5823 GI/2019

(7631)

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- 47]

ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 17—uoEcj 23] 2019] 'kfuokj@dkfrZd 26—vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

No. 47]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 17— NOVEMBER 23, 2019, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 26— AGRAHAYANA—2, 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)

िवदेश

िवदेश मंालय

मंालय

(सी.पी.वी. भाग

सी.पी.वी. भाग

सी.पी.वी. भाग)

नई दली, 15 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1984

1984

1984.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् ारा, क" सरकार भारत के दूतावास, एथस म $ी %वीन कुमार, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक

15 नव बर 2019 से सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा* के िनव+हन के िलए %ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी.4330/02/2019]

टी. अजुंगला जािमर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

7632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2019

S.O. 1984.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Parveen Kumar,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Athens to perform the consular services

with effect from 15 November, 2019.

[No.T-4330/02/2019]

T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)

नई द ली, 15 नव बर, 2019

का

का. आ.

. आ.

. आ. 1985

1985

1985.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् ारा, क" सरकार भारत के उ/ायोग, िलल 2वे म $ी सोमवीर अहलावत, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को

दनांक 15 नव बर 2019 से सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा* के िनव+हन के िलए %ािधकृत करती

है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2016]

टी. अजुंगला जािमर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2019

S.O. 1985.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Somveer Ahlawat,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, Lilongwe to perform the

Consular services with effect from 15 November 2019.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)

नई द ली, 15 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1986

1986

1986.—कानूनी आदेश राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ और फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948

(1948 का 41) क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण मे क" सरकार सु$ी जया गेरा, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को 15

नव बर, 2019 से भारत के राजदूताबास, हवाना म सहायक क सुलर अिधकारी के कत+4 का पालन करने के िलए %ािधकृत

करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

टी. अजुंगला जािमर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2019

S.O. 1986.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorizes Ms. Jaya Gera, Assistant

Section Officer in Embassy of India, Havana to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect

from 15 November, 2019.

[No.T-4330/01/2015]

T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7633

का मक

का मक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई दली, 18 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1987

1987

1987.—क"ीय सरकार, दंड %6या संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) क धारा 24 क उपधारा (8) ारा

%द9 त शि: तय का %योग करते ;ए, $ी भवानी <सह रोिह ला, अिधव: ता को आतंकवादी और िव? वंसकारी 6याकलाप

(िनवारण) अिधिनयम A यायालय अजमेर के समB क"ीय जांच D यूरो मामला आरसी जेएआई 1993

(एस)/0037/सीबीआई/जयपुर और उ: त मद से उGभूत अA य काय+वािहय के अिभयोजन के संचालन के िलए द ली िवशेष

पुिलस स् थापन (क"ीय जांच D यूरो) क ओर से, िनयुि: त क तारीख से तीन वष+ क अविध के िलए या मामले के िनपटान तक,

इनम से जो भी पूव+तर हो, िवशेष लोक अिभयोजक के Mप म िनयु: त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/09/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. िNपाठी, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2019

S.O. 1987.—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 Bhawani Singh Rohilla, Advocate, as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of Central Bureau of Investigation case RC JAI1993

(S)/0037/CBI/Jaipur before the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, Court at Ajmer on behalf of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) and other proceedings arising out of the said case,

for a period of three years from the date of appointment or disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/09/2019-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

कृिष एवं कसान क या

कृिष एवं कसान क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

(कृिष

कृिष

कृिष, सहकारता एवं कसान क या

सहकारता एवं कसान क या

सहकारता एवं कसान क याण िवभाग

ण िवभाग

ण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 11 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1988

1988

1988.—ब;-राPयीय सहकारी सिमितयां अिधिनयम, 2002 (2002 का 39) के खंड 4 के उपखंड (।) ारा

%दत शि: तय का %योग करते ;ए भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एवं एम दनांक 11 अ: तूबर,

2018 के अिध6मण म केA" सरकार एतत ारा $ी िववेक अQवाल, IAS (MP:94), संयुR सिचव (सहकाSरता) को कृिष एवं

कसान क याण मंNालय, कृिष, सहकाSरता एवं कसान क याण िवभाग म त9काल %भाव से अथवा अगले आदेश तक

सहकारी सिमितय के केA "ीय पंजीयक के Mप म िनयुR करती है।

[फा. सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एवं एम]

शेखर बोस, अवर सिचव

7634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE

(Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare)

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2019

S.O. 1988.—In exercise of the powers conferred vide sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Multi State

Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and in supersession of the Government of India Notification No. L-

11012/2/2003-L&M dated 11^th October, 2018, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Vivek Aggarwal, IAS

(MP:94), Joint Secretary (Cooperation) in the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture,

Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies with immediate effect and until

further orders.

[F. No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M]

SHEKHAR BOSE, Under Secy.

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 15 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 1989

1989

1989-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa

blds i’pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; }kjk tkjh

dh xbZ vf/klwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 656] rkjh[k 2 ebZ] 2019 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 4

ebZ] 2019 esa izdkf’kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk ls mikc) vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 16-410

gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 40-55 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk’k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh;

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr mDr Hkwfe ds Hkkx esa

dks;yk vfHkizkIr gS;

vr%] vc] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, blls layXu

vuqlwph esa of.kZr 16-410 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 40-55 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj dk vtZu

djus ds vius vk’k; dh lwpuk nsrh gSA

fVIi.k 1%

bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e

¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@528] rkjh[k 09 flrEcj] 2019 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk & lqjtiqj ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k

dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM]

¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj & 495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

fVIi.k 2%

fVIi.k 2% mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gaS%&

^^8^^8^^8^^8- vtZu ds ckcr~ vkifRr;kWa

vtZu ds ckcr~ vkifRr;kWa

vtZu ds ckcr~ vkifRr;kWa-& ¼1½ dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS]

fgrc) gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds

fdUgha vf/kdkjksa dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k]&

Li"Vhdj.k]& bl /kkjk ds vFkkZUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy,

Lo;a [kuu lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A

¼2½

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/kdkjh]

vkifRrdrkZ dks Loa; lqus tkus dk ;k fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifRr;ksa dks lquus ds

i’pkr~ vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkWp];fn dksbZ gks]djus ds i’pkr] tks og vko’;d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk

¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe ds ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdM+s

;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj’kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds

vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu’p; ds fy, nsxkA

¼3½

bl /kkjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk

gdnkj gksxk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k fdlh ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gSA ^^

fVIi.k 3%

fVIi.k 3% dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 dks] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3

ds v/khu vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼AaAa½] rkjh[k 4

vizSy] 1987 esa izdkf’kr dh x;h }kjk] l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k gSA

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7635

vuqlwph

egkek;k vkslhih foLrkj Cykd

HkVxkao {ks=

ftyk lqjtiqj ¼NRrhlx<+½

¼js[kakd la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@528] rkjh[k 09 flrEcj] 2019½

lHkh vf/kdkj %

¼d½ jktLo “wfe %

Ø-

la-

xzke dk

uke

xzke la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIif.k;ka

CykWd&,

CykWd&ch

dqy

tjgh

103

izrkiiqj

lqjtiqj

8-380

8-030

16-410

Hkkx

dqy % 16-410 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 40-55 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

xzke tjgh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 33(Hkkx), 37@2] 38@1] 38@2] 39 ls 47] 53 ls 58] 61(Hkkx)]

62(Hkkx), 66(Hkkx), 67 ls 75] 341(Hkkx), 342(Hkkx), 483(Hkkx) ls 485(Hkkx), 486@1] 486@2] 487] 488(Hkkx),

489(Hkkx), 490] 491(Hkkx), 492@1 ls 492@4] 493@1] 493@2] 494 ls 497] 498(Hkkx), 500(Hkkx), 501] 507(Hkkx),

553@1(Hkkx), 553@2] 555(Hkkx), 556(Hkkx), 557] 564@1 ls 564@3] 566(Hkkx), 582(Hkkx), 583(Hkkx), 585(Hkkx),

589(Hkkx), 590(Hkkx), 591 ls 595] 596(Hkkx), 597(Hkkx), 618(Hkkx) ls 620(Hkkx), 621 ls 623] 624(Hkkx),

625(Hkkx), 637(Hkkx), 638(Hkkx), 741(Hkkx), 748(Hkkx), 749] 750(Hkkx), 751(Hkkx), 752 ls 755] 756(Hkkx), 757(Hkkx),

760(Hkkx), 772(Hkkx).

Hkw&vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj vftZr fd, tkus okys Hkwfe ds fooj.k dk C;kSjk uhps lkj.kh esa fn;k x;k gS%&

lkj.kh

CykWd&,

Ø-

la-

HkwLokeh dk uke] firk@ifr dk uke

IykV la[;k {ks= gsDVs;j esa

eksckby la[;k

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

lisnh;k nsoh irh dkUrh izlkn] Hkxorh izlkn] eEchds'oj]

p.Mhds'oj] cnzh izlkn iq= dkUrh tkfr& czkg~.k-

33 Hkkx

0.32

9753956133

le; yky] ';ke yky] jke yky iq= dys'k] cpuh] /kuesr

iq=h dys'k] ekudaqoj csok dys'k] egs'k >qUuq yky] cq/kjke iq=

jkepj.k jathr vU; 02 HkwLokeh

37/2

0.33

ckcwyky gjd yky uus’oj iq= thjks/ku tkfr&ifudk

38/1

0.74

7354443520

ijes’oj] Hkwous'oj] tqxs'oj iq= ckcwyky eq0 lq[kesu csok

ckcwyky] tkfr&jtokj

38/2

0.14

6268420596

ukFkwjke iq= j/ku] tkfr&jtokj

0.30

9669623684

7636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dykorh iRuh ctjax fxfj] pafnzdk iq= jkepUnz lk0 nsg

dksjU/kk

0.25

lksulk; iq= ve`r] tkfr&jtokj

0.21

9406090675

le;yky iq= chju] xsnh csok chju] tkfr&/kksch

42/1

0.15

8120961547

chjcy iq= chju] xsnh csok chju] tkfr &/kksch

42/2

0.14

8120961547

ckye iq= ek>h] tkfr&jtokj

0.04

9617514042

lkse izdk'k iq= ihrkEcj] d;klks iq=h vkxjlk;

0.06

9009878910

lkse izdk'k iq= ihrkEcj] d;klks iq=h vkxjlk;

0.04

9009878910

cyjke iq= ek>h] tkfr&jtokj

0.03

9617514042

cyjke iq= ek>h] tkfr&jtokj

0.02

9617514042

gseorh dqekjh iq=h dkUrh izlkn

1.01

9753956133

izse lk;] fo".kq iq= /khjuikjl iq= chju] lgksju] pSrqvk] dSjk

0.01

9644962125

furs'k] Hkxorh izlkn] tkfr&czkge.k

0.17

9753956133

dje lk; iq= Hknj] tkfr&jtokj

0.11

7745981891

pUnu jke iq= Hknj] >user csok Hknj tkfr&jtokj

0.13

8959485904

ekulk;] f[kjkspu] tkfr&jtokj

0.07

9644962125

vkye lk; iq= lgk;chj tkfr&jtokj

61 Hkkx

0.11

9131587844

lksulk; iq= ve`r] tkfr&jtokj

62/1 Hkkx

0.08

9406090675

cU/ku] ve`r] tkfr&jtokj

62/2 Hkkx

0.08

9754296460

eaxylk; iq= ve`r] tkfr&jtokj

62/3 Hkkx

0.09

9754296460

ghjk/ku iq= Hkw[ku] ujcfn;k csok Hkw[ku] cq/ku csok uUgqvk]

tkfr&jtokj

66 Hkkx

0.10

dykorh iRuh ctjaxfxfj] pUnzhdk iq= jkepUn] dksjU/kk

0.18

dykorh iRuh ctjaxfxfj] pUnzhdk iq= jkepUnz] dksjU/kk

0.06

lksulk; iq= ve`r] tkfr&jtokj] tkfr&jtokj

69/1

0.02

9406090675

cU/ku&ve`r] tkfr&jtokj

69/2

0.02

9754296460

eaxy lk;] iq= ve`r] tkfr&jtokj

69/3

0.02

9754296460

le; yky iq= chjuxsnh csok chju] tkfr&/kksch

70/1

0.14

chjcy iq= chjuxsnh] csok chju] tkfr&/kksch

70/2

0.13

6120961547

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7637

N-x- 'kklu ¼lM+d½

0.42

lkse izdk'k iq= ihrkEcj] d;klks iq=h vkxj lk;

0.20

9009878910

N-x- 'kklu ¼NksVs@cM+s >kM+ dk taxy½

0.13

jke I;kjh iq= egkchj] tkfr&jtokj

74/1

0.11

jke Hktu iq= vkye lk;] tkfr&jtokj

74/2

0.11

ckye iq= cgksju] tkfr&jtokj

74/3

0.10

vkye lk; iq= cgksju] tkfr&jtokj

74/4

0.10

fy[kq iq= jtu] tkfr&jtokj

75/1

1.26

9669424550

ijes'oj iq= lTtu] tkfr&jtokj

75/2

0.32

9669424550

dqUrs iq= lSukFk] QqbZ;k] ikrj iq=h lSukFk

75/3

0.33

7067389961

dqy %

8.38

Vh,y

7-83

th,y

0-42

lhtsts@chtsts

0-13

dqy

8-38

CykWd&ch

Ø-

la-

HkwLokeh dk uke] firk@ifr dk uke

IykV

la[;k

{ks= gsDVs;j esa

eksckby la[;k

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

ckye iq= eka>h] tkfr&jtokj

341Hkkx

0.02

9617514042

ckye iq= eka>h] tkfr&jtokj

342 Hkkx

0.01

9617514042

jesyky] 'kadj iq= vuUr] ?kwjuh csok vuUr tkfr&jtokj

483P/1

0.13

7772064295

lksulk; iq= lhrkjke] tkfr&jtokj

483P/2

0.13

7772064295

f'koukjk;.k iq= lhrkjke] tkfr&jtokj

483P/3

0.14

7772064295

[khtesu ckbZ iRuh f'ko/kkjh

484 Hkkx

0.05

lksekjlk; iq= liqju] euesr iq=h ykyks tkfr&jtokj

485 Hkkx

0.04

8319878897

Hkksys jktokM+s iq= cks/ku izlkn] tkfr&jtokj

486/1

0.02

8719951024

'kadj jktokM+s vk0 cks/ku izlkn] tkfr&jtokj

486/2

0.02

8719951024

lksekj lk; iq= liqju] euesr iq=h ykyks] tkfr&jtokj

487

0.02

8319878897

7638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[khtesu ckbZ iRuh f'ko/kkjh

488 Hkkx

0.04

Hkksys jktokM+s iq= cks/ku izlkn] tkfr&jtokj

489 Hkkx /1

0.04

8719951024

'kadj jktokM+s iq= cks/ku izlkn] tkfr&jtokj

489 Hkkx /2

0.03

8719951024

yxu] Hktu] ltu iq= 'kksfHkr] cjkrw] ldkyw

490

0.11

8435629514

furs'k & Hkxorh izlkn] tkfr&czkge.k

491 Hkkx

0.60

9753956133

vtZqu] jkefd'kqu] larks"kh iq= cgksju ekrk iaMjh cjkrks] larjk

iq=h cgksju

492/1

0.01

ukjk;.k iq= eksrh yky] tkfr&jtokj

492/2

0.10

9669034098

lksulk; iq= ukUgw] jke] eksgjefu;k] lksekjh] Hkxesu iq=h

ukUgwjke] tkfr&jtokj

492/3

0.10

9111585857

ukjk;.k iq= eksrh yky] tkfr&jtokj

492/4

0.18

9669034098

ukjk;.k iq= eksrh yky] tkfr&jtokj

493/1

0.10

9669034098

lksulk; iq= ukUgw] jke] eksgjefu;k] lksekjh] Hkxesu iq=h

ukUgw jke] tkfr&jtokj

493/2

0.27

9111585857

lkseizdk'k iq= ihrkEcj] d;klks iq=h vkxj lk;

494

0.02

9009878910

cyjke iq= ek>h] tkfr&jtokj

495

0.05

9617514042

ckye iq= ek>h] tkfr&jtokj

496

0.08

9617514042

cyjke iq= ek>h] tkfr&jtokj

497

0.05

9617514042

lkseizdk'k iq= ihrkEcj] d;klks iq=h vkxjlk;]

tkfr&jtokj

498 Hkkx

0.02

9009878910

jh>u iq= nYyw ] tkfr&jtokj

500 Hkkx

0.09

9479243503

eksgu iq= cq/kbZ ] tkfr&jtokj

501

0.79

9165821207

ljtq iq= tkSgj] tkfr&jtokj

507 Hkkx /1

0.15

7089495142

yyu mQZ uudk] iq= tkSgj

507 Hkkx /2

0.15

9406190675

ljtq iq= tkSgj] tkfr jtokj

553/1 Hkkx

0.10

7089495142

tSusUnz izlkn iq= vjfoUn jke tkfr jtokj

553/2

0.30

N-x- 'kklu

555 Hkkx

0.11

ca'k#i] d`".kk] jk/ks';ke iq= daoyk

556 Hkkx

0.22

uUn yky iq= euhtj tkfr&psjok

557

0.05

8225090474

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7639

vtqZu] jkefd'kqu] larks"kh iq= cgksju ekrk iaMjh] cjkrks]

larjk iq=h cgksju] tkfr &jtokj

564/1

0.01

ukjk;.k iq= eksrhyky] tkfr &jtokj

564/2

0.01

9669034098

lksulk; iq= ukUgw jke] eksgjefu;k] lksekjh] Hkxesu iq=h

ukUgw jke] tkfr &jtokj

564/3

0.01

9111585857

dje lk; iq= Hknj] tkfr&jtokj

566 Hkkx

0.05

7745981819

jke nkl iq= f[kjks/ku] tkfr&jtokj

582 Hkkx

0.03

9644962125

jke nkl iq= f[kjks/ku] tkfr&jtokj

583 Hkkx

0.03

9644962125

ekulk;]f[kjks/ku tkfr&jtokj

585 Hkkx

0.02

9644962125

pUnu jke iq= Hknj] >user csok Hknj tkfr&jtokj

589 Hkkx

0.07

8959485904

dje lk; iq= Hknj] tkfr&jtokj

590 Hkkx

0.07

7745981819

vkye lk; iq= lgk;chj] tkfr&jtokj

591

0.04

6260011671

deykjke iq= ju lk;] tkfr&jtokj

592

0.04

9755870692

jke nkl iq= f[kjks/ku] tkfr&jtokj

593

0.06

9644962125

dje lk; iq= Hknj] tkfr&jtokj

594

0.05

7745981819

pUnu jke iq= Hknj] >user csok Hknj tkfr&jtokj

595

0.09

8959485904

dje lk; iq= Hknj] tkfr&jtokj

596 Hkkx

0.04

7745981819

N-x- 'kklu

597 Hkkx

0.25

ljtq iq= tkSgj] tkfr&jtokj

618/1 Hkkx

0.01

9669935334

yyu mQZ uudk iq= tkSgj] tkfr&jtokj

618/2 Hkkx

0.01

9406190675

pUnu jke iq= Hknj] >user csok Hknj] tkfr&jtokj

619/1 Hkkx

0.05

8959485904

vkye lk; iq= lgk;chj] tkfr&jtokj

619/2 Hkkx

0.05

6260011671

dje lk; iq= Hknj] tkfr&jtokj

620 Hkkx

0.05

7745981819

vkye lk; iq= lgk;chj] tkfr&jtokj

621

0.32

6260011671

ekulk;] [khjkspu] tkfr&jtokj

622

0.18

9644962125

deyk jke iq= julk;] tkfr&jtokj

623

0.13

9755870692

vesyky] lq[kjke&lksekj lk;] tkfr&jtokj

624 Hkkx

0.03

ljtw iq= tkSgj] tkfr&jtokj

625/1 Hkkx

0.18

9669935334

ljtw iq= tkSgj] tkfr&jtokj

625/2 Hkkx

0.06

9669935334

ca'k#i] d`".kk] jk/ks';ke iq= deyk] tkfr&psjok

637 Hkkx

0.04

N-x- 'kklu

638 Hkkx

0.01

ljtw eucfl;k iq= uudw] tkfr&yksgkj

741 Hkkx

0.35

8120376478

7640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

jh>u iq= nYyw ] tkfr&jtokj

748 Hkkx

0.12

9424268836

furs'k] Hkxorh izlkn] tkfr&czkge.k

749

0.32

9753956133

jke/kuh iq= nYyw ] tkfr&jtokj

750 Hkkx

0.30

9479243503

jh>u iq= nYyw ] tkfr&jtokj

751 Hkkx

0.24

9424268836

lkseizdk'k

iq=

firkEcj&d;klks

iq=h

vkxjlk;]

tkfr&jtokj

752

0.04

9009878910

ckye iq= ekW>h] tkfr&jtokj

753

0.04

9617514042

lkseizdk'k

iq=

firkEcj]

d;klks

iq=h

vkxjlk;]

tkfr&jtokj

754

0.03

9009878910

cyjke iq= ek>h] tkfr&jtokj

755

0.09

9617514042

ckye iq= ek>h] tkfr&jtokj

756 Hkkx

0.03

9617514042

lkseizdk'k

iq=

firkEcj]

d;klks

iq=h

vkxjlk;]

tkfr&jtokj

757 Hkkx

0.04

9009878910

ukjk;.k iq= eksrh yky] tkfr&jtokj

760 /1 Hkkx

0.02

9669034098

ukjk;.k iq= eksrh yky] tkfr&jtokj

760 /2 Hkkx

0.02

9669034098

lksulk; iq= ukUgq] jke] eksgjefu;kWa] lksejh] Hkxesu iq=h

ukUgw jke] tkfr&jtokj

760 /3 Hkkx

0.04

911585857

jke/kuh iq= nYyw tkfr&jtokj

772 Hkkx

0.02

9479243503

dqy %

8.03

Vh,y

7-66

th,y

0-36

lhtsts@chtsts

0-01

dqy+

8-03

Hkwfe dk izdkj

CykWd&, ¼gsDVs;j esa ½

CykWd&ch ¼gsDVs;j esa ½

dqy ;ksx ¼gsDVs;j esa ½

Vh,y

7-83

7-66

15-49

th,y

0-42

0-36

0-78

lhtsts@chtsts

0-13

0-01

0-14

dqy

8-38

8-03

16-41 ¼gsDVs;j esa ½

lhek o.kZu %

Cykd & d%

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh&cjkS/kh ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **[k** ij

feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq ^[k^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds IykV la[;k 37@2] ds mRrjh lhek] 33] 58] 61] 62] 66 ls

gksdj 75 ds mRrjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq ^x^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds IykV la[;k 75] 74] 73 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **?k**

ij feyrh gSA

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7641

?k&d

js[kk fcUnq ^?k^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds IykV la[;k 73] 72] 71] 70] 53] 46] 47 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls

gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

Cykd& [k%

³&p

js[kk fcUnq ^³^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds IykV la[;k 772] 483] 488] 489] 491 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq

**p** ij feyrh gSA

p&N

js[kk fcUnq ^p^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds IykV la[;k 342] 341] 498] 500] 507]582] 583] 585] 589]

590 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 591] 592] 593] 594] 595 ds iwohZ lhek] 596 ls xqtjrh gqbZ 597] 556] 564] ds

if'peh lhek] 566] 556] 555] 553] 597 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **N** ij feyrh gSA

N&t

js[kk fcUnq ^N^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds IykV la[;k 618] 619] 620] 638 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **t** ij

feyrh gSA

t&³

js[kk fcUnq ^t^ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds IykV la[;k 637] 624] 625@1] 625@2] 597] 596] 741]

748] 750] 751] 757] 756] 760] 491] 485] 484] 483] 772 ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA

[ Qk- la- 43015@06@2019&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

jke f’kjksef.k ljkst] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2019

S.O. 1989.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 656,

dated the 2^nd May, 2019 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 or 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, part

II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 4^th May, 2019, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect

for coal in 16.410 hectares (approximately) or 40.55 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the

Schedule annexed to that notification;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed

in the Schedule appended to this notification;

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

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 16.410 hectares (approximately) or 40.55

acres (approximately) and all rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule appended hereto; .

Note1: The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/528, dated the 09^th September, 2019 of the area covered

by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) or in the office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited

(Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur, 495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note 2: Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-

“8. Objection to Acquisition.- (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7

has been issued, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any part

of the land or any rights in or over such land.

Explanation,- It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires

to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operation should not be undertaken by

the Central Government or by any other person.

(2)

Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after

hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report in

respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make

different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central Government,

containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the

decision of the Government.

7642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(3)

For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim

an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act”.

Note 3 : The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001, has been appointed by the Central Government

as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated the 20^th March, 1987,

published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4^th April, 1987.

SCHEDULE

Mahamaya OCP Extension Block

Bhatgaon Area

District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)

[ plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/ LAND/ 528, dated the 09^th September, 2019 ]

All Rights:

(A) Revenue Land:

Sl.

No.

Name of

village

Village

number

Tahsil

District

Area in hectares

Remarks

Block-A

Block-B

Total

Jarhi

103

Pratappur

Surajpur

8.380

8.030

16.410

Part

Total : 16.410 hectares (approximately)

or 40.55 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Jarhi (Part): 33(P), 37/2, 38/1, 38/2, 39 to 47, 53 to 58, 61(P), 62(P), 66(P), 67

to 75, 341(P), 342(P), 483(P) to 485(P), 486/1, 486/2, 487, 488(P), 489(P), 490, 491(P), 492/1 to 492/4, 493/1, 493/2,

494 to 497, 498(P), 500(P), 501, 507(P), 553/1(P), 553/2, 555(P), 556(P), 557, 564/1 to 564/3, 566(P), 582(P), 583(P),

585(P), 589(P), 590(P), 591 to 595, 596(P), 597(P), 618(P) to 620(P), 621 to 623, 624(P), 625(P), 637(P), 638(P),

741(P), 748(P), 749, 750(P), 751(P), 752 to 755, 756(P), 757(P), 760(P), 772(P) .

Details of land to be acquired with land records is given in the table below:-

TABLE

BLOCK-A

Sl. No.

Name of Land owner, Father/Husband

Plot number

Area in hectares

Mobile number

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Sapedia Devi W/o Kanti Prasad, Bhagwati Prasad,

Mambikeshwar, Chandikeshwar, Badri Prasad S/o

Kanti, Caste-Brahmin.

33 P

0.32

9753956133

Samaylal, Shyamlal, Ramlal S/o Kalesh, Bachani,

Dhanmet D/o Kalesh, Mankunwar W/o Kalesh,

Mahesh, Jhunnulal, Budhram S/o Ramcharan, Ranjeet

& 2 Others

37/2

0.33

Baboolal, Haraklal, Naneshwar S/o Jirodhan, Caste-

Panika

38/1

0.74

7354443520

Parmeshwar, Bhuneshwar, Jugeshwar S/o Baboolal,

Mu. Sukhmen W/o Baboolal, Caste-Rajwar

38/2

0.14

6268420596

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7643

Nathuram S/o Radhan, Caste-Rajwar

0.30

9669623684

Kalawati W/o Bajrang Giri, Chandrika S/o Ranchand,

Korandha

0.25

Sonsai S/o Amrit, Caste-Rajwar

0.21

9406090675

Samaylal S/o Biran, Gedi W/o Biran, Caste-Dhobi

42/1

0.15

8120961547

Birbal S/o Biran, Gedi W/o Biran, Caste-Dhobi

42/2

0.14

8120961547

Balam S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

0.04

9617514042

Somprakash S/o Pitamber, Kayaso D/o Aagarsai

0.06

9009878910

Somprakash S/o Pitamber, Kayaso D/o Aagarsai

0.04

9009878910

Balram S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

0.03

9617514042

Balram S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

0.02

9617514042

Hemwati Kumari D/o Kanti Prasad

1.01

9753956133

Premsai, Vishnu S/o Dhiran, Paras S/o Biran, Sahoran,

Chaitua, Kaira

0.01

9644962125

Nitesh-Bhawati Prasad, Caste-Brahmin

0.17

9753956133

Karamsai S/o Bhadar, Caste-Rajwar

0.11

7745981891

Chandanram S/o Bhadar, Jhanmet W/o Bhadar, Caste-

Rajwar

0.13

8959485904

Mansai, Khirochan, Caste-Rajwar

0.07

9644962125

Aalamsai S/o Sahayveer, Caste-Rajwar

61 P

0.11

9131587844

Sonsai S/o Amrit, Caste-Rajwar

62/1 P

0.08

9406090675

Bandhan, Amrit, Caste-Rajwar

62/2 P

0.08

9754296460

Mangalsai S/o Amrit, Caste-Rajwar

62/3 P

0.09

9754296460

Heeradhan S/o Bhukhan, Narbadiya W/o Bhukhan,

Budhan W/o Nanhua, Caste-Rajwar

66P

0.10

Kalawati W/o Bajrang Giri, Chandrika S/o Ranchand,

Korandha

0.18

Kalawati W/o Bajrang Giri, Chandrika S/o Ranchand,

Korandha

0.06

Sonsai S/o Amrit, Caste-Rajwar

69/1

0.02

9406090675

Bandhan, Amrit, Caste-Rajwar

69/2

0.02

9754296460

Mangalsai S/o Amrit, Caste-Rajwar

69/3

0.02

9754296460

Samaylal S/o Biran, Gedi W/o Biran, Caste-Dhobi

70/1

0.14

Birbal S/o Biran, Gedi W/o Biran, Caste-Dhobi

70/2

0.13

6120961547

Chhatisgarh Government (Road)

0.42

Somprakash S/o Pitamber, Kayaso D/o Aagarsai

0.20

9009878910

Chhatisgarh Government (CJJ/BJJ)

0.13

Ram Pyari S/o Mahabir, Caste-Rajwar

74/1

0.11

Ram Bhajan S/o Aalamsai, Caste-Rajwar

74/2

0.11

Balam S/o Bahoran, Caste-Rajwar

74/3

0.10

Aalamsai S/o Bahoran, Caste-Rajwar

74/4

0.10

7644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Likhu S/o Rajan, Caste-Rajwar

75/1

1.26

9669424550

Parmeshwar S/o Sajjan, Caste-Rajwar

75/2

0.32

9669424550

Kunte S/o Sainath, Phuiya, Patar D/o Sainath

75/3

0.33

7067389961

Total:

8.38

7.83

0.42

CJJ/BJJ

0.13

TOTAL

8.38

Block- B

Sr.No.

Name of Land owner, Father/Husband

Plot number

Area in

hectares

Mobile number

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Balam S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

341P

0.02

9617514042

Balam S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

342P

0.01

9617514042

Ramelal, Shankar S/o Anant, Ghurni W/o

Anant, Caste-Rajwar

483P/1

0.13

7772064295

Sonsai S/o Sitaram, Caste-Rajwar

483P/2

0.13

7772064295

Shivnarayan S/o Sitaram, Caste-Rajwar

483P/3

0.14

7772064295

Khijmen Bai W/o Shivdhari

484P

0.05

Somarsai S/o Sapuran, Manmet D/o Lalo, Caste-

Rajwar

485P

0.04

8319878897

Bhole Rajwade S/o Bodhan Prasad, Caste-

Rajwar

486/1

0.02

8719951024

Shankar Rajwade S/o Bodhan Prasad, Caste-

Rajwar

486/2

0.02

8719951024

Somarsai S/o Sapuran, Manmet D/o Lalo, Caste-

Rajwar

487

0.02

8319878897

Khijmen Bai W/o Shidhari

488P

0.04

Bhole Rajwade S/o Bodhan Prasad, Caste-

Rajwar

489P/1

0.04

8719951024

Shankar Rajwade S/o Bodhan Prasad, Caste-

Rajwar

489P/2

0.03

8719951024

Lagan, Bhajan, Sajan S/o Shobhit, Baratu, Skalu

490

0.11

8435629514

Nitesh-Bhawati Prasad, Caste-Brahmin

491P

0.60

9753956133

Arjun, Ramkishun, Santoshi S/o Bahoran

Mother Pandri, Barato, Santara D/o Bahoran

492/1

0.01

Narayan S/o Motilal, Caste-Rajwar

492/2

0.10

9669034098

Sonsai S/o Nanhooram, Moharmaniya, Somari,

Bhagmen D/o Nanhooram, Caste-Rajwar

492/3

0.10

9111585857

Narayan S/o Motilal, Caste-Rajwar

492/4

0.18

9669034098

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7645

Narayan S/o Motilal, Caste-Rajwar

493/1

0.10

9669034098

Sonsai S/o Nanhooram, Moharmaniya, Somari,

Bhagmen D/o Nanhooram, Caste-Rajwar

493/2

0.27

9111585857

Somprakash S/o Pitamber, Kayaso D/o Aagarsai

494

0.02

9009878910

Balram S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

495

0.05

9617514042

Balam S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

496

0.08

9617514042

Balram S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

497

0.05

9617514042

Somprakash S/o Pitamber, Kayaso D/o

Aagarsai, Caste-Rajwar

498P

0.02

9009878910

Rijhan S/o Dalloo, Caste-Rajwar

500P

0.09

9479243503

Mohan S/o Budhai, Caste-Rajwar

501

0.79

9165821207

Sarju S/o Jauhar, Caste-Rajwar

507P/1

0.15

7089495142

Lalan aliyas Nanka S/o Jauhar

507P/2

0.15

9406190675

Sarju S/o Jauhar, Caste-Rajwar

553/1p

0.10

7089495142

Jainendra Prasad S/o Arvind Ram, Caste-Rajwar

553/2

0.30

Chhatisgarh Government

555P

0.11

Banshroop, Krishna, Radheshyam S/o Kanwala

556P

0.22

Nandlal S/o Manijar, Caste-Cherwa

557

0.05

8225090474

Arjun, Ramkishun, Santoshi S/o Bahoran

Mother Pandri, Barato, Santara D/o Bahoran,

Caste-Rajwar

564/1

0.01

Narayan S/o Motilal, Caste-Rajwar

564/2

0.01

9669034098

Sonsai S/o Nanhooram, Moharmaniya, Somari,

Bhagmen D/o Nanhooram, Caste-Rajwar

564/3

0.01

9111585857

Karamsai S/o Bhadar, Caste-Rajwar

566P

0.05

7745981819

Ramdas S/o Khirodhan, Caste-Rajwar

582P

0.03

9644962125

Ramdas S/o Khirodhan, Caste-Rajwar

583P

0.03

9644962125

Mansai, Khirodhan, Caste-Rajwar

585P

0.02

9644962125

Chandanram S/o Bhadar, Jhanmet W/o Bhadar,

Caste-Rajwar

589P

0.07

8959485904

Karamsai S/o Bhadar, Caste-Rajwar

590P

0.07

7745981819

Aalamsai S/o Sahayveer, Caste-Rajwar

591

0.04

6260011671

Kamalaram S/o Ransai, Caste-Rajwar

592

0.04

9755870692

Ramdas S/o Khirodhan, Caste-Rajwar

593

0.06

9644962125

Karamsai S/o Bhadar, Caste-Rajwar

594

0.05

7745981819

Chandanram S/o Bhadar, Jhanmet W/o Bhadar,

Caste-Rajwar

595

0.09

8959485904

Karamsai S/o Bhadar, Caste-Rajwar

596P

0.04

7745981819

Chhattisgarh Government

597P

0.25

Sarju S/o Jauhar, Caste-Rajwar

618/1 P

0.01

9669935334

Lalan aliyas Nanka S/o Jauhar, Caste-Rajwar

618/2 P

0.01

9406190675

7646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chandanram S/o Bhadar, Jhanmet W/o Bhadar,

Caste-Rajwar

619/1 P

0.05

8959485904

Aalamsai S/o Sahayveer, Caste-Rajwar

619/2 P

0.05

6260011671

Karamsai S/o Bhadar, Caste-Rajwar

620P

0.05

7745981819

Aalamsai S/o Sahayveer, Caste-Rajwar

621

0.32

6260011671

Mansai, Khirodhan, Caste-Rajwar

622

0.18

9644962125

Kamalaram S/o Ransai, Caste-Rajwar

623

0.13

9755870692

Amelal, Sukhram-Somarsai, Caste-Rajwar

624P

0.03

Sarju S/o Jauhar, Caste-Rajwar

625/1 P

0.18

9669935334

Sarju S/o Jauhar, Caste-Rajwar

625/2 P

0.06

9669935334

Banshroop, Krishna, Radheshyam S/o Kamla,

Caste-Cherwa

637P

0.04

Chhattisgarh Government

638P

0.01

Sarju Manbasia S/o Nanku, Caste-Lohar

741P

0.35

8120376478

Rijhan S/o Dalloo, Caste-Rajwar

748 P

0.12

9424268836

Nitesh-Bhawati Prasad, Caste-Brahmin

749

0.32

9753956133

Ramdhani S/o Dalloo, Caste-Rajwar

750 P

0.30

9479243503

Rijhan S/o Dalloo, Caste-Rajwar

751P

0.24

9424268836

Somprakash S/o Pitamber, Kayaso D/o

Aagarsai, Caste-Rajwar

752

0.04

9009878910

Balam S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

753

0.04

9617514042

Somprakash S/o Pitamber, Kayaso D/o

Aagarsai, Caste-Rajwar

754

0.03

9009878910

Balram S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

755

0.09

9617514042

Balam S/o Manjhi, Caste-Rajwar

756 P

0.03

9617514042

Somprakash S/o Pitamber, Kayaso D/o

Aagarsai, Caste-Rajwar

757 P

0.04

9009878910

Narayan S/o Motilal, Caste-Rajwar

760 /1 P

0.02

9669034098

Narayan S/o Motilal, Caste-Rajwar

760 /2 P

0.02

9669034098

Sonsai S/o Nanhooram, Moharmaniya, Somari,

Bhagmen D/o Nanhooram, Caste-Rajwar

760 /3 P

0.04

911585857

Ramdhani S/o Dalloo, Caste-Rajwar

772 P

0.02

9479243503

Total:

8.03

7.66

0.36

CJJ/BJJ

0.01

Total :

8.03

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7647

Type of land

Block-A (in hectares)

Block-B (in hectares)

Grand Total

(in hectares)

7.83

7.66

15.49

0.42

0.36

0.78

CJJ/BJJ

0.13

0.01

0.14

Total:

8.38

8.03

16.41 (in hectares)

Boundary description:

Block – A:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes along partly common boundary of villages Jarhi-

Barudhi and meets at

point ‘B’.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in village Jarhi along northern boundary of plot number 37/2, through plot

numbers 33, 58, 61, 62, 66, along northern boundary of 75 and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Jarhi along eastern boundary of plot numbers 75, 74, 73 and

meets at point ‘D’.

D-A

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Jarhi along southern boundary of plot numbers 73, 72, 71, 70,

53, 46, 47 and meets at starting point ‘A’.

Block-B:

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E' and passes in village Jarhi through plot numbers 772, 483, 488, 489, 491 and meets at

point ‘F’.

F-G

Line starts from point ‘F' and passes in village Jarhi through plot numbers 342, 341, 498, 500, 507, 582, 583,

585, 589, 590, along eastern boundary of plot numbers 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, through plot number 596, along

western boundary of plot numbers 597, 556, 564, through plot numbers 566, 556, 555, 553, 597 and meets at

point ‘G’.

G-H

Line starts from point ‘G' and passes in village Jarhi through plot numbers 618, 619, 620, 638 and meets at point

‘H’.

H-E

Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes in village Jarhi through plot numbers 637, 624, 625/1, 625/2, 597, 596,

741, 748, 750, 751, 757, 756, 760, 491, 485, 484, 483, 772 and meets at starting point ‘E’.

[F. No. 43015/06/ 2019-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

पेोिलयम

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई द ली, 14 नव बर, 2019

का.आ

का.आ. . . . 1990

1990

1990.—क"ीय सरकार, तेल उTोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) क धारा 3 क उपधारा

(3) (ग) ारा %द9 त शिRय का %योग करते ;ए एतXारा $ी शिश शंकर, अ?यB और %बंध िनदेशक, ओएनजीसी को

01.10.2019 से 31.03.2021 तक या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उTोग िवकास बोड+ का सदYय िनयु: त

करती है।

[फा. सं. जी-38011/41/2016-िव9 त-I]

पेSरन देवी, िनदेशक

7648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2019

S.O. 1990.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(c) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shashi Shanker, CMD, ONGC as a

member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 01.10.2019 to 31.03.2021 or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.I]

PERIN DEVI, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1991-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksd fgr esa ;g vko';d gS fd iVuk&eksfrgkjh&csrkyiqj

'kk[kk ikbiykbu }kjk isVªksfy;e inkFkksZ ds ifjogu gsrq rglhy% nsofj;k] ftyk% n¢ofj¸kk] jkT;% mŸkj çn¢'k esa bafM;u vkW;y

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg, A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ml Hkwfe esa ftlds

Hkhrj mDr ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwfp esa of.kZr gS] mi;ksx dk vtZu

fd;k tk,(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962

¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu

djus ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS(

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwfp esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr

bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds vUnj] Hkwfe ds Hkhrj ikbiykbu

fcNk, tkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds fy,] Jh jke ds'k ;kno] l{ke izkf/kdkjh bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku

fyfeVsM] ¼ikbiykbu fMohtu½] tuin & nsofj;k & 274001] jkT;% mŸkj izns”k dks fyf[kr :i eas vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

rglhy % nsofj;k

ftyk % nsofj;k

jkT; % mRrj izns'k

ekStk@xzke

losZ@Cykd la- ¼IyksV la-½

lc&Mho &la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

cM+gjk

562

rIik % dpqvkj

176

174

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@16@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&26860]

Ikh- lksekdqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2019

S.O. 1991.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a

pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Tehsil: Deoria, District: Deoria in the State of Uttar

Pradesh for ‘Patna-Motihari-Baitalpur Branch Pipeline’ for the transportation of Petroleum Product,

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

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

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7649

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on

which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette

of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying

of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Ram Kesh Yadav Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines

Division), District: Deoria, Pin – 274001, State: Uttar Pradesh.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Deoria

District : Deoria

State : Uttar Pradesh

Mouja / Village

Survey/Block

No.

Sub-Div-No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

BADAHARA

562

TAPPA: KACHUAR

176

174

[F. No. R-11025(11)/16/2018-OR-I/E-26860]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1992-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds Ik’pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 783 rkjh[k 8 eÃ 2019] tks

Hkkjr ds jkti= rkjh[k 18 eÃ 2019] esa izdkf’kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ’V Hkwfe esa mÙkj

izns'k jkT; esa ftyk nsofj;k esa iVuk & eksfrgkjh & cSrkyiqj rd isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku

fyfeVsM }kjk ikbZi ykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks’k.kk dh Fkh %

vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 15 twu 2019 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (

vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ ns nh gS (

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds Ik'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbZiykbZu

fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu”p; fd;k gS (

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk “kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g

?kks’k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ’V Hkwfe esa ikbZiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk

vtZu fd;k tk, (

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk “kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k

nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks’k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,]

lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbZiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ

okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA

vuqlwph

rglhy % nsofj;k

ftyk % nsofj;k

jkT; % mRrj izns'k

ekStk@xzke

losZ@Cykd la- ¼IyksV la-½

lc&Mho &la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

jkmrikj

rIik % dpqvkj

528 v

pdek/k¨ mQZ efB;k

rIik % dpqvkj

7650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ljS;k

rIik % dpqvkj

?kVSyk xkth

rIik % dpqvkj

482

277

283

284

282

289

452

346

cM+gjk

rIik % dpqvkj

166

105

i¨[kj fHkaMk

rIik % x¨cjbZ

50 c

cjkjh

rIik % xkscjbZ

i¨[kjfHkaMk

rIik % xkSjk

225

ijlk cjok

rIik % xkSjk

408

eqUMsjk

rIik % /krqjk

cjkjh

rIik % /krqjk

112

253

cSrkyiqj

rIik % fljte

223

315

rglhy % HkkVij jkuh

ftyk % nsofj;k

jkT; % mRrj izns'k

ekStk@xzke

losZ@Cykd la- ¼IyksV la-½

lc&Mho &la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

jrfl;k

rIik % cfyou

910

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7651

Ykky pd

rIik% ?kkVh

150

rglhy % lyseiqj

ftyk % nsofj;k

jkT; % mRrj izns'k

ekStk@xzke

losZ@Cykd la- ¼IyksV la-½

lc&Mho &la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

veok

rIik % lfB;kao

260

447

ijklh;k djdVgh

rIik % lfB;kao

838

508

510

506

[ktwjh djkSrk

rIik % lfB;kao

633

632

631

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@16@2018&vksvkj&vkbZ@bZ&26860]

ih- lksekdqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2019

S.O. 1992.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S.O. No. 783 dated the 8^th may, 2019, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),

published in the Gazette of India dated the 18^th May, 2019 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the

right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying ‘Patna –

Motihari - Baitalpur Pipeline Project’ for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Deoria District in the state of Uttar

Pradesh by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 15^th June 2019.

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

the Central Government;

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

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

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

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

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

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

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

encumbrances.

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

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

to the pipeline.

7652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Deoria

District : Deoria

State : Uttar Pradesh

Mouja / Village

Survey/Block

No.

Sub-Div-No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

RAUTPAR

TAPPA: KACHUAR

528 A

CHAKMADHO

URF MATHIYA

TAPPA: KACHUAR

SARAIYA

TAPPA: KACHUAR

GHATAILA GHAZI

TAPPA: KACHUAR

482

277

283

284

282

289

452

346

BADAHARA

TAPPA: KACHUAR

166

105

POKHAR BHINDA

TAPPA: GOBARAI

50 B

BARARI

TAPPA: GOBARAI

POKHAR BHINDA

TAPPA: GAURA

225

PARSA BARWA

TAPPA : GAURA

408

MUNDERA

TAPPA :DHATURA

BARARI

TAPPA:DHATURA

112

253

BAITALPUR

TAPPA :SIRJAM

223

315

Tehsil :Bhatpar Rani

District : Deoria

State : Uttar Pradesh

Mouja / Village

Survey/Block

No.

Sub-Div-No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

Ratsiya

Tappa : Balivan

910

Lal Chak

Tappa:- Ghati

150

Tehsil : Salempur

District : Deoria

State : Uttar Pradesh

Mouja / Village

Survey/Block

No.

Sub-Div-No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

Amava

Tappa : Sathiyav

260

447

Parasiya Karkatahi

Tappa : Sathiyav

838

508

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7653

510

506

Khajuri Karaunta

Tappa : Sathiyav

633

632

631

[F. No. R-11025(11)/16/2018-OR-I/E-26860]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

िव!ुत मंालय

नई द ली, 30 अ: तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1993

1993

1993.—क"ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय %योजन के िलए %योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10

के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म िवTुत मंNालय के %शासिनक िनयंNणाधीन पावरिQड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड के

अंतग+त दिBणी BेN पारेषण %णाली-1 के 765/400 के.वी. वेमिगSर जी.आई.एस. उप क", गांव सूरमपालेम, मंडल

गA डेपि ल, िजला पूव+ गोदावरी, आं] %देश-533437, िजसके 80 %ितशत कम+चारीवृंद ने <हदी का काय+साधक ^ान %ा_ कर

िलया है, को एतद ारा अिधसूिचत करती है।

[सं. 11011/9/2017-<हदी]

अिन`a कुमार, संयुR सिचव

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2019

S.O. 1993.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify 765/400 KV GIS Station, Surampalem (V), Gandepalli (M),

East Godavri (Distt.), Andhra Pradesh-533437 of Southern Region Transmission System-1 of the Power Grid

Corporation of India Ltd. under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired

working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11011/9/2017-Hindi]

ANIRUDDHA KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

#म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई दली, 5 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1994

1994

1994.—औTोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केA"ीय सरकार

मेसस+ महा%बंधक,भारत डायनािम:स िलिमटेड, कंचनबाग, हैदराबाद और अAय एवं उनके कम+चारी के %बंधतंN के संबa

िनयोजक और उनके कम+कार के बीच अनुबंध म िनbदc औTोिगक िववाद म केA"ीय सरकार औTोिगक अिधकरण एवं $म

Aयायालय 1, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदभ+ संdया 29/2019) को %कािशत करती है जो केA"ीय सरकार को 05.11.19 को %ा_

;ए थे ।

[सं. एल-14012/13/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

7654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th November, 2019

S.O. 1994.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

Manager, Bharat Dynamics Ltd, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 05.11.19.

[No. L-14012/13/2018-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29^th day of October, 2019

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 29/2019

Between:

Sri C. Narsing Rao,

H. No.-18-7-181/26, Gowlipura,

Hyderabad – 500 053.

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Bharat Dynamics Ltd., Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad – 500 058.

2. Sri Jaya Rao, Contractor,

M/s. J.S. Communications,

No. 22-27, Flat No.1,

Laxmi Bhavan Street No.1, R.K. Nagar,

Malkajgiri, Hyderabad – 500 047.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Parthasarathi & P. Naveen Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. V. Uma Devi & N. Srinivas, Advocates for R1

AWARD

This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide

order No. L-14012/13/2018–IR(DU) dated 15.2.2019 whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute i.e.,

“Whether the action of management M/s. J.S. Communication, a contractor of M/s. BDL Hyderabad not to

give skilled wages to the workman Shri C.Narsingh Rao is justified? If not what other benefit he is entitled to?’’

After receiving the above said reference, it was registered as ID No. 29/2019 in this Tribunal and notices were

issued to both the parties and procured their presence.

The case is posted for filing of Counter statement by the Respondent. At such stage, on 29.10.2019 the

Petitioner and Respondent No.1 filed a joint memo stating therein to close the case as they have settled their dispute

outside the court. The counsel for the Petitioner identified the Petitioner and respondent No.1 along with their signature

appearing in the joint memo.

Perused the joint memo, wherein it has been stated that, in this case Respondent No.2 is a formal party and the

claim was made against Respondent No.1. Due to non-payment of salaries the Petitioner has filed this case, against

Respondent No.1. Now, Respondent No.1 has paid the arrear salary amount and it has been settled on payment of

Rs.75,000/-. Respondent No.1 has already given a cheque of Rs.75,000/-, bearing cheque No.000140 dated 29.10.2019

of HDFC bank to the Petitioner and there will be no further claim regarding this case by the Petitioner against the

Respondents.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner along with the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 The

Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were explained about the terms and conditions of the settlement. The Petitioner

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7655

submitted that he has no claim to raise against the Respondent. Hence, in view of the submission of the Petitioner and

Respondent No.1, as well as the averments made in the joint compromise memo, the same is accepted and the case is

closed.

In view of the compromise made between the parties, it is seen that both the parties have settled their dispute

and the Petitioner has no claim to raise, hence, the joint compromise memo is allowed and the compromise made

between the parties is accepted. The case is closed as settled.

The reference is answered accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 29^th day

of October, 2019.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दली, 5 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1995

1995

1995.—औTोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केA"ीय सरकार

मेसस+ महािनदेशक (िनमा+ण), सीपीडD यूडी, िनमा+ण भवन, नई दली और अAय एवं उनके कम+चारी के %बंधतंN के संबa

Aयायालय- 2 नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ+ संdया 123/2015) को %कािशत करती है जो केA"ीय सरकार को 21.10.2019 को

%ा_ ;ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 5th November, 2019

S.O. 1995.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 123/2015) 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

Director General (Works), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 21.10.2019.

[No. L-42025/07/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, 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. 123/2015

Date of Passing Award- 11^th September, 2019

Between:

Shri Bachan Singh,

House No. 243, West Long Street,

Vill & PO- Khera Kalan,

7656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi- 110082.

… Workman

Versus

The Director,

AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,

New Delhi- 110029.

…Management

Appearances:-

Claimant in person (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 33A of the ID Act claiming that pending adjudication

of ID No. 54/2014 filed by him the management changed his service condition by terminating his service without

obtaining permission/approval from the Appropriate Authority. The same being illegal is liable to be set aside. While

praying for an interim order of reinstatement the claimant has sought for other remedies as would be admissible.

Notice of the claim petition was sent and served on the management who did not appear and by order dated

30.10.2017 the management was proceeded ex-parte.

The claimant filed his evidence by examining himself as WW1. In the said evidence he has stated that in the

year 2003 he was appopinted against a permanent vacancy as a driver in AIIMS and as per the direction of the head of

the Transport Department was working as a mechanic of Air conditioner and water cooler etc. Alleging discrimination

with regard to salary and other benefits he had raised a claim before the Labour Commissioner where conciliation

proceeding was initiated and being referred by the Appropriate Government ID No. 54/2014 was registered before the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal Delhi. The management was duly noticed in that proceeding but opted not to

contest the same. Having knowledge about the pendency of the Industrial Dispute the management in a vindicated action

on 13.10.2014 served a notice to show cause for a disciplinary action to be taken against him. The claimant submitted

written reply to the same. But the management without considering the representation of the claimant and in gross

violation of the provisions of ID Act by order dated 26.02.2015 retrenched the workman from service w.e.f. 27.03.2015

and while doing so, no showcause was called from him. Since the action of the management was during the pendency of

the Industrial Dispute by the workman and no permission was taken for changing the service condition the same is

illegal.

To corroborate the evidence adduced by him he has examined two other witnesses namely Amit Kumar and

Vinod Kumar and also filed documents which have been marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/12. The document

include the ID Card issued to the claimant, the complaint petition filed by him, the document relating to the qualification

of the claimant, the seniority list prepared by the DPC, the notice to showcause and the order of termination etc. The

evidence of the workman has been left uncontroverted by the management. The claimant has also filed the copy of the

ex-parte award passed by this tribunal in ID No. 54/2014. In the said award marked as exhibit WW1/1 this tribunal has

dismissed the claim of the workman.

There is no dispute that prior to the alleged showcause notice and the order of dismissal ID No. 54/2014 was

pending. The provision of law laid u/s 33A of the ID Act applies to the proposition when the employer wants to alter the

service condition of the workman to his prejudice with regard to any matter connected to a pending dispute or for any

misconduct connected to that dispute. In such a situation the employer is under statutory obligations to seek prior

permission in writing of the authority before whom the dispute is pending.

To attract the provisions of section 33A of the ID Act the conditions precedent are:

(1)

That there should have been contravention by the management of the provisions of section 33 of the

Act.

(2)

That the contravention should have been during the pendency of the proceeding before the conciliatory

authority, labour court tribunal or National tribunal as the case may be.

(3)

That the complainant should have been aggrieved by the contravention.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7657

(4)

That the application should have been made to the labour court/, tribunal in which original proceeding

is pending.

As of this case there was violation of section 33 of the ID Act which has been proved through oral and

documentary evidence by the claimant. The dispute which was raised before this tribunal by the claimant in ID

No. 54/2014 is connected with the dispute in respect of which the order of dismissal has been passed. Admittedly no

application seeking permission was ever filed by the management before this tribunal. That being the position it is

evidently clear that the action of the management in dispensing with the service of the workman during the pendency of

ID No. 54/2014 is void abinitio and the claimant is deemed to be in service of the management on the date of termination

of service with all consequential benefits. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The application filed u/s 33A is allowed and the termination of the service of the claimant by the management

w.e.f 27.03.2015 is held to be illegal and void and it is held that the claimant is deemed to be in service of the

management with all consequential benefits on that date. This award is accordingly passed. 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.

11th September, 2019

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 5 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1996

1996

1996.—औTोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केA"ीय सरकार

मेसस+ आयुR, दली नगर िनगम, दली और अAय एवं उनके कम+चारी के %बंधतंN के संबa िनयोजक और उनके कम+कार

के बीच अनुबंध म िनbदc औTोिगक िववाद म केA"ीय सरकार औTोिगक अिधकरण एवं $म Aयायालय 2, नई दली के

पंचाट (संदभ+ संdया 67/2013) को %कािशत करती है जो केA"ीय सरकार को 21.10.2019 को %ा_ ;ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/35/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 5th November, 2019

S.O. 1996.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2013) 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

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 21.10.2019.

[No. L-42011/35/2013-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : SMT. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No.67/2013

Date of Passing Award : 20th September,2019

Between :-

Shri Rakesh Kumar Saini,

S/o. Shri Bhoolan Singh, Beldar,

lastly posted at EE/Divn.XVI, Works Deptt.,

Kashmere Gate, Civil Line Zone, through

General Secretary,

7658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Municipal Employees Union,

Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi 110054.

…Workman

Versus

The Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Through its Commissioner,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006

Now after bifurcation erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation, through its

Commissioner (North),

SP Mukherjee Civic Centre,

JL Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002.

…Management

Appearances :-

Shri Sachita Kumar, A/R

For the Workman

Shri Rahul Verma, A/R

For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide letter No.L-42011/35/2013/IR(DU) dated 20.06.2013 has

referred the present dispute between Rakesh Kumar Saini and the Management of MCD, to this Tribunal 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 to the following effect :-

‘Whether the action of the management of MCDi in terminating the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar Saini,

Ex-Beldar w.e.f. 6/3/03 is justified or not? To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant filed statement of claim, contending that he joined into the

employment of Management w.e.f. 15/6/1997 as a Beldar. He was a monthly paid muster roll worker but he was

designated as a daily rated/casual worker and was paid fixed wages which was revised from time to time under the

Minimum Wages Act. On 22/2/2003 the workman concerned alongwith Shri Badar Majid, JE and Shri Om Prakash,

regular Beldar were arrested by the CBI on a false complaint alleging that they demanded a bribe from an NRI, for

allowing construction of a small room. The workman was granted bail on 4/3/2003 and thereafter, he reported for duty

on 6/3/2003 but he was not allowed to resume duties by the officials of the Management. Subsequently, a letter dated

17/3/2003 was issued to the workman that his muster roll was being suspended as he was found involved/arrested in

RC13(A)/2003 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B of IPC. Thereafter the workman submitted a

representation to the Management for taking him back on duties but to no response. It is pleaded that the workman was

acquitted by the Court of Shri T.R. Naval, Special Judge (PC Act), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide judgement dated

8/10/2009. On 16/10/2009 the workman submitted a representation to the Management, informing about his acquittal

and requested the Management to allow him to join duties but the Management vide memo dated 25/5/2010 rejected his

request. The services of the workman habe been terminated w.e.f. 6/3/2003 by way of refusal of duties , which action of

the Management is totally illegal,, bad, unjust and malafide because no memo or charge sheet was served upon the

workman; no opportunity of being heard was given to him; no notice, notice pay or service compensation was paid to

him at the time of his termination; the Management has also not displayed any seniority list at the time of termination of

his services and as such, termination of his services is in gross violation of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act. The other

two employees namely Shri Badar Majid, JE and Shri Om Parkash, regular Beldar who were also co-accused in the

criminal case, after their acquittal were taken back on duties but the workman was totally ignored. The workman is

totally unemployed since the date of his termination i.e. from 6/3/2003. Demand notice dated 11/6/2010 was sent to the

Management but to no response. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were initiated but resulted into failure, due to

adamant & non cooperative attitude of the Management. He has prayed for his reinstatement into service with full back

wages & all consequential benefits.

The statement of claim has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary

objections, inter-alia that no demand notice has been served upon the Management; the claimant/workman has concealed

the material facts that the Competent authority vide order dated 25/2/2013 has allowed re-engagement of the claimant as

daily wager muster roll beldar and he has already joined duty as such on 13/3/2013 with the Management. On merits,

while denying allegations of the workman that he was working on job of permanent nature or that his services were

terminated in violation of Section 25-F,G and H of the Act, it is stated that since the claimant being a daily wager

employee remained in judicial custody from 22/2/2003 to 4/3/2003, his muster roll was suspended. The representation of

the claimant was rightly rejected by the Management vide order dated 17/5/2010 which was communicated to the

workman vide office order dated 25/5/2010. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7659

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

allegations of the Management.

Vide order dated 21/11/2016 my learned Predecessor framed following issues and parties were called upon to

lead their evidence :-

Whether the action of the management of MCD in terminating the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar

Saini, Ex-Beldar w.e.f.6/3/2003 is justified or not ? If so, its effect ?

Whether any demand notice has been served by the workman upon the Management prior to raising of

the dispute ? If so, its effect ?

Whether the present dispute has been properly espoused by a recognised Union ? If so, its effect ?

To what relief the workman is entitled to ?

The workman /claimant examined himself as WW1 and led evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A. He

placed reliance on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/11. On the other hand, the Management examined one

Shri S.C.Garg, Assistant Engineer who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 &

Ex.MW1/2.

I have heard arguments from A/Rs of the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. My findings

on the above issues are as follows.

ISSUE No. 2

Firstly, I take up this issue regarding service of demand notice. The workman in para 8 of his statement of

claim has pleaded that a demand notice was served upon the Management by Registered AD post vide communication

dated 11/6/2010. It has been reiterated so by the workman in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A. Testimony of the workman in

this regard has gone unchallenged and unrebutted as he was not put to any cross examination on behalf of the

Management. The workman has also filed on record copy of the legal demand notice dated 11/6/2010 as Ex.WW1/1; its

postal receipt as Ex.WW1/2 and AD card as Ex.WW1/3. MW1 Shri S.C.Garg –witness of the Management has admitted

that address given on point-A in Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3 is the correct address of the Management and document

Ex.WW1/3 bears the correct stamp of the Management. In the light of documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3, contention

of the Management that no demand notice was served by the claimant upon the Management prior to raising of the

present dispute is not sustainable. In the circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that a valid demand notice

has been served by the workman upon the Management prior to raising of the present dispute. This issue is answered in

favour of the workman.

ISSUE NO. 3 :-

During the course of arguments, this issue was not seriously pressed for by the A/R appearing on behalf of the

Management, because no objection regarding espousal of the dispute of the workman, was taken in the written statement.

Even otherwise, legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 was sent by the General Secretary of Municipal Employees Union

(Regd.). The dispute between the parties has been referred to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government.

Furthermore, sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act which recites as under, clearly provides that dispute pertaining to

discharge, dismissal/termination of service of an individual workman does not require any espousal by fellow workman

or by any Union :-

“Section 2A : Dismissal etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute –

(1)

Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual

workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute, notwithstanding that no other

workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute”.

In view of the provisions of Section 2-A(1) of the Act, the present dispute between the parties relating to

termination of services of the workman/claimant herein, is considered to be an industrial dispute and even if it is admitted

that same has not been espoused by any Union, the present dispute/reference is maintainable. This issue is accordingly

answered in favour of the workman and against the Management.

ISSUE No. 1 and 4 :-

10-

From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is not in dispute that the claimant had been

working under the Management as a daily wage/muster roll Beldar since after his joining on 15/6/1997. Relationship of

employer-employee between the parties is not in dispute. It is the case of the workman that his services were terminated

illegally by the Management on 6/3/2003 when he was not allowed to resume duties by the officials of the Management

and that his termination was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F,G and H of the Act. On the contrary, the case

7660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the Management is that since the claimant/workman being a daily wager employee remained in judicial custody from

22/2/2003 to 4/3/2003, his muster roll was suspended.

11-

It is undisputed fact rather admitted to by MW1 in his cross examination that on 22/2/2003 the workman

alongwith JE Badar Majid and regular Beldar Om Prakash were arrested by CBI on charge of demanding bribe and they

were released on bail on 4/3/2003. Shri S.C.Garg, MW1 has admitted that after having been released on bail, the

workman had approached the Management on 6/3/2003 for allowing him to perform duty. He also admitted that the

name of the workman was deleted from the rolls of the Management on 6/3/2003 but no notice, notice pay or

retrenchment compensation was either offered or paid to him. To my mind, striking off the name of the

workman/claimant from the muster roll amounted to “termination of service” particularly when no notice or

compensation in lieu of notice period is given to the workman by the Management. To this view, I am fortified by the

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H.D. Singh Versus Reserve Bank of India and others,

Manu/SC/0217/1985 wherein their lordships have observed that :-

“…Striking off the name of a workman from the rolls by the employer amounts to “termination of service” and

such termination is retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act if effected in violation of the

mandatory provision contained in Section 25-F and is invalid….”

It is not in dispute that the workman/claimant herein worked under the Management for 240 days in a calendar

year preceding to his termination w.e.f.6/3/2003 inasmuch as he worked continuously w.e.f.15/6/1997 till 22/2/2003

when he was arrested by CBI but reported for duty on 6/3/2003 after securing bail on 4/3/2003. However, he was not

allowed to do so, rather his name was struck off the muster rolls. MW1 Shri S.C.Garg –sole witness of the Management

has admitted that when the name of the workman was deleted from the muster roll on 6/3/2003, no memo or charge sheet

or show cause notice was served upon him. Since the Management had not issued any notice or paid compensation in

lieu of notice period to the claimant prior to termination of his services w.e.f. 6/3/2003, action of the Management in

terminating services of the claimant/workman was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

12-

I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to

retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

“25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a)

The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice;

(b)

The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days’ average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess

of six months; and

(c)

Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from

giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that 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.

13-

There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management illegal and void under the law.

14-

Since neither any valid notice nor compensation in lieu of notice period was given by the Management to the

workman at the time of termination, the action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f.

6/3/2003 is held to be illegal and void.

15-

Now important question arises for consideration is as to whether the claimant/workman is entitled to

reinstatement of service with full back wages or any incidental relief of payment of back wages. The claimant in the

pleading as well as in his testimony has stated that he was acquitted in the criminal case by the Court of Shri T.R. Naval,

Special Judge (PC Act). Delhi vide judgement dated 8/10/2009, copy of which has been filed on record by the claimant

as Ex.WW1/8. He has also filed on record copy of the application dated 16/10/2009 (Ex.WW1/9) which he had sent to

the Management alongwith the copy of the aforesaid judgement with the prayer that his muster roll be revived and that he

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7661

be allowed to join his duties. However his request was rejected by the Management vide memo dated 25/5/2010

(Ex.WW1/10). It is pertinent to mention here that workman has since been reinstated in service by the Management

w.e.f. 12/3/2013 on the basis of his representation dated 24/4/2011 which fact though was not pleaded by the workman

in his statement of claim, has been admitted to by the witness of the Management in his cross examination. MW1 has

conceded that for the period between 6/3/2003 to 12/3/2013, neither wages were paid to the workman nor he was allowed

continuity in service. However, the fact remains that the workman after having been reinstated by the Management

w.e.f. 12/3/2013 is still working under the Management as a daily wager. Thus, the point/issue of reinstatement of the

claimant into service has become infructuous, since he has already been reinstated by the Management w.e.f.12/3/2013.

16-

As regards back wages for the period between 6/3/2013 to 12/3/2013, testimony of the claimant that he is

unemployed since after his termination, has gone unchallanged. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show

that the claimant was gainfully employed somewhere else or that he was in a position to make his both ends meet by

doing any work during the aforesaid period. Even if it is assumed that the claimant was doing some intermittent or

adhoc work to make his both ends meet, that would not itself amount to gainful employment. The workman/claimant is

presently aged about 48 years as while appearing in the witness box as WW1 on 21/8/2014 he had disclosed his age as 43

years.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”

reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :

“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :

In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is

the normal rule.

ii)

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting

back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or

the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If

the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent

evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal

to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law

that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive

averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact.

Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to

specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or

substantially similar emoluments.”

18-

The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of

termination of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the

mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime

as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of

service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month’s notice or

pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the

employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop

Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).

19-

However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case 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.”

7662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018) MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a

casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial

Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the

Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing as under :-

“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award, dated

29^th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the respondent, by the

petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the Labour Court, that the services

of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and that, therefore, he was entitled to be

reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that going by the age of the respondent as

disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today, be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the

fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in

the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do

not warrant any interference with the direction, of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in

service with the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in

service forthwith.

Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his

termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages

which he would have drawn had he continued to serve the petitioner…..”

20-

Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant has already been reinstated

into service w.e.f.12/3/2013, this Tribunal is of the firm view that ends of justice will meet if the claimant is held entitled

to get 50 per cent back wages for the period from 6/3/2003 to 11/3/2013 with continuity of service, inasmuch as

termination of the claimant/workman was illegal and unjustified. These issues are accordingly answered in favour of the

workman.

ORDER

The reference is answered on the contest in favour of the workman. The order passed by the Management

regarding striking off the name of workman from the roll, amounting to termination of the workman/claimant w.e.f.

6/3/2003 is held to be illegal. It is ordered that the workman shall be deemed to be in service w.e.f.6/3/2003 till

11/3/2013. It is also ordered that the claimant shall be entitled to 50 per cent back wages for the period from 6/3/2003 till

11/3/2013, arrears of which shall be paid by the Management within three months from the date of publication of the

Award, failing which the claimant/workman will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% from the date

of publication of the Award till realization. Award is passed accordingly. Let copy of this Award be sent for publication

as required under Section 17 of the Act.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & corrected by me.

20^th September, 2019

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 13 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1997

1997

1997.—औTोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केA"ीय सरकार

मेसस+ मुdय महा%बंधक, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, देहरादून और अAय एवं उनके कम+चारी के %बंधतंN के संबa

Aयायालय 2, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ+ संdया 161/2012) को %कािशत करती है जो केA"ीय सरकार को 08.11.2019 को

%ा_ ;ए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/17/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 13th November, 2019

S.O. 1997.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 161/2012) 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 Chief

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7663

General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dehradun & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 08.11.2019.

[No. L-40012/17/2012-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2: NEW DELHI

PRESENT:- SMT. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 161/2012

Date of Passing Award: 26^th September, 2019

BSNL Casual & Contract Workers Union (Regd.)

Through its General Secretary,

Jangi Bhawan, Moti Nagar,

Post Arjun Nagar,

Haldwani, Uttrakhand.

…Workmen/Claimants

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Through its Chief General Manager,

(Telecom West),

Windlas Shoping Complex,

Rajpur Road,

Dehradun 248001.

… Management/Respondent

Appearances :-

Shri Sunil Kumar, A/R

For the Workman

Shri Atul Bhardwaj A/R

For the Management

AWARD

This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide

letter No. L-40012/17/ 2012-IR(DU) dated 9^th/21^st November, 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:

‘Whether the action of Management of BSNL Nainital (Haldwani) of not regularizing the services of 231

workmen (list enclosed) is unjusfied ? If so, to what relief workmen are entitled to?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimants/workmen through their Union filed statement of claim with the

averments inter-alia that the Management through its various SSAs are engaging workmen on contract basis through

contractors since the year 2005. Some of the workmen mentioned in Annexure-A were engaged by the Management as

far back as 1991. It is pleaded that during the period from 1991 to 2005 these workmen were engaged by the BSNL

directly and their wages were paid in Form AC-17 every month. No role was ever played by any contractor in the

recruitment, supervision & control as well as payment of wages of the workmen. They were recruited and appointed by

the senior officers of BSNL, Uttrakhand and the alleged contractors are only for namesake. The contract between BSNL

and alleged contractors are sham and bogus. The claimants/workmen were engaged in the core activities of the

Management like maintenance of telephone lines, maintenance of telephone exchanges, cable joining etc.., as Telephone

Mechanics, Computer Operators, Office Assistants, Clerks, Stenographers etc. There has been no complaints against the

performance and conduct of the contractual workmen. The work performed by the workmen are permanent and perennial

in nature. The Management has not taken any steps for regularizing the services of the workmen just to deny them

benefits of permanent workmen. The workmen sent a demand notice to the Management on 7/4/2010 but to no response.

Thereafter the dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. It is claimed that the workmen (whose

details are given in Annexure-A) are entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 7/4/2010 i.e. from the date of demands raised by the

7664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workmen Union. Prayer has been made that award be passed against the Management for regularizing the services of the

workmen as per Annexure-A.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management of BSNL who filed its written statement and took

preliminary objections that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties, as all the claimants are

labourers of contractor to whom contract had been awarded by the Management through open tenders. It was the

contractor who engaged the workmen for completion of the job as per requirement/assignment of the contract. The

workmen/claimants were never engaged as employees of the Management and as such they are not the workmen as per

Section 2(S) of the Act. It has been denied that during the period from 1991 to 2005 the workmen were engaged by

BSNL directly and their wages were paid in Form AC-17 every month. It has been alleged that the officials of the

Management have no control over the workmen who have worked for various contractors at various sites. Since the

workmen were not the employees of the Management, question of regularizing their services by the Management does

not arise. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 16/1/2014 :-

Whether relationship of employer and employee exists between the management and workmen ? If so,

its effect ?

Whether the action of Management of BSNL, Nainital (Haldwani) of non regularizing the services of

231 workmen (list enclosed) is unjustified ? If so, its effect ?

To what relief if any workmen are entitled to ?

The Claimants in support of their case examined in all 67 witnesses as WW1 to WW 67 including Shri

K.K.Bora, General Secretary of the Union as WW67. They tendered their respective affidavits Ex.WW1/A to

Ex.WW67/A and relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/18 and Ex.WW110/1. On the other hand, the

Management in order to rebut the case of the claimants, examined Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma, Deputy General

Manager (Telecom), Haldwani (Nainital) as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied

on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/10 (colly.)

Arguments were advanced by Shri Sunil Kumar, A/R for the claimants and Shri Atul Bhardwaj, A/R for the

Management. Perused the records carefully. The findings on the above issues are as follows.

Issue No. 1 to 3 :-

All these issues being inter dependent are taken up together for disposal by common discussion.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that the appropriate Government referred the dispute regarding regularization

of the services of 231 Nos. of workmen (as per list enclosed). The said list contains the names, parentage & place of

posting of 231 Nos. of workmen, (as annexed alongwith the reference) is now marked as Ex.C-1 (for the sake of

identification). Perusal of the record shows that during pendency of the proceedings, an application on behalf of 11 more

claimants was filed for impleading them as co-workmen on the ground that though they are performing the same duties,

they could not file the case alongwith their co-workmen and the said application was allowed vide order dated

17/11/2017. The particulars of those newly added workmen are given in the list now marked as Ex.C-2. Thus, this

dispute pertains to 242 (231 + 11) workmen whose particulars are given in the lists Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 respectively.

Case of the claimants/workmen herein is that during the period from 1991 to 2005 most of workmen were

engaged by the BSNL directly and their wages were paid in Form AC-17 every month. However, the Management

through its various SSAs started engaging workmen on contract basis through contractors from the year 2005. The

workmen were recruited & appointed by the senior officers of BSNL, Uttrakhand and the alleged contractors are only for

namesake. The contract between BSNL and alleged contractors are sham and bogus. On the other hand, case of the

Management is that the workmen/claimants were never engaged by the Management. All the claimants are

labourers/workers of contractor to whom contract/s had been awarded by the Management through open tenders from

time to time. It was the contractor who engaged the workmen for completion of the job as per requirement/assignment

of the contract. As such, there does not exist any relationship of employer and employees between the Management &

claimants herein.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R appearing for the Management strenuously argued that since the

claimants were not directly appointed by the Management herein and they used to get wages from the contractor/s, there

existed no relationship of employer-employee between the parties. He relied on a number of judgements viz. Workman

Vs. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547; Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union Vs. Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd;(2005) SCC 51; Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd (2014) 9 SCC 407; Dhrangadhra

Chemiccal Works Ltd. Versus State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957 SC 274; Ram Singh Vs. Union Territory,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7665

Chandigarh (2004) 1 SCC 126; Workman of Nilgiri Coop Marketing Society Vs. State of Tamilnadu (2004) 3 SCC

4514; State of Karnatka Versus Uma Devi and others 2006(4) SCC 1 to buttress his submission that if the contract is

for supply of labour, necessarily the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and

control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the

salary is paid by a contractor.

10)

There is no dispute about preposition of law that the effective control test and organization test are not the only

factors which can be said to be decisive. With a view to elicit the answer, with regard to employer and employee

relationship, the Court/Tribunal is required to consider several factors vis-a-vis- who is the appointing authority, who is

the paymaster, who can dismiss; how long alternative service lasts, the extent & control of supervision; the nature of the

job – professional or skilled work etc. etc, which would have a bearing on the issue in dispute. For that purpose it is

required to consider the evidence adduced on record by the parties to the dispute.

11)

Testimony of the workmen/claimants who appeared in the witness box as WW1 to WW 66 are in the line of the

averments made in the claim petition. WW1 Shankar Lal claimed to have joined the services of BSNL in July, 1999 and

he has been working as Lineman. WW 2 Shri Kamal Kumar Tripathi testified that he joined the services of BSNL in

March, 1996. In cross examination he clarified that he was working as a clerk but no appointment letter was issued to

him. He has been receiving salary through NEFT/ECS. According to testimony of WW3 Chandra Shekhar Pandey, he

has been working since February, 1999 as a telephone mechanic but no appointment letter was issued regarding his

engagement. In cross examination he clarified that he was orally called for the job by Shri L.N.Joshi, the then SDO at

Haldwani. WW4 Mahesh Singh Bisht testified that he joined the services of BSNL on 1/11/1997 as a phone mechanic

but he was not issued any appointment letter. In cross examination he explained that he was orally called for the job by

Shri A.K. Asthana, the then AO at Haldwani. WW5 Shri Alok Tewari deposed that he has been working as a computer

operator since 1997 under the Management and he was orally called for the job by Shri Bajpayi, the then TTM at

Haldwani He explained that initially his attendance used to be marked but later on it was stopped after 1-1/2 year. He

denied the suggestion that he received his wages from contractor through bank. According to testimony of WW6 Gopal

Singh Rana, he has been working under the Management since 1999 as an Office Assistant and was orally called for the

job by Shri GCS Bisht, the then PRO at Haldwani. Testimony of WW7 Shankar Singh Rawat is to the effect that he has

been working as a Lineman since 1998 and was orally called for the job by Shri N.B.Bisht, the then SDO at Haldwani.

WW8 Skhri Jagat Pal Singh deposed that he joined the services of BSNL on 6/5/1998 and has been working as a

Lineman. He was called for the job by Shri N.B. Bisht, the then SDO at Haldwani. To the same effect are the statements

of other workmen who appeared as WW9 to WW66 and claimed to have joined service under the Management at

different point of time prior to 2005 & after 2005 and have been working either as Lineman, BTS Operator, computer

operator, phone mechanic clerk, electrical wireman, cable jointer, housekeeping staff etc. It is worth mentioning that it

has come in the cross examination of these witnesses/ claimants that they had not applied for the jobs in response to any

advertisement, nor their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, nor any appointment letter were issued to

them. The claimants have placed reliance on the documents Mark-A to E; Ex.WW3/1 (colly.), Mark X and Mark X-1..

Mark-A is the copy of the order dated 1-1-2012 passed under Section 19(1) of RTI Act by the Public Information

Officer/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1, Kanwli, Dehradun which was received by one of the workmen Shri

Kamal Kumar Tripathi at the office address i.e. Office of General Manager (Telecom), Distt. Nainital, Haldwani. Mark -

2 is the receipt of payment made to the workman Kamal Kumar Tripathi on 6/12/1996 by SDE (MM) Haldwani.

Document Mark-C (colly.)is the copy of gate pass for carrying goods/items like cable, jumpher wire, drop wire, , PLB

pipe etc.; Mark-D is copy of receipt of goods/item TSF-V W/L Cable by the workman Anand Singh on behalf of SDE,

Nainital and Mark-E is copy of circular dated 8/7/2015 issued by the office of AGM (A&P), BSNL to all the CGM,

Telecom and SSA Heads. Mark-X & Mark X-1 are the copies of the duty chart in respect of the departmental

workers/contractual workers posted under SDE (Phones), Haldwani for the period from 31/3/2019 to 6/4/2019.

Document Ex.WW3/1 (colly. pages 1 to 96 are the receipts of payment by the workman Nathu Lal from JTO, Lalkua,

BSNL ; attendance sheet of the workers/officials deployed at Telephone Exchange, Motahaldu; receipts regarding

purchase of Diesel, Mobile Oil/lubricants etc. from M/s Trilok Singh &Company by the workman Chander Shekhar

Pandey s/o. Laladhar Pandey on behalf of BSNL, Motahaldu, Haldwani on different dates during the years 2001 to 2005.

These documents have been placed on record, mostly to prove the conduct of the management in engaging the workmen

for official work on their employees.

12-

According to the testimony /affidavit Ex.MW 1/A of Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma, Deputy General Manager

(Telecom), there never existed any relationship as of employer-employees between the Management and the claimants

herein. The claimants were engaged by the different contractors. This witness has filed on record copy of

agreements/contracts (Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/10) executed by the Management in favour of different contractor/s

namely M/s Tomar Detective Security (P) Ltd; M/s Laxmi Engineers, Mathura; M/s Tabi Telecom Services, Bulandshahr

(UP); M/’s Uttranchal Enterprises, Kasipsur, M/s Baba Trading Company, Dehradun; M/s Mangal Trading Company

Morena (UP); M/s Jai Shree Ram Traders, Gwalior (MP); M/s Creative Computer Sytem, Almora; M/s Ragunath

Computers, Haldwani and M/s Aftab Infocom Pvt.Ltd., Begusarai. Perusal of these contracts/agreements shows that

7666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

these were executed by the Management at different points of time, starting from 2-11-2005 to 14/2/2017. In cross

examination, he exressed his ignorance if the workmen of these proceedings were working with BSNL since 1995 these

contractors. He also showed his ignorance if there was any contractor engaged since 1995 to 2005 for undertaking the

kinds of work the workmen of this proceeding were undertaking. He admitted that after 1985 there has been a manifold

increase in the workload of BSNL at Nainital and that the BSNL, Nainital is in requirement of services rendered by the

workmen of these proceedings throughout the year. Though he deposed that whenever any underground fault is detected

the technical Officer of BSNL used to attend the same with the help of labourers engaged by the contractor, by digging

the trench and thereafter the staff of BSNL used to repair & link the damaged Cable, could not name any person working

as a Cable Jointer being a permanent staff of BSNL. He also showed his ignorance if all the exchanges functioning under

SSA, Nainital are functioning with single permanent staff with the help of workers engaged by the contractor. This

witness of the Management could not say as to who had issued the warning letter Mark-A (purportedly issued by Junior

Telecom Officer, Telecom Exchange, LalKua, to the workman Dev Bahadur resident of village Haripur Shivdutt,

Arjunpur regarding dereliction of duty. (Dev Bahadur is one of the workmen and his name finds mention at Sl.No.18 of

the list Ex.C-1). It would not be out of place to mention here that thoughMW1 Deepak Kumar Sharma in his cross

examination could not identify the signatures appearing on documents Mark X and MarkX-1, however the management

has neither disputed the genuineness and authenticity of these documents nor has led any evidence to show that these

documents Mark X and MarkX-1 (Duty Chart of the claimants) are fake and fabricated. Hence, from the set of aforesaid

evidence led by both the parties and the documents relating to an undisputed point of time, the only conclusion is that the

claimant/workman were engaged into work at different point of time by the officers of the management, discharging

perennial nature of work under the supervision and control of the officers of BSNL.

13-

As per deposition of WW1 to WW66 coupled with the documents Mark A to E, X, X-1 and Ex.3/1 (colly.), it

is evident that most of the claimants/ workmen who were engaged either directly before 2005 or through contractors after

2005, for doing the work of Lineman, BTS Operator, computer operator, phone mechanic clerk, electrical wireman, cable

jointer, housekeeping staff etc. under the Management are still working as such. Even if it is assumed for the sake of

arguments that the Management of BSNL used to get work done from the claimants/workmen through the contactor

pursuant to the contract/agreements Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/9 issued in favour of the contactor/s, in that eventuality also

the question arises for consideration is whether the said contract/s are sham or camouflage as alleged by the claimants.

14-

It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially

social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the working conditions of

workers under the contract labour system and to abolish the same by the appropriate government as provided under

Section 10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through

contract labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes

contravention of the provisions of Act punishable there under. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the

establishment to get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.

15-

Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs.

National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 noticed the following circumstances under which contract labour

would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-

“107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :

(i)

Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and

employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court ordered

abolition of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1) of the

CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered.

(ii)

Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the

contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality,

the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of

contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited.

(iii)

Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal

employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would

indeed be the employees of the principal employer.

16-

In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on

19/2/2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as

safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who

had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect that

workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and

camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel) and the workmen.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7667

17-

With regard to the case in hand, except for the bald statement that the claimants are/were the workers of the

contactor, the Management has not filed on record any document to rebut the contention of the claimants that most of the

workmen were engaged directly by the Management even prior to execution of agreements by the Management with the

contractor in the year 2005. Testimony of the workmen that they are still working under the Management from the

respective dates of their engagement and that the workmen remained the same though contractors used to be changed

from time to time, has gone unassailed. The Management of BSNL has filed on record copies of the agreements/

contracts awarded to contractor/s from time to time as Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/10. However, perusal of these

agreements show that the same have been issued from time to time either for infrastructure maintenance & upkeep of

Exchange/BTS in Zine-1 and Zine-2 (Nainital District) or for providing workforce teams for station upkeep, for a

period of one year from the date of their execution, It is pertinent to mention here that agreements Ex.MW1/5 (dated 26-

12-2014), Ex.MW1/8 (dated 27-7-2004), Ex.MW1/9 (dated 29-5-2010) and ‘Ex.MW1/10 (dated 12-7-2013) are

exclusively for providing workforce Teams for typing & data feeding in PCs (in English and Hindi) or for Outdoor Plant

Network including transmission NW Upkeep & Support for Operations & Maintenance. In brief these agreements are

for supply of manpower. Nature of the jobs performed by such workmen engaged as BTS Operator, computer operator,

Lineman, Mechanic etc. are regular and perennial one. It seems that the Management had executed the contracts for

supply of manpower just to deny the benefits of full wages/salary to the workmen. All these circumstances lead this

Tribunal to draw an inference against the Management that the contracts/agreements issued by the Management of BSNL

for getting the work done through the contractors by engaging the claimants/workmen herein from time to time are sham

and camouflage and that there existed relationship of employer-employees between the parties and management BSNL is

the principal employer of these claimants/workmen.

18-

Now, the important question/issue which arises for consideration is whether the workmen/claimants who are still

working with the Management are entitled to be regularized to the post/s to which they are working. It is fairly settled

that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on

contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers serving for several years

are not entitle to claim regularization if they are not working against a sanctioned post.

19-

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India

2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

“… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the

Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage

worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for

regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person,

only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry

into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be

given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the

Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the

employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached

Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally

justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious

discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the

Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this

constitutional provision.”

20-

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Project Director, Department of Rural Development Versus

its Workmen through D.P.V.V.I.E.Union (W.P. –Civil No. 17555/2005 – decided on 29/3/2019) after referring to

number of judgments including the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and

other Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and of Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Lamba and others Vs. GNCTD WP

(Civil) No.958/2018, have observed in para 27 as under :-

“In my view, the rigors applicable for grant of regularization in cases of public employment cannot be read in

such a manner so as to take away the wide powers of an Industrial Tribunal under the ID Act. It needs no

reiteration that the basic tenets of service law are very different from those of labour law and therefore, the

safeguards put in place to protect the interests of workmen cannot be conflated with the service rules and

regulations applicable to government employees in the public sector. Both of them stand on different footing

and can neither be tested on the same touchstone nor enforced in the same manner. Therefore, I am of the

opinion that neither the decision in Uma Devi (supra) and Anil Lamba (supra) has any application to the facts of

the present case. Even otherwise, a perusal of the decision in Uma Devi (supra) shows that with respect to

the regularization of temporary employees, the Supreme Court itself had specifically carved out an

exception for those contractual employees who, though appointed regularly, had completed at least 10

years of service. In the facts of the present case, the respondents/workmen have as on date completed

7668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

more than twenty-two years of service, and therefore, even as per the decision in Uma Devi (supra), they

would be entitled to the regularization of their services.”

Thus, in view of the above discussed judicial pronouncements, it is evidently clear that the Labour Court/ industrial

adjudicator is empowered to issue direction for regularization of service, of the workmen in appropriate cases and for

doing so, the length of service rendered by them, nature of work discharged by them, the nature of the posts for which

they are working and if other similarly placed persons were regularized or not, are to be considered. The industrial

adjudicator has to draw a line between temporarily engaged government employees and temporary/casual labours/

workers for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion in this regard since the whole purpose of industrial adjudication is to

curb unfair Labour Practice.

21-

It is evident that the claimants/workmen have been working with the Management continuously and

uninterruptedly prior to 2005 or thereafter as contractual worker and they are doing the job of Wireman, Telephone

Mechanics, Computer Operators, Office Assistants, Clerks etc. and are engaged in the core activities of the working of

the Management. Nature of their job is considered to be perennial. The Management has deprived them of the status &

privilege of permanent/regular employee/s. Employing workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue

them as such for years together with the object of depriving them of the status & privileges of permanent workman

amounts to unfair labour practice, in terms of Section 2(ra) read with Fifth Schedule of the Act. It emerges from the oral

and documentary evidence that the Management has adopted unfair labour practice in depriving the workmen/claimants

herein of the status & benefit of permanent workman and this unfair labour practice is required to be curbed.

22-

It has also come on record that the workmen/claimants described as contractual employees, are doing the same

work as being done by their regular counterparts. Testimony of WW 52 Kishore Chand; WW 53 Hardyal Singh WW 54;

WW 55 Jeevan Singh Negi; WW 57 Kamal Singh Bisht etc. to the effect that the workmen as per Annexure-A (viz.

workmen connected to these proceedings) possess the expertise to perform various tasks and have got work experience &

technical knowhow required for day to day functioning of BSNL, has gone unassailed, as neither any suggestion

contrary thereto has been given to them nor the Management has led any evidence to rebut the same. Thus, once it is

proved that the workmen/claimants are doing same duties and responsibilities as are being performed by regular

employees of the Management, they are entitled to get wages at par with those of regular employees, on the

principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”

23-

Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C.

427 while upholding the principle of “equal pay for equal work” even for temporary employees observed as under :-

“The principle of “equal pay for equal work” can be extended to temporary employees (differently

described as work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to

determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be

paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State.

Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is

compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his

family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For

he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying

less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out

of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels

involuntary subjugation.’’

24-

As regards the claim for regularization of service, it is worth mentioning that the workmen have not adduced

any documentary evidence to prove their age, qualification etc to be required against the posts they are working. The Ld.

Counsel for the respondent raised objection that the management is a Government of India department having their own

rules and procedure for recruitment to different post and a person aspirant for employment need to meet those criterions.

The claimants of this proceeding having not led evidence about their qualification and eligibility can’t be granted the

benefit of regularization as prayed.

It is true that no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record. But the claimants in their claim

statement have described their age and date of joining for the work by the officers of the management, which has not

been disputed by the management in the WS or evidence. This, in absence of evidence to the contrary, goes to prove that

the workmen having the requisite qualification and being within the prescribed age limit were inducted to work by the

officials of the management, and thus have a right to remain in the employment, till they attain the age of superannuation

prescribed for government employees.

Apart from this, the witness examined on behalf of the management has stated that the work done by the

workmen are of permanent nature and they have been working since 1991 and thereafter. It is also evident from the

evidence that till 2005, they were working directly under the management and thereafter through the contractor. In the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7669

preceding paragraphs of this order, it has already been held that the contract between the management and contractor is

sham.

Now it is to be seen if the workmen are victims of Unfair Labour Practice and thus entitled to the relief sought

for.

“Unfair Labour Practice” as defined u/s 2(ra) of the ID Act means any of the practice specified in the 5^th

schedule of the ID Act. Under the said, 5^th schedule to employ workmen as Badlis, Casuals or temporaries and to

continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the privilege and status of permanent workmen

amounts to Unfair Labour Practice. In this case, the documents filed by the workmen clearly proved the length of service

rendered by individual workman and nature of the work done.

In the case of Maharashtra Road Transport referred supra and in the case of Shri Ajay Pal Singh vs. Haryana

Warehousing Corporation decided in Civil Appeal No. 6327/2014, disposed of on 9^th July 2014, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court have held that:

“The provisions of ID Act and the power of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided there in were not at all under

consideration in Umadevi’s case. The issue pertaining to Unfair Labour Practice was neither the subject matter for

decision nor was it decided in Umadevi’s case.”

Thus, after going through the judgments of Maharashtra Road transport and Ajay Pal Singh referred supra it is

held that the observation made in the case of Umadevi has no applicability to the facts of the present case where the

workmen have been subjected to unfair Labour Practice being engaged for work on temporary basis for a prolonged

period. Not only that the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of J and K Bank Limited vs. CGIT

and Others reported in 2018 Lab I.C. 2970 have held:

“Unfair Labour Practice-what amounts to-workmen continued in temporary/contractual capacity for years together

despite availability of vacant posts, aimed at depriving them of status and privileges of permanent workmen-

clearly amounts to unfair labour practice- directions issued by Tribunal to appellant Bank to frame scheme for

regularization of respondent workmen within period of 3 months and that respondents workmen would be deemed

to have been regularized in case of failure of appellant- Bank to frame scheme, held, justified.”

In this case the oral and documentary evidence since proves the continuous service of the workman for the

management any denial to give them temporary status and to regularize their service is held to be illegal and unjustified.

In the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190

and also in the case of Bharat Bank Limited vs. Employees of the Bharat Bank Limited reported in (1950) LLJ 921

the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to hold that in setting the dispute between the employer and the workmen the function

of the tribunal is not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on

either party which it consider reasonable and proper though those may not be within the terms of any existing agreement.

It can create new rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace.

Here is a case where, as indicated above the workmen have been victimized on account of Unfair Labour

Practice by the management. Keeping the situation in view it is felt proper to issue a direction to the management to

frame a scheme for regularization of service of these workmen within a period of 3 months in the post in which they

are/were working subject to the condition that they are within the age limit of superannuation in government sector. This

direction is specific in respect of the workmen/claimant of this proceeding the list of which is enclosed with this award

and passed in exercise of the power conferred on the tribunal to grant any other relief as per the reference received from

the appropriate government. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the workmen. It is held that the action of the

management depriving the workmen from regularizing their service is illegal and unjustified and amounts to unfair

labour practice. The management department is hereby directed to frame a scheme for regularizing these workmen (as

per the list annexed) within 3 months hence subject to the condition that they are within the age limit of superannuation

as provided for government servants. It is further directed that the management shall not adopt dilly dallying practice

which would be detrimental to the interest of the workmen since they would thereby run out of the prescribed age limit

for superannuation from government service. 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.

26th September, 2019

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

7670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 13 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1998

1998

1998.—औTोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केA"ीय सरकार

मेसस+ अधीBक, डाक और तार िवभाग, दली और अAय एवं उनके कम+चारी के %बंधतंN के संबa िनयोजक और उनके

कम+कार के बीच अनुबंध म िनbदc औTोिगक िववाद म केA"ीय सरकार औTोिगक अिधकरण एवं $म Aयायालय, 2 नई

दली के पंचाट (संदभ+ संdया 39/2008) को %कािशत करती है जो केA"ीय सरकार को 08.11.2019 को %ा_ ;ए थे ।

[सं. एल-40011/51/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 13th November, 2019

S.O. 1998.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2008) 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

Superintendent, Post and Telegraph Department, Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 08.11.2019.

[No. L-40011/51/2007-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, 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. 39/2008

Date of Passing Award- 26^th September, 2019

Between:

Shri Balbir Singh,

S/o Shri Bhim Singh,

Through The General Secretary,

Delhi Labour Union, Aggrawal Bhavan,

G.T. Karnal Road, Tis Hazari

Delhi- 110054.

… Workman

Versus

The Superintendent,

Post and Telegraph Department,

North Division, Civil Line Zone,

Delhi.

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Rajiv Aggarwal (A/R)

For the Workman.

Shri Anmol (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 Post and Telegraph Departement, 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-40011/51/2007 (IR(DU) dated 24.06.2008 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7671

“Whether the demand of the Delhi Labour Union for regularisation of services of Shri Balbir Singh against the

Post of Safai Karamchari w.e.f 15/05/85, by the management of Superintendent, Post and Telegraph

Department, is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?’’

Being noticed, both parties entered appearance through their respective A/R. The claimant/workman filed claim

statement, stating that he was employed by the management as a Safai Karamchari on daily wage basis on 15/05/1985

and posted at Ashok Vihar Post Office, where he worked until 04/11/85 when transferred to Civil Line Post Office,

where he worked till 13.01.1987 when his service was illegally terminated. He challenged the act of the management in

terminating his service by raising an Industrial Dispute registered as ID No. 112/89. The CGIT New Delhi, by award

dated 31.07.2003 held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement without back wages. Pursuant there to, the workman

joined his duty in May 2005. Though initially he was assigned duty continuously for 3 months, thereafter, the

management started assigning duty against leave vacancy.

Being aggrieved, the workman filed WPC No. 8838/2003 and WPC No. 15937/2004 before the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi. Though WPC No. 15937/2004 was withdrawn, in WPC No. 8838/2003, Hon’ble High Court with the

consent of both the parties directed the respondent to assign duties regularly to the claimant/workman in it’s Northern

Division. The respondent though allowed the claimant to work as such, did not regularize his service considering the

length of service and nature of work done by him. While exhibiting a hostile attitude towards the claimant, the

management regularized the service of one Syam Lal, a person much junior to him in a group D post. Though the

management has vacancy in the regular post of Safai Karamchari and the nature of work done by him is perennial,

management did not consider to regularize the service of the workman, though he had completed working continuously

for 90 days and also worked for 240 days during a calendar year. Finding no other way, workman served a demand

notice on the management on 13.02.2007 and also filed a claim before the Labour Commissioner, where a conciliation

proceeding was initiated. The attempt for conciliation since failed the appropriate government referred the matter for

adjudication as per the terms of reference.

The management i.e. Department of Post and Telegraphs has resisted the claim on the ground that the claimant

was never appointed against any permanent vacancy. He was engaged as a daily wage Safaiwala from 16.05.85 through

Employment Exchange and when a regular safaiwala was appointed in Ashok Vihar Post Office, he being a surplus

worker was engaged in Civil Line Post Office Delhi where he worked from 05.11.85 to 12.01.87. When a regular

Safaiwala was appointed, there, the claimant again became surplus and discharged.

It is the further stand of the management is that an Industrial Dispute being raised by the claimant/workman the

CGIT New Delhi in ID No. 112/89 came to hold that Department of Post and Telegraph not being an Industry, the

dispute is not an industrial Dispute and no relief can be granted to the workman as prayed. The said Award was

challenged by the claimant/workman before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CW NO. 5597/97 and the Hon’ble High

Court while quashing the award passed by CGIT remanded the matter for re-adjudication. On re-adjudication the CGIT

passed an award directing reinstatement of the workman to service without back wages.

Being aggrieved, the respondent/Department challenged the award before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by

filing WPC No. 8838/2003, in which the Hon’ble Court directed the respondent/department to appoint workman as a

leave substitute and to assign him duties as and when a leave vacancy will arise. The said order of the Hon’ble High

Court since has been complied properly the claim of the workman for regularization of service is not tenable in the eye of

law.

It is the further stand of the respondent that claimant since was engaged against leave vacancy, it can’t be said

that he had rendered 90 days continuous service or put to 240 days work in a calendar year to claim regularization. Being

engaged in piecemeal, he can’t claim absorption as a regular employee.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

As per terms of reference.

Relief.

During the pendency of the proceeding, the claimant Balbir Singh died has his wife, Sons and Daughters were

substituted as the legal heirs. The cause of the claimant/workman has been espoused by Delhi Labour Union.

The claimant Balbir Singh in support of his case had testified as WW1 and the General Secretary of the Union

was examined as WW2. While tendering their respective affidavits the said witnesses also placed on record some

documents which have been marked in a series of MW1/W1 to MW1/W6. These documents are the demand notice sent

by the workman, appointment letter of Syam Lal, the Policy framed by the government of India 1993 to regularize

temporary/casual/ daily wage workers, copy of the award passed earlier by CGIT in ID NO. 112/89. On behalf of the

7672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 23, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 2, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management, one Amit Thakur Assistant Superintendent testified as MW1. No document on behalf of the management

has been placed on record.

At the outset of the argument, the Learned A/R for the claimant argued that it is a typical case of Unfair Labour

Practice since the management allowed the workman to work for a prolonged period since 1985 as a daily wager and

managed to regularize the service of junior of the claimant unfairly. He was discharging the work of perennial nature and

work done by him was the same as done by regular Safai workers. But he was denied equal pay for equal work. Learned

A/R also submitted that workman since died during the pendency of this proceeding, ends of justice would be served by a

direction to the management to regularize his service from initial date of his engagement and fix his pay accordingly.

To support the stand of the workman for regularization and to counter the stand of the management that the

claimant having not been recruited through proper procedure can’t be regularized as per the observation of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi, he placed reliance in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another vs. Food

Corporation of India (2014) 7 SCC 190 and Project Director, Department of Rural Development vs. It’s workmen

through D.P.V.V.I.E Union (WPC No. 17555/2005) of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to argue that the observation made

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi has no applicability to Industrial Disputes and adjudication.

On behalf of the management argument was advanced that the claimant being a daily wager engaged

intermittently on leave vacancy is not entitled to regularization and his claim about continuous work for 90 days or 240

days work during a calendar year are not based on record as no document to that effect has been filed. He also argued

that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while disposing WPC No. 8838/2003 had clearly directed for engagement of the

claimant on leave vacancy, which proves that the claimant was never in continuous employment of the management to

claim regularization.

FINDINGS

The Appropriate Government has made a reference for adjudication in respect of the claim of the workman for

regularization of service as a Safai Karamchari. Hence, the short and only question to be decided is whether the claim of

the workman is legal.

The admitted facts are that the workman was engaged initially in the year 1985 being sponsored by

Employment Exchange. He was found to be surplus staff at Ashok Vihar H.O. and thus transferred to Civil Line P.O on

05.11.1985 and worked there till 12.01.1987 when his employment was brought to an end. The claimant as well as the

management have admitted about the award passed by the CGIT Delhi in ID No. 112/89 in which the Tribunal came to

hold that the workman having completed continuous work for 90 days and also for having worked for 240 days in a

calendar year is entitled to the protection laid u/s 25-F of the ID Act and further directed reinstatement of the workman

holding his termination illegal. That award having been implemented by the management, the issue relating to the tenure

of work and status of the workman has been set at rest.

Thus, it is to be examined now, if the workman is entitled to regularization of service or not and what other

relief he is entitled to.

According to the management, when workman was working intermittently he can’t be regularized against any

permanent post. Moreover, he was not inducted into service by following procedure laid down by the department.

Relying on the judgment of the constitution Bench of the S.C. in the case of Secretary of State karnatak vs. Uma devi

reported in (2006) 4 SCC Page1 he argued that the claim of the workman can’t be entertained.

Learned A/R for the workman has relied upon the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Project Director referred

supra and argued that the observation made in the case of Uma Devi has no applicability to an Industrial Dispute and

Labour Law.

The Law after the judgment of Uma Devi referred supra is fairly settled that there is no fundamental right of

those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a

right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers serving for several years are not entitle to claim regularization if they

are not working against a sanctioned post.

19-

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India

2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

“… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the

Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage

worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for

regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person,

only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry

into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be

given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 23] 2019@vxzgk;.k 2] 1941

7673

Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the

employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached

Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally

justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious

discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the

Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this

constitutional provision.”

20-

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Project Director, Department of Rural Development Versus

its Workmen through D.P.V.V.I.E.Union (W.P. –Civil No. 17555/2005 – decided on 29/3/2019) after referring to

number of judgments including the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and

other Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and of Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Lamba and others Vs. GNCTD WP

(Civil) No.958/2018, have observed in Para 27 as under :-