the direction issued by the Labour Court to produce the same. In fact there has been

practically no challenge to the deposition of the respondent during cross-examination. In this regard, it

would be pertinent.

“A Court of Law even in a case where provisions of the Indian Evidence Act apply, may presume or

may not presume that, if a party despite possession of the best evidence had not produced the same, it

would have gone against this contentions. The matter, however, would be different where despite

direction by a court the evidence is withheld.”

The appellants have clearly failed to prove that, the services of no junior employee was continued when

the services of the respondent was terminated.

On behalf of workman, it was argued that, he was initially appointed as a water boy in summer session, but in

November 2000, he was appointed as Office Boy cum Peon and since then he was continuous in service with Party No.1

i.e. Management till the date of his illegal termination i.e. 08.03.2011. This argument is denied by the management i.e.

Party No.1. Now, I want to see firstly the workman’s evidence.

13.

On behalf the workman, he examined himself as P.W.1 in support of their statement of claim, but in para 14 of

his cross-examination he admitted that, he did not file any copy of appointment showing that, he had applied for the

appointment. He also admitted in para 14 and 15 of his cross-examination that, “I was working with United India

Insurance company and whenever required I was called by the National Insurance Company, it is correct to say, but I had

been work in this way only till year 2000. He also admitted that, he worked both Insurance companies that duration. He

also admitted that, he filed a letter dated 22.04.1993, which is related to his appointment in United India Insurance

Company. In this way, his version is contradictory regarding period of working i.e. it is doubtful whether he whole time

worked in Party No.1 i.e. National Insurance Company or both Insurance Company.

14.

P.W.1 Ramesh in para 2 and 3 of his evidence on affidavit asserted that, he had completed more than 240 days

continuous service in the year 2001, so he acquire the status of permanent employee. He also proved document P-1 to P-6

in his court examination, but as I mentioned above that, letter dated 22.04.1993 shows that, he was appointed in the

period of 26.04.1993 to 30.06.1993 in the United India Insurance Company as Water Boy, but no appointment letter is

filed regarding Party No.1. Document exhibit P-1 to P-6 shows that, all these correspondence regarding permanency for

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7259

the post of Peon from 08.03.2011 to 30.06.2011, but it is not related for the period of 2001. In this way oral evidence is

not supported by documentary evidence. Now, I want to see the management evidence.

15.

On behalf of management, Mr. Pravin Branch Manager M.W.1 was examined in support of their defence. In his

chief-examination, he submitted all details as per Written Statement. According to him, he was working from 1988 to

2013 as a Branch Manager at Bhandara in Party No.1. According to him, versions of workman regarding appointment

from November 2000 till his termination up to 08.03.2011 as an Office Boy cum Peon is totally false. According to him,

workman was called during summer season for filling water in coolers and whenever the regular staff were on leave, he

was called for to sweep the floor and to do some miscellaneous work, but in para 8 of his cross-examination he asserted

that, he do not know workman Ramesh Bhagat. He was giving his statement on the basis of record i.e. vouchers and

correspondences, but he did not filed these documents and he cannot assign any reason for not filing these documents.

16.

On perusal of the statement it shows that, documents, which are in custody of management, did not file by the

management Party No.1 i.e. defense of management is not supported by the documents, which are in his custody, so in

the light of principle laid down in above case law adverse inference can be drawn against the management.

17.

Workman Ramesh P.W.1 in his chief-examination asserted that, he requested to Branch Manager and higher

authority to regularize his service and grant him a status of permanent employee. In support of his version he filed P-1 to

P-7 in which P1 to P6 related correspondence regarding his regularization and permanency to the Branch Manager and

head office, but these correspondences as I mentioned above in the year of 2011, after 08.03.2011, but not related to year

of 2001. On the assessment of this evidence it cannot be presume that, he work continuously 11 year with Party No.1 and

he completed 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year. I also observed that, management did not produce the

concerned document, which are in his custody, but it does not shows that, they have some record duration of the service

of the workman, but it also appears that, they have some records of vouchers regarding payment of the contingency

services.

18.

Management relied on case laws:-

Gangakisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Jaivir Singh 2007 (7) SCC 748, Kishore Ahuja vs. Balkrishna C.

Kadam and others 2013 (3) Mh.L.J Page No. 145 and Raghunath Ambadas Hatgale Vs. Divisional Controller and Depot

Manager, MSRTC Divisional Office, Aurangabad 2016(2) Mh.L.J. Page No. 477 in which Hon’ble High Court and

Supreme Court laid down following principles.

Labour Court was bound by the terms of the reference—Evidence which is de hors the pleadings

cannot be taken cognizance of –There are too many loose-ends in the case of the respondent-workman

in his pursuit of the relief of reinstatement and back wage—Labour Court totally misdirected itself by

not considering these aspects.

Admittedly the workmen belonged to ‘seasonal category’---High Court also noted that, they were not

permanent employees, who were to undergo probation---Despite, pleading status of permanent

workmen, no averments were made that they had completed probation period---Nature of appointment

was also not established---No appointment letter could be filed.

“It is settled law that the Employee has to prove the factum of appointment/employment and continuity

in service. The onus and burden initially lies on the Employee. ------------ Petitioners were not

appointed by the respondent /MSRTC considering their own admissions. The record as regards their

payments made fortnightly could have been preserved by the respondent/MSRTC for sometimes. After

the period of 20 to 22 years, whether such record could be said to be available with the respondent, is

the core issue. --------------- after 20 years, may not be possible”.

Held that, “though dispute is stale Labour Court considered evidence and held that no workmen proved

their employment and 240 days continuous service”.

19.

Ongoing above discussion it also appears that, he was appointed as regular Peon, because evidence shows that,

regular Peon is appointed through employment exchange, but record does not shows that, such procedure follows in case

of workman. Evidence did not show that, his service was terminated, but according to management, workman work in

office of Party No.1 as exigency services. Nothing in record shows that, he was terminated from the service, so in my

opinion this is not actual case of termination, but some sort of regularization. I relied on case laws:-

7260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

20.

Held, framing of any scheme is no function of Court but sole prerogative of Government – High Court in

exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 can only direct Government to frame appropriate scheme – it is

only in exceptional case where Court considers it proper to issue appropriate mandatory directions it may do so.

21.

We are of the opinion that the respondent Union’s claim for regularization of its members merely because they

have been working for BRO for a considerable period of time cannot be granted in light of several decisions of this

Court, wherein it has been consistently held that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and

merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be

entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process

envisaged by the relevant rules. [See State of Karnataka v. Ganpathi Chaya Nayak, Union of India v. Kartick Chandra

Mondal; Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar and Rameshwar Dayal v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.]

State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753: Official Liquidator v. Dayanand,

(2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S)943; Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2), (2011) 4 SCC 200 : (2011) 1

SCC (L&S) 659, followed.

22.

The Hon’ble High Court in para 3 & 5 of his judgment dated 04.08.2016 held that, Hon’ble Supreme Court in

AIR 1998 SC 2722 service of show cause notice has been held to be necessary by having the same actually served.

Publication of show cause notice in newspaper in those facts has been frowned upon and judgment of learned Single

Judge in 2009 Mh. Lj 294 Luthfuddin Sheikh (supra) failure to furnish report of the Inquiry Officer has been held to be

voilative of principles of natural justice thereby vitiating the final order.

23.

a) In case law—Delhi Transport Corp. Vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that” Where

principles of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted even if

termination of service is found to be valid.” On the basis of principles laid down in case laws:- Engineering Laghu

Udhyog Employees Union vs Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in which it was

held that:- “no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under

S.10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as

required by Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on

facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same

footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would

have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” These principles are also laid

down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws- Punjab Urban Planning & Development authority Vs. Mandip Singh

(2016) 7 SCC-571, UPSRTC Vs. Gopal Shukla (2015) SCC 603, Sanjay Singh Vs. National Seed Corporation (2017) 13

SCC 269, V.D. Vegad Vs. State of Gujurat (2017) 2 SCC 508 and Angikr Oriental (Arbic) Higher Secondary School Vs.

A. Harnoon (2017) 2 SCC 510.

23-b)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in above case laws: Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited

versus A. Sankaralingam, held that, “The preponderance of judicial opinion is that a workman working even on a part-

time basis would be entitled to benefit of Section of 25-F of the Act”.

23-c)

Advocate for the Party No.1 in his written argument, shown five case laws, but he did not file hard copy of

every case law mentioned in written argument. He only filed above case laws.

24.

In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where

principles of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted even if

termination of service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering Laghu Udhyog

Employees Union vs Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in which it was held that:-

“no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under S.10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by

Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as

well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing

as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to

satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” These principles are also laid down by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws- Punjab Urban Planning & Development authority Vs. Mandip Singh (2016) 7

SCC-571, UPSRTC Vs. Gopal Shukla (2015) SCC 603, Sanjay Singh Vs. National Seed Corporation (2017) 13 SCC

269, V.D. Vegad Vs. State of Gujurat (2017) 2 SCC 508 and Angikr Oriental (Arbic) Higher Secondary School Vs. A.

Harnoon (2017) 2 SCC 510.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7261

25.

Ongoing the above discussions and judging the present case with the touchstone of above case laws, I come to

conclusion that, workman fails to prove that; he was working with Party No.1 as a peon from last 11 years. He also fails

to prove that, he was working with Party No.1 in the year of 2001 up to till termination, more than 240 days in each

calendar year. As documents P-6 and P-7 and fact admitted by the management, show that, he worked some time with

party No.1 office on contingency services, he also worked in that time e.g. to take stationary from Divisional Office,

transportation of furniture for the bank from where bank purchase, delivery or supply of the cover note, to take out Xerox

copy of the Party No. 1 from Xerox copy Center, but he failed to produce his appointment letter and termination letter. It

also appears that, his services were terminated without paying any compensation, so in my opinion he is entitled for

compensation. Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhandara in terminating the services of

Shri Ramesh S/o Shri Waman Bhagat, ex-office boy/peon with effect from 08.03.2011 is just, fair & legal, but the

workman is entitled to Lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2, 00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) in lieu of

retrenchment compensation, pain and suffering during this litigation, which is payable within one month from the

publication of this award in official gazette, failing to which, amount due to the workman will carry interest of 6%

per annum from the date of due to the workman to the date of actual payment of the amount to the workman. He

is not entitled for any other relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 11 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1855

1855

1855.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB िवजय इंजीिनय‚रंग एंटराइजेज ाइवेट िलिमटेड एवं अ ~ा टेक सीम ट िलिमटेड के बंधतं@ के संब} िनयोजक% और

उनके कमBकार% के बीच अनुबंध म िन^दB_ औ{ोिगक िववाद म के1ीय सरकार औ{ोिगक अिधकरण एवं <म 1यायालय,

नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभB संHया 26/2015-16) को कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 10.10.2019 को ाq )आ था।

[सं. एल-29012/34/2015-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2019

S.O. 1855.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/2015-16) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Vijay Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-29012/34/2015-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/26/2015-16

Date: 24.09.2019

Party No.1:(a)

M/s Vijay Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,

Shricon House, 25 Pragati Layout,

Rajiv Nagar, Wardha Road,

Nagpur-440025.

Party No.1:(b)

The Unit Head,

M/s Ultra Tech Cement, Awarpur Cement Works,

Awarpur Cement Works, At Awarpur,

Chandrapur (M.S.)

7262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

Party No. 2:

Shri. Shashikant Wasudeo Diwe,

R/o Vill-Awalpur, Tah. – Korpana,

Dist. – Chandrapur (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated:-24^th September, 2019)

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

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between

the employers, in relation to the Management of M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. and their workman Shri. Shashikant

Wasudeo Diwe, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-29012/34/2015-IR (M) dated 18.09.2015, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., At Awalpur, Chandrapur in

termination the service of Shri. Shashikant Wasudeo Diwe, worker orally through the contractor M/s.

Vijay Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. without complying the relevant provision of law and denying to

reinstate in service to extend any relief is legal & justified. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to”

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

After notice Advocate Mr. V.M. Kawade filed Vakalatnama on 01-03-2016 on behalf of workman Shri

Shashikant Wasudeo Diwe (Workman, Party no.2). Mr. Jivan Shukla Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on 21-09-2018 on

behalf of Party No. 1a, but on behalf of Ultra tech Cement i.e. Party No.1b nobody appeared and not filed any

Vakalatnama, So in this case workman did not file statement of claim and rejoinder, and Respondents did not file written

statement, but both parties filed joint pursis on 21-09-2018, which shows that, the matter between parties have been

amicably settled out of the court and they also shows that, on behalf of party No.1 they paid Rs. 65,000/- to the Party No.

2 by Demand Draft dated 10-02-2016 and they also filed acknowledgement/receipt of payment to workman dated

20-02-2016, after that this court directed the parties to file affidavit regarding terms of settlement. But nobody appeared

and participates in the proceedings and complied the order given by this tribunal.

Ongoing above discussion my humble opinion that, parties are not interested to proceed with the reference from

21-09-2018, it also appears that, they do not interested proceed this case. Copy of settlement also not filed before this

court so no legal order can be passed regarding settlement; hence it is ordered that, the reference is decided against the

worker in negative and in favour of party No. 1a and 1b.

ORDER

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

relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 11 अ तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1856

1856

1856.—औ{ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के1ीय सरकार

मेससB कुेमुख आयरन ओर कi पनी िलिमटेड के बंधतं@ के संब} िनयोजक% और उनके कमBकार% के बीच अनुबंध म िन^दB_

औ{ोिगक िववाद म के1ीय सरकार औ{ोिगक अिधकरण एवं <म 1यायालय, ब गलूर के पंचाट (संदभB संHया 46/2008) को

कािशत करती है जो के1ीय सरकार को 04.10.2019 को ाq )आ था।

[सं. एल-26011/2/2008-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2019

S.O. 1856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 04.10.2019.

[No. L-26011/2/2008-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7263

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 30^TH SEPTEMBER, 2019

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 46/2008

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

Kudremukh Emp. Union,

B-60, Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. Township,

Kavoor Panambur,

MANGALORE – 575010.

The Director

(Production & Projects),

Kudremukh Iron Ore

Company Ltd.,

Panambur

MANGALORE – 575010.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. J. Ravindra Naik

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Abhishek K Bhat

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-26011/2/2008-IR(M) dated 07.05.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred

by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’

hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the management of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd., is justified in issuing notice of change

dated 20.06.2006 and 28.06.2006 for withdrawal of the following allowances being paid to their employees

since 1997: i) Mining Allowance. ii) Tribal Area Allowance. iii) Urban Allowance. iv) Washing Allowance.

To what relief the workmen are entitled?”

The claim of the 1^st Party Union is,

The Management entered into settlement with the then recognised Union (K.M.S) on 05.10.1999 and the

settlement was valid till 31.12.2006. As per the terms of the settlement the workmen are given Tribal Area allowance,

Urban Allowance, Washing allowance and Mining allowance. Tribal Area allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month

shall be paid to the employees holding technical scale; Rs. 175/- per month for other employees working in Kudremukh

and Mangalore location; Urban allowance is paid to the employees working at Bangalore, Chennai and Delhi at Rs. 175/-

per month; Washing allowance is paid at Rs 115/- per month to the employees holding technical skills at Rs. 90/- per

month for other employees; Washing allowance for Aprons shall be revised at Rs. 30/- per month and Mining allowance

will be paid to the employees at Kudremukh and Mangalore; at Rs 145/- per month to the employees in the scale of M1,

M2 and N1- N4; at Rs. 200/- per month to the employees in the scale of M3, M4 and N5-N8.

The 2^nd Party issued two notices dated 20.06.2006 and 28.06.2006 under Section 9 (A) of ‘the Act’, withdrawing the

benefits of the above allowances, on the ground that pursuant to Supreme Court verdict, mining operation is stopped

from 01.01.2006 due to requirement of suitable Iron ore; production activity at Mangalore is adversely effective…....etc.

But the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not directed to stop the mining activity by the end of 31.12.2005, other activities in

the company are not stopped. Under the VRS Scheme, several workmen have taken voluntary retirement; the work force

has reduced; the workman are representing before the appropriate Authorities and the State and Central Governments to

continue mining activities. Kudremukh area is a Tribal area; the Government rehabilitated the Tribal people on acquiring

the lands and handed over the lands to the 2^nd Party to start mining operations.

It is further claimed that, the 2^nd Party is earning huge profit through mining activity. A review petition is

pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to reconsider the decision in directing the closure of mining operation. If the

review petition is allowed, there are chances of carrying on mining operation. Mining ore can be procured from the other

places by deploying workmen. There are about 1000 workmen / employees including executives working at Kudremukh

7264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mines. It is a breach of settlement without consultation with the recognised Union. Giving effect to the notice will cause

loss of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the employee, all the activities are going on in all the places except mining at

Kudremukh. It is requested to withdraw the notice.

Counter from the 2^nd Party to the above claim is,

During October 2002, on an Interim Application the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted KIOCL to continue mining till

end of December 2005. The company has stopped mining operation w.e.f 01.01.2006, since then, no production activity

is continued at Kudremukh. Consequently, the Pellet production at Pellet Plant Mangalore is stopped for want to Iron

concentrate to feed the Pellet Plant. Voluntary Retirement Scheme is introduced w.e.f 01.01.2006, production activities at

Kudremukh and Mangalore is stopped causing loss of revenue. There is no generation of revenue for payment of salary

and allowance to the employees; the salary bill is above Rs. 5.0 crores per month. Though, it was attempted to sustain

Pellet production at Mangalore by procuring Iron Ore raw material, due to technical problems, production activity at

Mangalore could not go smoothly only service of few staffs is utilised at Kudremukh for essential services. There are

about 891 workmen and 458 Executives / Supervisors working at different locations of the company.

It is further stated that, presently no review petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 73 Executives

and Supervisors and 352 Non-Executives are working at Kudremukh. The notice is issued under the provisions of ‘the

Act’. Stoppage of few allowances will not put the workmen in any hardship, since they are getting their wages and

certain other allowances. Delay in implementation austerity measures would cause hardship, since the company is

required to sustain for further opportunities of revival.

Procuring Iron ore from other mines to sustain production at Pellet Plant and Blast Furnace Unit at Mangalore has

increased the cost of production. During 2009-2010 the company sustained financial loss.

Both parties have adduced evidence.

The parties are not at dispute about the position of the company consequent upon the Order passed by the Apex

Court, which put an end to the mining work w.e.f 01.01.2006. The notices u/sec 9(A) of ‘the Act’ which is culminated

into this Industrial dispute are not marked in evidence. The 2^nd Party has examined its Deputy Manager (Personnel) and

produced a certificate from the Senior Manager (Personnel) of the company stating that, no deduction / reduction is made

from the wages / salaries of the employees in respect of the Mining allowance and Tribal allowance (Kudremukh and

Mangalore employee). Urban allowance (pertaining to Bangalore, New Delhi, Chennai and Bhubaneswar employees)

and washing allowance (pertaining to Kudremukh, Mangalore, Bangalore, New Delhi, Chennai and Bhubaneswar)

During the cross examination of the witness, he stated to the effect that there was a settlement for a period

January 1997 to 31.12.2000 and another settlement for the period for January 2007 to December 2011 and a fresh

settlement is due.

As per the evidence of WW1 recorded on 29.08.2012, as per the 2007 settlement, while withdrawing mining

allowance factory allowance is introduced. The amount payable to the Executives was not withdrawn; new pattern of

salary was introduced to the executives in 2007 by withdrawing 47% of their perks. In respect of the Non-Executives at

Kudremukh no allowance is withdrawn.

When the notice of change dated 20.06.2006 and 28.06.2006 are not acted upon and no deduction as proposed in the

notice is effected and both parties have entered into further settlements, no Industrial dispute exists as stated in the

schedule to the point for reference. Hence, no relief can be granted under the reference to the 1^st Party workmen.

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to o/s LDC, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 30^th September, 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7265

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1857-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 17) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

कiबाटा उƒयन ाइवेट fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@2015½ dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20013@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2019

S.O. 1857.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (17 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, New

Delhi (Ref. No. 03/2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Cambata Aviation Private Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-20013/01/2019-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE COMPLAINT ID NO. 03/2015

Date of Passing Award- 2^nd August, 2019

Between:

Shri Shyam Sunder,

S/o Shri Kishan,

R/o Village and P.O Khaira,

Najafgarh

New Delhi- 110043

… Workman

Versus

M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,

9/9A, 3^rd Floor, Vasant Square Mall,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi

New Delhi- 110037.

… Management

Appearances:-

Shri Sunil Kumar (A/R)

For the Workman.

None for the management (A/R)

For the Management

AWARD

This is an application filed by the claimant/workman u/s 33-A of the ID Act praying therein for a relief in the nature of a

direction to the management to reinstate him in service with the further relief of continuity of service full back wages and

consequential service benefits for illegal termination.

As per the claim statement the complainant was working for the management M/s Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. since the

year 2001 and was an active member of Cambata Aviation Karamchari Union the majority union of the management.

The said union was raising various issues to safeguard the interest of the workers before the management. ID No.

122/2012 was filed by the Cambata Aviation Karamchari Union raising General Demand of the workers. Being annoyed

by the same on 13.11.2014 during the pendency of ID No. 122/2012 management dismissed the workman from service

pursuant to a false charge sheet and without conducting proper inquiry. Not only that when the order of dismissal was

7266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

passed an application was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for declaration of the claimant and others

as protected workman. When the matter was pending for passing of a final order by the ALC and the same was within the

knowledge of the management, the order of the dismissal passed is illegal.

Being noticed the management appeared and filed WS pleading inter alia that the workman was appointed initially on

temporary basis in the year 2001 and later on he was confirmed. But he was very irregular and in the habit of remaining

unauthorizedly absent. Thus on 08.06.2012 charge sheet was served on him and following due procedure domestic

inquiry started. The workman participated in the inquiry alongwith his Defence Assistant. All the documents were

supplied to him and Principles of Natural Justice were followed. The allegation of unauthorized absence was a matter

evident on record. But the workman did not cooperate in the hearing and the proceeding continued for 23 months during

which 24 adjournments were allowed. For the non cooperation of the claimant the inquiry officer finally submitted his

report to the disciplinary authority who accepted the finding of guilt against the workman and passed the order of

dismissal. To support the contention the management had filed volumes of documents which included the charge the

showcause notice salary payment vouchers showing absence of the workman the inquiry proceeding the report of the EO

and the order of the dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

On this rival pleading following issues were framed for determination.

ISSUES

Whether the claimant is a protected workman.

Whether the service of the claimant was changed and his services were terminated during the pendency

of ID No. 122/2012.

Whether the termination of the claimant has bearing with the facts of the ID No. 122/2012.

To what relief of the workman is entitled to.

During the hearing claimant examined himself as WW1 and filed the documents which were exhibited in a series of

WW1/1 to WW1/6. These document include demand notice, served on the management the copy of the charge sheet the

reply by the workman on receipt of the charge sheet a protest letter submitted by him stating therein that the inquiry is

not being conducted in a fair manner the report of the Inquiry Officer and the order of the dismissal passed by the

Disciplinary Authority.

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the management though some documents were filed alongwith the

WS. During course of examination the claimant/workman deposed exactly in the line of the claim statement and added

that the domestic inquiry was conducted with a view to take revenge since he was a prominent leader of the union. On

several occasions the management had put pressure on the workman and other office bearer for withdrawal of Id No.

122/2012. That having not been complied the management took this action against him. The witness further stated that Id

No. 122/2012 was with regard to the General Demand of the workman and the claimant/workman was a protected

workman. This fact being fully within the knowledge the order of dismissal should not have been passed for restriction

imposed u/s 33(3) of the Id Act. He also stated that the alleged absence was never unauthorized but for bad health

condition of the workman. He had suffered heart attack and fracture of leg leading to his absence from duty. He never

claimed remuneration for this period and the management had agreed to treat the same as leave without pay. But for the

vindication the order of dismissal was passed.

This evidence of the workman has remained uncontroverted since the management after filing of the WS did not come

forward to contest the matter. The provision of law laid u/s 33 of the ID Act 1947 clearly envisages that during the

pendency of any proceeding before the Labour Court or Tribunal no employer in regard to any matter connected with the

dispute shall alter the service of any workman save with the express permission of the authority. The workman has

pleaded that being a officer bearer of the Union sometimes he was remaining absence from duty to pursue and follow the

litigation and the management took the same as unauthorized absence and should not have passed the dismissal order for

the restriction laid u/s 33(3) of the ID Act.

For the evidence and argument advanced by the claimant and for no rebuttal evidence adduced by the management it is

held that the management by passing the order of dismissal against the workman acted in a manner in contravention of

the provisions of section 33(3) of the ID Act and as such the same is not sustainable. It is ordered accordingly.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7267

ORDER

The order of dismissal passed by the management against the claimant/workman is hereby set aside. The management is

directed to reinstate the workman into service with immediate effect alongwith full back wage, continuity of service and

all other consequential benefits. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required

under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1858-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ vks ,u th lh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ¼vle½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 08@2017½ dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@07@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2019

S.O. 1858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

(Assam) (Ref. No. 08/2017) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

11.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/07/1996-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 08 of 2017

(Old number: Ref. No. 1(C)/1997)

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

Sri Indreswar Saikia & 36 Ors.

…Claimant/ Workman

-Vrs-

The Management of O.N.G.C. and another, DVP, Jorhat.

…O.P./Management

APPEARANCES

For the Workmen. : Mr. S.K.Ghose, Advocate.

For the Management. : Mr. S.N.Sharma, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. N.A.Singh, Advocate.

Date of Award:13.09.2019

7268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The present industrial dispute between the concerned workmen and the management of ONGC was referred to

this Tribunal by the appropriate government with the following schedule vide Notification No. L-20012/07/96-IR (Coal-

I) dt. 24/25-2-1997.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of O.N.G.C., Dhansiri Valley Project, Jorhat in not regularizing the

services of Shri Indreswar Saikia and 36 others ( as per list enclosed) and denying equal wages for the work

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are these workmen entitled ?”

The background facts leading to the instant dispute, as claimed by the workmen side, may be briefly

summarized as under. The management of Dhansiri Valley Project of ONGC engaged 264 persons on casual/contingency

basis since 1983/84. These workers formed a Trade Union named “DVP ONGC Workers’ Association”. The Union

demanded regular absorption of the aforesaid workers. But as the management did not agree, the Union filed a Writ

Petition before the Hon’ble High Court vide No.1907/88. However during the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition the

appropriate Government drew up the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as to whether the

action of the management of ONGC in not regularizing the service of 264 casual labourers was justified. The aforesaid

reference was registered as Reference Case No.1(C) of 1989 before the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the

Government of Assam at Guwahati and both the parties contested the matter by filing written statements as well as

evidence. The reference was ultimately decided in favour of the workmen vide award dated 18.03.1991 which was

challenged by the management before the Honb’le High Court vide Civil Rule No.4375/1991. Ultimately by a common

judgment dated 05.081993 the Hon’ble High Court upheld the award. The order of the Hon’ble High Court was

challenged by the management before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP No.1304/1994 but the same was

subsequently dismissed on 25.02.1994.

It was averred by the workmen side that despite the aforesaid final award the management did not regularize the

services of 37 workers out of the 264 workmen involved in the earlier reference. The matter was taken before the

concerned Labour Commissioner by the workmen side. But the proceeding failed to yield any positive result for the

workmen. The concerned Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer then sent a failure report to the appropriate

government. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate government and

Reference Case No.1(C)/1997 i.e. the present Reference was initiated before the Industrial Tribunal. On the backdrop of

the aforesaid “fact”, the workmen side prayed for a favourable award mainly on the ground that the workmen involved in

the present reference were included in the group of 264 workmen who were members of “DVP ONGC Workers

Association”.

The management disputed the facts stated by the Union and claimed that the present 37 numbers of workmen

suddenly came out as they were aware that in the earlier proceeding of Reference Case No.1(C) of 1989 the Union

themselves stated that out of 264 workmen 37 numbers of workmen had left ONGC before the earlier award was passed.

It was also stated that the Workers’ Association was fully aware of the award dated 12.03.1991 passed in Ref. Case No.

1(C)/1989 wherein it was specifically mentioned to regularize all the concerned workers who were still working as casual

workers. The management admitted that they challenged the original Award dated 12.3.1991 but they lost both in the

Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly the management regularized those employees

whose names were provided by the Union. Subsequently the Union alleged that all the concerned workers in Ref. Case

No.1 (C)/1989 have not been regularized and accordingly filed a contempt case before the Hon’ble High Court which

was numbered as COP(C) No.397/1994. The management appeared and contested the case and after hearing both the

sides the Hon’ble High Court found that the ONGC has fully complied with the award dated 12.03.1991 passed in Ref.

Case No.1(C)/1989 and accordingly dismissed the Contempt Petition vide order dated 15.07.1996 ( Exhibit-A in MW.3’s

evidence). It was further stated by the management that thereafter the Union raised another Industrial Dispute and as per

the order of the Appropriate Government the present reference was initiated and the original number of this Reference

Case was 1(C)/1997.The Tribunal thereafter passed an award directing regularization of these employees vide award

dated 01.06.2001. The management challenged the award dated 01.06.2001 before the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P(C)

No.6096/2002 and the Hon’ble Single Judge upheld the award passed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said order

the management preferred Writ Appeal before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide No. W.A. No.96/2013. The

Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 29.09.2016 held that the workmen involved in the present reference were not

concerned workmen involved in Ref. Case No.1(C)/1989 and accordingly the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the

award passed by the Tribunal. It was however stated that considering the plight of the workmen the Hon’ble High Court

remanded the matter before this Tribunal with a view to give a chance to the Union to prove their case before this

Tribunal if necessary by producing fresh evidence supporting their claim. Thereafter the old Ref. Case was renumbered

before this Tribunal as Ref. Case No.08 of 2017.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7269

Originally in this Ref. Case workman side examined 2 witnesses. The workman witnesses No.1 & 2 in their oral

testimony exhibited Document No. Exhibit 1 to Exhibit-31 and Exhibit-I to Exhibit-IX and claimed that the present set of

workers involved in this Ref. were part of the 264 numbers of workmen of earlier Ref. Case No.1(C) and hence they are

also entitled to the benefits arising out of the earlier Reference and it’s award. In their evidences the management side

categorically stated that the present set of workers involved in this Ref. were never part of the 264 numbers of workmen

who were directed to be regularized and out of which the workers who were working at that point of time were already

regularized by the management of the ONGC. After the remand of the matter by the Hon’ble High Court the workmen

side adduced evidence of 23 persons and re-examined the earlier witness No. 2 namely Sri Bipul Baruah. In his re-

examination the workman witness No.2 stated that he and the remaining workers were also part of the original 264

numbers of workmen but the management illegally did not regularize them though there was an award. During cross-

examination he admitted that he proved certain copy of Affidavit on opposition filed in the Civil Rule No.4375 of

1991(Exhibit-IXA). He however denied the suggestion that the present 37 were not in the list of 264 workers who were

part of the earlier Reference Case. He also admitted that after non regularization of this set of 37 workers they preferred a

Contempt Petition on the ground that the order was not complied but the said Contempt Petition was dismissed. The

remaining workers i.e. Workmen Witness No.3 to 24 stated that they were contractual workers engaged in various

establishments and drilling sites of ONGC since long and they were also originally part of the group of 264 workers as

members of “DVP ONGC Workers’ Association” who secured the benefit of regularization in terms of award dated

12.3.91 in Ref. Case No. 1(C) of 1989 but instead of that award the 37 numbers of workers who were originally part of

the group of 264 workmen were not regularized for which the present Ref. Case was initiated. During the cross-

examination the witnesses admitted that they were appointed as contractual workers on daily wage basis from different

dates. The witnesses however denied the management suggestion that they were not part of the group of 264 numbers of

workers who got an award in favour of them in Ref. Case No. 1(C)/1989. It was also admitted by all the witnesses that

they were not engaged through any regular advertisement. After the remand of the matter before this Tribunal the

management side also examined one witness i.e. M.W.3 named Subramani Anandaraj who was working as Sr. Human

Resources Executive in ONGC on the date of his giving evidence on 15.05.2019. He has stated that the set of 37 workers

in the present Reference were in contractual engagement and also gave an explanation for not being able to produce

certain documents. He stated that Public Sector Undertakings are required to maintain records up to 10 years and

thereafter the same are destroyed. Since the record called for are of more than 15/20 years old the originals could not be

produced. He also stated that the contractual engagement of the present set of workers who were 24 (at present) in

number could not produce any document to show that there was any regular advertisement or appointment letter of casual

employment. He also stated that in Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989 the workmen have exhibited one Affidavit in opposition

filed by General Secretary of “Dhansiri Valley Project ONGC Workers’ Association” before the Hon’ble Gauhati

Highcourt in Civil Rule No.4375/1991 and according to him in para 7 of the said affidavit (Ext-9A) the following was

mentioned:

“However, it is true that some 26 members of the Respondent No.2 have already been appointed in

regular basis and some 37 workers have left their job getting appointment elsewhere and as such 201

Casual Workers belonging to Respondent No.2 are yet to be regularized”.

He also said that in the list of 264 workers in Ref. Case No. 1(C) of 1989 the names of the present 37 workers were not

there. He also exhibited Exhibit-A, the order of dismissal passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 15.07.1996 in COP(C)

No.397/1994 which was filed by the Workers’ Union of the Ref. Case No.1(C)/1989 alleging that their members have

not been appointed as per judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. He also exhibited the judgment delivered by the

Hon’ble High Court in W.A. 96/2013 as Exhibit-B. During cross-examination he admitted that he had been posted in the

present post in May,2017 and his knowledge of the prior incidents are only based on record and not based on his personal

knowledge.

During argument the learned counsel for the workmen side submitted that at present out of 37 workmen who

were originally involved in the reference only 23 namely , 1) Indreswar Saikia, (2) Utpal Boruah, (3) Prahlad Bordoloi,

(4) Y.B.S.Yadav, (5) GopalSaha, (6) Tosbir Ahmed, (7) Bipul Boruah, (8) Milik Ali, (9) Prasanta Shyam, (10)

Dimbeswar Hazarika, (11) Naren Borah, (12) Babul Handique, (13) Dilip Borah, (14) Jadav Mohanta, (15) Santi Gowala,

(16) Dilip Boruah, (17) Basa Borah, (18) Raju Sahu, (19) Makhan Das, (20) Mridul Boruah, (21) Bhavi Anush, (22)

Arabinda Mondal & (23) Pulin Gogoi are still involved. The learned Counsel appearing for the workmen side referred to

the evidence of the workman witness No.1 wherein he stated that only the present set of workers were left out to be

regularized although there was an award in their favour. He further submitted that the evidence adduced by the workman

side clearly negated that the present set of workers were not the part of the 264 workers in the earlier reference. He

further submitted that the workers have been able to show that they have been working for 240 days in a year and for all

those years they worked under the ONGC as contractual workers. He also submitted that the argument of the

management that regularization casual/contractual workers cannot be done in view of the judgment delivered in State of

Karnataka vs UmaDevi passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is not relevant here. In

this connection he referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas

7270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Commission, Silchar ---vrs--- OIL and Natural Gas Commission Contractual Workers Union” reported in (2008)

12 SCC 275.

Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the management side argued that the Union has totally failed to show that the

present set of workers were part of 264 workers involved in Reference Case No.1(C)/1989. He further argued that the

Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has specifically directed that the Tribunal will decide the

matter only on the basis of the evidence of the present reference after remand of the matter before this Tribunal. He

further argued that though the present set of workers are claiming that they are left out of 264 workers involved in the

Ref. Case No.1(C)/1989, yet none of them preferred application against the management for non-compliance of the

award though there is specific provision under the Industrial Disputes Act. He also categorically submitted that the

witnesses of the workmen side could not prove that they were part of the 264 workers involved in the earlier reference.

He also stated that the W.W.22 did not turn up for cross-examination and hence his evidence has to be expunged and

cannot be considered by this Tribunal. He also referred to the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal

No.96/.2013 (Ext- B) wherein it was categorically held that in the original award the Tribunal wrongly held that the

present set of workers were part of 264 workers. Vehemently contesting the claim of regularization of the workers,

learned Sr. Counsel for the management referred to a recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No. 1799-1800 of 2019, between “Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. –vrs—Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & Ors” wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court decided that once it is shown that there was no appointment letter or wage slip issued by the

management, such workers cannot be automatically regularized.

On perusal of the materials on record and on hearing both the sides it appears that the claim for regularization of

the concerned workmen (23 in numbers) mainly depends on whether they were part of the 264 numbers of workmen

whose matter was decided vide award passed in Ref. Case No. 1(C)/1989. It also appears from the record that after the

final disposal of the aforesaid Reference case the management regularized the service of the employees who were still

working with them and accordingly management regularized all those concerned employees who were at the relevant

point of time working with the management. It also appears from the record that subsequently after the implementation

of the award of Ref. Case No.1(C)/1989 the Union filed a Contempt Case before the Hon’ble High Court numbered as

COP(C)397/1994. According to management witness No.3 the aforesaid Contempt Petition was dismissed by the

Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 15.7.1996. The relevant order in the aforesaid Contempt Case was passed by the

Hon’ble High Court on 15.7.2996. In the aforesaid order the Hon’ble High Court held that there was no willful

disobedience of the order and hence, Contempt Petition was dismissed. In other words, at that point of time the Union

appearing for the concerned 23 numbers of workmen could not show that these 23 numbers of workers were part of 264

numbers of workmen who were directed to be regularized. After the passing of the first award in the present Reference

Case it was challenged before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court through a Writ Petition and the Hon’ble Single Judge up

held the award. The management then filed a Writ Appeal No. W.A. 96/2013 and by disposing the aforesaid Writ Appeal

the Hon’ble High Court in para-22,23 and 24 of the judgment held as under :

“22.

If any one from the original group of 264 were left out of the process of regularization that could

have been a cause for penalty under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, but no such action

was taken by the 2^nd group of 23 if they were indeed covered by the first award of 12.03.1991.

Moreover the contempt charge was rejected by this Court by dismissing the COP(C) No.397/1994

where the learned Judge noticed the regularization of all the workmen, covered by the first

award. Thus, without alteration of this conclusion, the 2^nd group of 37 cannot be counted in the

original group of 264 workmen.

23.

But the question is should this be the end of the road for the claimants without any redressal

mechanism. Such result according to us will surely be harsh and will cause injustice to the

claimants. The problem perhaps can therefore be resolved by facilitating a fresh opportunity to

the workmen to adduce cogent evidence in a de-novo proceeding before the CGIT. Naturally, if

any evidence is led on the rebound by the workmen, the management too will have due

opportunity to introduce their own evidence in the matter.

24.

Having concluded thus, we interfere with the judgment dated 19.07.2012 in the WP(C)6096/2002

and also quash the award dated 01.06.2001. In consequence, the Reference No.1(C)/1997 is

remanded back to be adjudicated afresh by the Tribunal with due opportunity for both sides. In

re-deciding the matter, the CGIT will base their decision on the evidence of the case and not be

guided by the decision in the first reference in favour of 264 workmen..................... Until the

matter is re-decided, the interim direction issued by this Court on 04.06.2013 will continue to

operate in respect of the workmen, who are still in service.”

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7271

It is therefore, crystal clear that after the remand of the matter before this Tribunal the workman side had an

obligation to prove that they were also part of the 264 numbers of workmen who were directed to be regularized by the

award dated 12.03.1991 or that their status is such that they deserve to be regularized in their respective jobs.

10.

After the remand of the matter the workman side re-examined the workman witness No.2, Sri Bipul Baruah and

he exhibited Exhibit-IXA (20 sheets) which is a certified copy of the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by Tarani Kalita in

Civil Rule No. 4375/1991. He also denied the management suggestion that the present set of workmen were not part of

the list of 264 workers. He further admitted that the Contempt Petition filed by them was also dismissed by the

Hon’ble High Court. The workman side thereafter filed examination-in-chief on Affidavit of 22 more witnesses. The

Workman Witness No.3 Sri Indreswar Saikia stated that he has been working in ONGC on 04.01.1985 as an attendant.

He further stated that he has been working since then and he was duly paid by the ONGC for the services he rendered. He

further orally stated that he was one of those workers whose service was to be regularized as per award dated 12.3.1991.

In his examination-in-chief he also claims to have exhibited a document as Exhibit-XIII which according to him is the

list of 264 workers. However, on perusal of Exhibit-XIII it appears that it is not a list of 264 workers involved in the

earlier reference. That apart the aforesaid documents appeared to be some lists prepared by the concerned workmen

Association. During cross-examination he admitted that he had wrongly stated in his evidence that he joined on

04.01.1985. He further admitted that during his engagement in the Company there was no Notification for vacancy and

no interview was conducted. He further admitted that as per order passed by the Hon’ble High Court he has been

continuing his service and getting a wage of Rs.15,000/- per month. He however denied the management suggestion that

he was not the concerned workmen involved in the Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989. The evidence of workman witness No.4

is also more or less similar in nature and he exhibited several documents showing sanctioning of the payment of

contingent workers including him. During cross-examination he admitted he was appointment as contractual worker on

daily wage basis from 01.02.1985 and also admitted that during his engagement there was no advertisement for filling

up any Post of Typist. He also admitted that he was engaged without any interview. He further admitted that he has not

submitted any document to show that he is one of the workmen in Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989. Workman witness No.5

Mr. Tasbir Ahmed stated that he joined on 13.02.1985 as Electrical Supervisor and has been working since then. During

cross-examination he admitted that during his engagement there was no advertisement issued by the ONGC and there

was no interview. He further admitted that when he was not regularized pursuant to the award of Ref. Case No. 1(C) of

1989, one of the workman filed case for violation before the Hon’ble High Court but the Hon’ble High Court dismissed

the said case. The order passed in the aforesaid contempt case was exhibited as Exhibit-A. The examination in-chief of

the remaining witnesses are more or less similar in nature and all of them mentioned dates of their engagement in the

ONGC. Workman witness No.6 joined on 04.07.1988, workman witness No.7 joined on 29.10.1986, Workman witness

No.8 joined on 16.11.1984,Workman witness No.9 joined on 05.09.1985, workman witness No. 10 joined on17.01.1986,

workman witness No.11joined on 04.05.1986, workman witness No.12 joined on04.05.1986, workman witness No.13

joined on 01.07.1989, workman witness No.14 joined on 01.07.1984, workman witness No.15 joined on 01.11.1988,

workman witness No.16 joined on 01.04.1989, workman witness No.17 joined on 01.06.1988, workman witness No.18

joined on 01.02.1985, workman witness No.19 joined on 01.01.1986, workman witness No.20 joined on 01.01.1987,

workman witness No.21 joined on 01.01.1987, workman witness No.22 joined on19.11.1984, workman witness No.23

joined on 25.10.1985,workman witness No.24 joined on 02.08.1985. On perusal of the record it appears that the

workman witness No.22 did not tender himself for cross-examination and hence his evidence cannot be considered by

this Tribunal while deciding the matter. During cross-examination of W.W.6 he admitted that he does not have any paper

to show that he was one of the contractual workman in Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989. He further admitted that in Writ

Appeal No.96/2013 Hon’ble High Court held that he and the remaining workmen involved in this Reference are not the

members of 264 numbers of workmen who were involved in Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989. Workman witness No.7 during

cross-examination stated that on the date of the cross-examination on 21.02.2018 he was 57 years old and that during his

engagement as Khalasi he was not handed over any appointment letter. He however categorically admitted that he was

not a concerned workman in the Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989. Workman witness No.8 during his cross-examination

admitted that he was originally engaged as contractual worker. He also admitted that they have not submitted any

document in regard to Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989. He also admitted that because of the order passed in W.A. No.96/2013

he and the remaining workers in the present reference are still working and getting monthly wages of Rs.15,000/-. He

also admitted that out of 37 workers only 23 are at present working in the ONGC. Workman witness No.9 during cross-

examination admitted that at the time of his engagement there was no advertisement or interview. He also admitted that

apart from him there were other security Guards and CISF personnel were also engaged as Security Guards in the

ONGC. During his cross-examination workman witness No.10 admitted that he is not a matriculate. He further stated that

he knew that for a job in ONGC one must be matriculate. He however denied the management’s suggestion that he was

not a part of the concerned workman involved in the Reference Case No.1(C) of 1989. Workman witness No.11 during

7272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

his cross-examination stated that he does not have any paper to show that he was appointed as monthly rated worker and

that whatever he has stated in paragraph-2 of his evidence-in-Affidavit is not correct. He also admitted that the statement

made in paragraph-10 of his evidence in-Affidavit regarding his status is also not true. He however denied the

management suggestion that he was not a concerned worker in Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989. Workman witness No.12

admitted that there was no advertisement or interview during his engagement. He also admitted that he and others were

orally engaged on daily wage basis. He however denied the management suggestion that he was not a concerned

workman in Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989. Workman witness No.13 during cross-examination also denied the management

suggestion that he was not a concerned workman in Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989. W.W.14 during cross examination

admitted that during his engagement no interview was held and nor did he participate in any selection process. The trend

of the cross-examination of workmen witnesses are more or less similar in contents and all of them denied the suggestion

of the management that they are not the part of the 264 numbers of workers involved in Ref. Case No.1(C) of 1989.

11. The basic premise of the argument of the workmen side was that the workers of the present reference were part

of 264 workers who were involved in Ref Case No. 1(C) of 1989. Admittedly, the award of the aforesaid reference was

finally upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After remand of the present matter by the Hon’ble High Court, the

workers were obliged to show, by cogent evidence, that they were part of the 264 workers who were directed to be

regularized vide award in Ref Case No. 1 (C) of 1989. But in the entire evidence, as discussed in foregoing paragraphs,

no such document could be produced by the workmen side which could prove the aforesaid claim. Hence, claim of the

present set of workers for regularization on the basis of the aforesaid claim is not sustainable. That apart, the concerned

workers also could not show that their status as workers of ONGC has been such that they deserve to be regularized.

None of them could prove any appointment letter as casual worker. Admittedly, there was nothing on record to show that

the present set of workers were engaged against regular vacancies. They were engaged on contractual basis without

following any recruitment process. Accordingly, action of the management in not regularizing the services of the present

set of workers cannot be held to be illegal or unjustified.

12. However, evidence has specifically showed that the present set of 23 workers namely , 1) Indreswar Saikia, (2)

Utpal Boruah, (3) Prahlad Bordoloi, (4) Y.B.S.Yadav, (5) GopalSaha, (6) Tosbir Ahmed, (7) Bipul Boruah, (8) Milik Ali,

(9) Prasanta Shyam, (10) Dimbeswar Hazarika, (11) Naren Borah, (12) Babul Handique, (13) Dilip Borah, (14) Jadav

Mohanta, (15) Santi Gowala, (16) Dilip Boruah, (17) Basa Borah, (18) Raju Sahu, (19) Makhan Das, (20) Mridul

Boruah, (21) Bhavi Anush, (22) Arabinda Mondal & (23) Pulin Gogoi have been working in the ONGC for last many

years. As per an interim direction issued by Hon’ble High Court on 4.6.2013 the concerned workmen are continuing to

work and getting monthly wage of Rs.15000/-. Though they are not entitled to be automatically regularized, it would be

extremely harsh if such engagement of this set of workers are discontinued on the ground that they cannot be regularized

in their present respective engagements. Admittedly, most of these workers are not far away from the usual age of

superannuation. In such a situation if the present set of workers are thrown out of engagement it will amount to injustice

which cannot be allowed to be perpetrated by a government undertaking like ONGC. Hence it is directed that the

concerned management shall continue to engage the aforesaid 23 numbers of workers in their respective capacities till

their respective age of superannuation, if the concerned workers desire to continue with such engagement. They are

getting monthly wage of Rs.15000/- for last about six years. The wage, therefore, in my considered opinion, deserves to

be upwardly revised since the workers have been working with the management for last so many years as indicated

above.

13. In view of the above it is held that the action of the management in not regularizing the services of the present set

of workers is not illegal or unjustified. However, the concerned workers, named in para 12 of this award shall be

continued to be engaged by the concerned management till their respective age of superannuation if the concerned

workers desire to continue in such engagement. The management shall take necessary steps to increase the wages of the

present set of 23 workers involved in this reference provided that such increase in wage, in any case, shall not be less

than 20% of their existing wage. The revised wage shall be payable prospectively and no arrear shall accrue on that

count. The award shall be implemented by the management within 60 days of the receipt of the copy of the award. The

reference, accordingly, stands disposed of with the Award as indicated above.

Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal this 13^th day of September, 2019.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7273

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1859-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; la[;k&2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&20012@113@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2019

S.O. 1859.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 38/2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11.10.2019.

[No. L-20012/113/2012-IR (CM-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: Dr.S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 38 OF 2013

PARTIES:

The Treasure,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajender Path, Dhanbad-828001

(Jharkhand).

Vs.

The General Manager,

Sijua Area of M/s BCCL,

Sijua, Dhanbad-828121.

Order No. L-20012/113/2012-IR(CM-I) dt.11.02.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr.N.G.Arun, Union Representative

On behalf of the Management

Mr.D.K.Verma. Ld. Advocate

State

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 30^th August, 2019

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/113/2012-IR(CM-I) dt.11.02.2013

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of Sijua Area of M/s BCCL in not regularizing Md. Salim

Ansari in the post of On-Setter is fair and justified? To what relief is the concerned workman entitled

to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/113/2012-IR (CM-I) dt.11.02.2013 of the reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was registered

as Reference case No. 38 of 2013 on 01.03.2013 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

7274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

through the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed and

to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the

Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.

The Instant case put up on date fixed. Though Mr.N.G.Arun, Union Representative appeared on the first

hearing on 29.05.2013 and subsequently on several dates but did not file any Written Statement of Claim on behalf of

the workman. Whereas the WS from the party who has raised the dispute , should have been filed within 15 days of

the receipt of the order as stated in the Order of Reference from Government of India which reads as follows :

“The Parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete with relent documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of reference and

also forward a copy of such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under

rule 10(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Central),rules,1957. ’’

Although several adjournments given for filing the Written Statement of Claim and several notices sent on

17.04.2013, 21.09.2014, 10.02.2015 and lastly on, 05.07.2019 at the address of the Sponsoring Union/workman as

referred in the Order of reference and opportunity provided to Sponsoring Union/workman (petitioner) to file Claim

during course of hearings on 17.07.2013, 09.09.2013, 09.11.2013, 02.01.2014, 19.02.0214, 04.04.2014, 21.05.2014,

10.07.2014, 01.09.2014, 22.10.2014, 19.12.2014, 16.02.2015, 26.03.2015, 27.04.2015, 18.06.2015, 10.08.2015,

29.09.2015, 08.01.2015, 15.02.2016 and 06.08.2019 the Representative Union/workman failed to file the statement of

claim despite having knowledge for the same through appearances on the dates of hearing.. The case had been pending

merely for Written Statement of claim to be filed by the Party who has raised the dispute.

3. Mr. D.K.Verma. Ld. Advocate authorized by the Management /O.P. appeared on behalf of the Management ,the

Opposition Party.

4. The case under reference is non- regularization of Md. Salim Ansari the workman concerned to the post of the

On-Setter under the Management of Sijua Area of the M/s BCCL to which workman represented , thereby seeking relief.

On the face of the facts recorded in earlier paras it is apparent beyond doubt that neither the workmen

concerned nor his Sponsoring Union have shown their seriousness/willingness to proceed with the instant case ever

since 29.05.2013. Considering the circumstances of the fact the Reference case appears to have lost its merits or issue

on which Industrial Dispute had been raised. Under such circumstances the case is closed concluding that no relief needs

to be granted to the concerned workman by the Management (Opposite Party).

S. K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1860-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fcyw MkVZ foekuu fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2019½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@02@2019&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2019

S.O. 1860.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, New

Delhi (Ref. No. 43/2019) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Blue Dart Aviation Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-11012/02/2019-IR (CM-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7275

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty

ID. NO. 43/2019

Ms. Poonam D/o Dilip Kumar Through,

Industrial worker union, RZ-16C/7 , Upper Floor,

Gali No. 3, Main Sagarpur,

New Delhi.

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Blue Dart Aviation Limited,

Adj to Indraprastha Gas CNG Station,

Terminal -2 Near International Cargo Terminal IGI,

Airport,

New Delhi-110037

M/s. Blue Dart Aviation Limited ,

Head Office-88-89, Old International-

Terminal Meenambakkam Airport,

Chennai (Tamilnadu_)-600027

Ms./ Blue Dart Aviation Limited,

Reg., Office-Blue Dart Entre,

Sahar Airport Road, Adheri (East),

Mumbai-400099’

…Managements

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-11012/02/2019

(IR(CM-I)) dated 07.02.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Blue Dart Aviation Ltd., New Delhi in terminating the services

of Ms. Poonam D/o Dilip Kumar, working as Sr. Cargo Assistant w.e.f dated 31.12.2017 is proper, legal and

justified?’’

ii)

If not, what relief she is entitled to and from which date?

iii)

And what other directions are necessary in this regard?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties 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, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the

above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on her 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 her appearance nor has she led any evidence so as to prove her cause

against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award

be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

Date: 26^th August, 2019

7276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1861-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

dEckVk mM~M;u izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 74@2016½ dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@13@2016&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2019

S.O. 1861.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, New

Delhi (Ref. No. 74/2016) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Cambata Aviation Private Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-11012/13/2016-IR (CM-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 74/2016

Date of Passing Award- 22^nd July, 2019

Between:

Shri Surender Kumar,

S/o Shri Raghunath,

House No. 1441, Gali No. 7B, Swantatra Nagar

Narela, Delhi

Delhi- 110040

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,

Unit No. 9 & 9A, 3^rd Floor, Vasant Square Mall,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi

New Delhi- 110070.

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Sunil Kumar (A/R)

For the Workman

None for the management (A/R)

For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between

employer i.e. the management of M/s Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd., and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of

sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-11012/13/2016

(IR(CM-I) dated 03.08.2016 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. for not allowing entry to IGI

Airport, New Delhi by seizure of entry pass issued to Shri Surendra Kumar, resulting his absence from the duty

and amounting to the termination from the post of Utility Hand with effect from 10.11.2015 is legal and

justified. If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitle to and from which date?”

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7277

The claimant in his claim statement has stated that he joined the management Cambata Aviation on 01.09.2000 as a

Utility Hand on a monthly salary of Rs. 25000/-. His posting was at IGI Airport New Delhi. He worked for the

management for about 15 years with utmost sincerity. On 09.11.2015 the management without assigning any reason took

away the Airport Entry pass from the workman and thereby debarred him from entering into IGI Airport and performing

his duty. On 18.11.2015 a showcause notice was served on him and the workman replied the same on 27.11.2015. On

several occasions he approached the management requesting reinstatement to service but the management refused the

same. On 16.12.15 a demand notice was served on the management but the later did not respond to the same. Finding no

other way the workman approached the Labour Commissioner where steps were taken for conciliation. The effort of

conciliation since failed the Appropriate Government referred the matter to this tribunal for adjudication.

Notice being served the management appeared and filed WS. Thereafter the management remained absent and proceeded

ex-parte.

In the WS the management took a stand that the workman conducted himself in most indisciplined manner and was

found involved in theft of mobile phone etc with 3 other staff. The CISF engaged in IGI Airport was issuing the entry

pass to the persons working through the contractors for their entry into the Airport. For the misconduct of the workman

the CISF and Bureau of Civil Aviation withdrew the entry pass. The management has rebutted all other allegations made

by the claimant.

In view of the pleadings of the parties the points which need to be determined by this tribunal in this award are:

If the action of the management in withdrawing the entry pass of the workman is proper.

If the said withdrawal amounts to unfair labour practice.

To what relief the workman is entitled to.

During the hearing the workman examined himself as WW1 and filed the documents i.e. the Showcause notice issued to

him, the reply given by the workman, the request for return of the entry pass, an appreciation letter issued to the

workman by the Airport Manager of Cambata Aviation. No witness was examined on behalf of the management.

The workman has all along alleged that without any valid reason his entry pass was suspended/ taken away by the

management which has the effect of terminating his employment. In his statement he fully supported the contention made

in the claim statement which has not been controverted by the management. In the WS the management has taken a

specific plea that the workman was found involved in theft of mobile phone for which his entry pass was taken away and

he was served with a showcause notice. This has been admitted by the workman who proved the showcause notice as

WW1/1. But surprisingly the showcause notice as it appears is based upon suspicion only. A plain reading of showcause

notice reveals that one Mr. Nitin Yadav Driver cum Utility Hand was caught by the CISF staff while taking exit from the

Airport with 14 No’s mobile phone 20 batteries and 6 chargers. Said Nitin Yadav disclosed about the involvement of the

present workman and thus a showcause was issued. There is no pleading by the management nor any evidence has been

laid to show primafacie complicity of the workman for the alleged theft. Hence, from the materials available on record

there is nothing to presume that the workman was ever involved in any misconduct and for the same any domestic

inquiry was contemplated or held against him.

The management has admitted that till 09.11.15 the workman was there employee. Withdrawal of the entry pass

prohibiting the workman from reporting for duty amounts to refusal for duty having the effect of termination of service.

Hence, from the uncontroverted and un-rebutted evidence adduced by the workman it is held that the management is

guilty of unfair labour practice by not allowing entry of the workman to IGI Airport without any reason and his service

was terminated illegally. The workman is held entitled to reinstatement to service with immediate effect. Hence,

ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the workman. It is held that the management illegally withdrew

the entry pass of the claimant/workman having the effect of termination of his service. The management is directed to

reinstate the workman in service within 1 month from the date when this award would became enforceable failing which

the workman shall be paid compensation at the rate of one month last drawn salary for each completed year of service

and fraction thereof rendered by him for the management. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for

notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

22^nd July, 2019

7278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1862-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 17½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

dEckVk mM~M;u izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@2014½ dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20013@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2019

S.O. 1862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (17 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, New

Delhi (Ref. No. 88/2014) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Cambata Aviation Private Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-20013/01/2019-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 88/2014

Date of Passing Award- 2^nd August, 2019

Between:

Shri Shyam Sunder, Utility hand #579

S/o Shri Kishan,

House:- Village & Post Office- Khaira,

Najafgarh

Delhi- 110043

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,

IGI Airport, Terminal-II,

Line Maintenance, Block-‘A’,

New Delhi- 110037.

… Management

Appearances:-

Shri Sunil Kumar (A/R)

For the Workman.

None for the management (A/R)

For the Management

AWARD

The management of M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. functioning at IGI Airport Terminal-II came up with an application

u/s 33(2)(b) of the ID Act 1947 with a prayer seeking approval of the action taken against the workman Shyam Sunder

working as a Utility Hand for the reasons pleaded therein.

The facts pleaded by the management/applicant is that the workman Shyam Sunder joined Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. in

the month January 2001as a Utility Hand and an appointment letter was issued to him on 4^th January 2001. Subsequently

he was confirmed in service w.e.f. 01^st July, 2001. But he was an unruly employee and in the habit of remaining absent

unauthorizedly. For such unauthorized absence charge sheet dated 08^th June, 2012 was served on him alleging long

absence of 186 days in the year 2010, 147 days in the year 2011, and 58 days upto April in the year 2012. Though full

and fair opportunity was given to the workman to defend his cause and all care was taken to follow the Principles of

Natural Justice, the proceeding could not progress for the non cooperation of the workman. Mr. Rahul Batra Supervisor

Grade-II was allowed to act as the Defence Assistant for the workman. The inquiry commenced on 20^th November 2012

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7279

and continued for 23 months during which 24 adjournments were allowed. But the domestic inquiry could not be

completed for non cooperation of the Defence Assistant. The Inquiry Officer then prepared a report and submitted to the

Disciplinary Authority who after going through a report and came to hold that the allegation is proved through document

and passed the final order proposing penalty of removal from service against the workman. Accordingly he was removed

from service and at that time his one month gross wage amounting to Rs. 23,734/- was deposited in his bank account

where salary was credited. Since the union having name Cambata Aviation karamchari Union had raised one Industrial

Dispute registered as ID No. 122/2012 the management felt it proper to file an application invoking the provision laid u/s

33(2)(b) Id act 1947 seeking necessary approval of its action for awarding the penalty of removal from service to the

workman.

Being noticed the workman Shyam Sunder appeared and filed reply to the application filed by the management. The

stand taken by the workman is that he is the office bearer of Cambata Aviation Karamchari Union, the majority Union in

the establishment of the management. As such he is a protected workman and an application praying declaration of

protected workman was pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on the date when the order of dismissal was

passed. The pending application was very much within the knowledge of the management. Only to prevent the Union

from safeguarding the interest of its members the management imposed the exemplary punishment on the workman who

is a protected workman in complete contravention of the provisions of section 33(3) of ID Act. It is further alleged that

the workman was the Officer bearer and the management had repeatedly called the leadership of the Union to withdraw

the dispute pending as ID No. 122/2012. The allegation against the workman that he remained unauthorizedly absent is

absolutely false. The fact remains that between 2010 to 2012 he had suffered serious elements like heart problem and

fracture of bone. He had to undergo open heart surgery too. Considering his health condition he had availed some extra

leave and for that illegal charge sheet was served on him. Thereby the workman pleaded that the action taken by the

management in removing him from service is illegal and this tribunal should not approve the illegal action of the

management taken against a protected workman.

On behalf of the management several document were filed including the appointment letter confirmation letter, salary

vouchers, for different months showing absence of the workman, the copy of the charge sheet, the reply submitted by the

workman to the said charge sheet notice of inquiry served on the workman and copy of the domestic inquiry proceeding

report of the Inquiry Officer, the objection filed by the workman to the report of the inquiry officer etc. On behalf of the

workman the demand notice the copy of the charge sheet and the order of dismissal etc have been filed.

During hearing despite repeated opportunity allowed the management did not adduce any evidence oral or documentary

though some documents were placed on record alongwith the pleading. The workman examined himself as WW1and

proved the documents filed by him as WW1/1 to WW1/5.

Under the provisions of section 33 of the ID Act provision has been made to put a check on the vindicated action of the

management against the employee for enforcing his or their legal rights. The provisions of law clearly envisages that no

employer during the pendency of any such proceeding or Industrial Dispute shall alter in regard to any matter connected

with the dispute, the condition of service applicable to the workman or for any misconduct not connected with the dispute

shall discharge punish dismiss or otherwise the workman without approval of the Tribunal. In this case there is no dispute

that ID No. 122/2012 is pending being filed by the Cambata Aviation Karamchari Union of which the workman Shyam

Sunder is a member. That dispute relates to General Demand of the workers. It is the stand of the workman that he is a

protected workman and in view of the clear provision laid u/s 33(3) of the ID Act the management shouldn’t have taken

action against him. He has also challenged the procedural irregularities in the conduct of the domestic inquiry against

him.

The management being a legal entity is free to act within its rights so long as it doesn’t interfere illegally with the right of

another man. When an employee is punished or discriminated for his union activity, there is an interference with his just

rights recognized by law. It is a settled position of law that this tribunal should interfere in those cases where there has

been any infringement or encroachment of the natural or common Law right of a person created by a statute. Here is a

case where the management has admitted about the pendency of ID No. 122/2012. But at the same time it has been

pleaded that ID No. 122/2012 is with regard to the General Demand of DA, Bonus etc and unconnected with the

misconduct alleged against the workman. In the pleading it has also been stated that the petition u/s 33(2)(b) has been

filed as an abundant caution which should be allowed.

The stand of the workman is that he is a protected workman and for the restriction u/s 33(3) the action taken against him

by the management having the effect of change of service condition is illegal. To fortify his stand he has adduced oral

evidence wherein he has alleged that the management was carrying a grudge against him for his union activities. The oral

argument submitted by the Ld. A/R for the workman is that under the provisions of section 33(4) in every establishment

one percent of the workman be recognized as the protected workman to represent the General Body of the workman and

the appropriate Government passes an order to that effect. In the case of Cambata Aviation Workers Union one

application was pending for declaration of the officer bearers of the Union as protected workman including the workman

of this proceeding. When that matter was pending for final argument the management hastily dismissed the workman

7280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 19, 2019/ASVINA 27, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from service. He also argued that the law is well settled that whenever the application is filed the workman enjoys the

protection notwithstanding the fact that the application is pending and such protection is valid for one year. Since, the

application for declaration of the protected workman was filed in March 2014, the action of the management for removal

dated 13.11.2014 is illegal.

This evidence and averment of the workman has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged since the management has

not filed any rejoinder and no rebuttal evidence has been filed.

Hence considering the pleading and evidence adduced by the respondent workman it is held that the management during

the pendency of the Industrial Dispute ID No. 122/2012 and having full knowledge about the pending application for

declaration of the protected workman and also having knowledge that the workman Shyam Sunder being an office bearer

is likely to be declared as a protected workman, took an action by initiating domestic inquiry and passing the order of

dismissal which amounts to change of service condition for which no approval can be granted.

Accordingly the prayer made by the workman is held devoid of merit and rejected. The ID is accordingly dismissed.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

2^nd August, 2019

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1863-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ एयर इंिडया lsVl एअरपोटB सवBस ाइवेट fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 103@2019½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2019 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&11012@04@2019&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2019

S.O. 1863.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, New

Delhi (Ref. No. 103/2019) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Air India SATS Airport Services Pvt. Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.10.2019.

[No. L-11012/04/2019-IR (CM-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty

ID. NO. 103/2019

Shri Aslam S/o Ali Muhammad,

R/o E-2/1323, Gali No. 14/1,

E-11 Block, Nehru Vihar,

Delhi-110094

…Workman

Versus

Air India SATS Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.

Airlines House, 113,

Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi

…Management

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 19] 2019@vkf'ou 27] 1941

7281

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No. L-11012/04/2019(IR(CM-I)) dated 13.03.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Air India SATS Airport Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

in terminating the services of Sh. Aslam S/o Ali Muhammad w.e.f 03.07.2017 is proper, legal and

justified?

ii. If not what relief he is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in this

regard?