Servants of Knowledge
Weekly Gazette of India · Government of India

This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

Published 07 February 2020

Ministry
This Gazette may contains Multiple Ministry / Organization
Department
This Gazette may contains Multiple Departments
Office
This Gazette may contains Multiple Offices
Gazetteid
CG-DL-W-21022020-216302
Identifier
in.gazette.central.w.2020-02-07.216302
Languages
English, Hindi
Published at
Original source ↗

click here for IIIF manifest

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2004—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-21022020-216302

CG-DL-W-21022020-216302

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

WEEKLY

] — —

No. 05] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 2— FEBRUARY 8, 2020, SATURDAY/MAGHA 13—MAGHA 19, 1941

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

II— — (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2020

—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्रा—तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1479 दिनांक 06 अगस्त, 2019 जो भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र 11-17 अगस्त, 2019 में प्रकाशित की गई थी द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से पनकी (कानपुर) उत्तर प्रदेश तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए बीना- पनकी पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 12 अक्टूबर, 2019 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

498 GI/2020

(319)

320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्‌ और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की दिनांक सेे केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगी।

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी क्षतिपूर्ति के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगा और पाइपलाइन से सम्बन्धित किसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के विरूद्ध कोई वाद, दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नहीं हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

तहसील- मऊरानीपुर जिला- झाँसी राज्य– उत्तर प्रदेश

गॉव का नाम सर्वे न./गाटा न. क्षेत्रफल
हैक्टेयर एयर वगर्मीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
बसारी 349 00 08 79
350 00 02 78
351 00 07 80
346 00 40 06
345 00 02 07
341 00 10 22
340 00 09 61
376 00 01 51
318 00 09 18
317 00 21 53
314 00 09 45
322 00 08 48
311 00 11 64
308 00 05 67
323 00 02 06
321 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
307 00 00 81
324 00 03 66
303 00 03 05
302 00 16 12
299 00 06 64
290 00 04 26
298 00 01 77
291 00 10 13
293 00 07 24
287 00 10 08
283 00 04 67
285 00 02 33
284 00 08 28
286 00 03 78
278 00 06 69
Total 02 40 36
देवरी सिंहपुरा 1484 00 11 23
1485 00 04 65
1479 00 00 27
1464 00 10 69
1463 00 07 24
1462 00 03 92
1461 00 22 73
1455 00 00 36
1434 00 08 54
1435 00 08 01
1436 00 08 78
1437 00 03 26
1438 00 00 73
1443 00 00 28
1442 00 14 19
1441 00 01 88
1440 00 01 43
1439 00 00 78
1444 00 00 76
1446 00 04 33
Total 01 14 06
भौरारों 188 00 00 11
189 00 00 09
178 00 01 10
190 00 08 87
191 00 11 68
192 00 00 47
195 00 10 54
297 00 02 20
293 00 31 39
304 00 00 55
Total 00 67 00
लुहरगॉव रानीपुर 1503 00 01 06
1506 00 35 13
1505 00 00 70
1504 00 06 60
1509 00 01 27
1513 00 09 00
1510 00 00 48
1511 00 00 41
1489 00 11 68
1488 00 11 68
1486 00 03 63
1481 00 01 15
1478 00 09 77
322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 323 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1479 00 19 88
1480 00 10 26
1482 00 00 46
1458 00 00 46
1384 00 01 87
1385 00 23 49
1386 00 05 54
1389 00 01 12
1397 00 02 09
1396 00 00 44
1393 00 17 28
1392 00 00 51
1390 00 23 98
1391 00 00 74
1409 00 00 51
1410 00 00 51
1317 00 09 14
1316 00 12 46
1315 00 00 42
1310 00 14 46
1309 00 07 55
1308 00 06 53
1307 00 00 53
1306 00 12 82
1297 00 09 36
1216 00 00 34
1217 00 25 72
1223 00 00 57
1224 00 32 76
1206 00 00 60
1205 00 07 85
1204 00 11 16
1203 00 15 53
1191 00 00 43
1190 00 00 39
1187 00 09 70
1186 00 12 24
1183 00 00 52
1179 00 08 28
1177 00 09 03
1176 00 00 51
1171 00 07 38
1172 00 22 32
1168 00 00 38
1033 00 26 80
1034 00 00 30
1035 00 25 01
1037 00 35 83
1039 00 02 81
639 00 00 96
638 00 00 82
637 00 02 35
566 00 00 71
558 00 05 14
559 00 25 61
560 00 02 60
555 00 16 20
552 00 09 75
570 00 00 98
324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 325 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
551 00 02 35
548 00 18 04
549 00 00 56
542 00 19 02
539 00 22 28
538 00 02 34
Total 06 61 14
पचौरो 1102 00 00 15
772 00 06 96
767 00 00 54
771 00 04 24
769 00 01 80
770 00 10 84
765 00 02 82
764 00 05 72
751 00 05 40
786 00 02 07
750 00 06 09
744 00 19 23
747 00 02 16
745 00 00 31
746 00 04 51
731 00 01 59
730 00 09 41
728 00 02 37
713 00 07 45
708 00 23 58
629 00 00 57
707 00 00 02
630 00 04 29
631 00 06 21
632 00 04 86
635 00 01 95
641 00 06 95
640 00 02 54
646 00 13 14
650 00 02 99
651 00 05 10
652 00 04 97
659 00 00 74
658 00 03 96
657 00 02 13
656 00 01 10
589 00 00 03
588 00 12 59
591 00 00 64
587 00 04 67
586 00 00 88
584 00 12 78
565 00 29 15
567 00 03 30
570 00 06 27
569 00 05 66
571 00 00 07
375 00 04 19
376 00 00 85
377 00 03 59
380 00 04 60
379 00 01 27
366 00 09 56
365 00 17 21
356 00 00 66
326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 327 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
334 00 23 40
336 00 17 29
329 00 00 72
328 00 12 87
321 00 06 26
320 00 00 72
303 00 02 37
302 00 14 91
300 00 00 30
299 00 13 38
297 00 00 60
296 00 09 85
234 00 02 11
235 00 01 83
236 00 02 21
240 00 14 78
242 00 23 65
243 00 02 62
250 00 00 57
251 00 20 16
252 00 20 05
253 00 00 16
261 00 00 53
262 00 00 73
263 00 19 80
264 00 01 13
265 00 01 63
Total 05 11 36
मेंढकी 826 00 00 57
825 00 00 70
824 00 07 71
823 00 22 54
822 00 06 13
827 00 00 79
832 00 14 15
831 00 09 50
833 00 03 81
834 00 22 14
835 00 13 01
830 00 01 70
838 00 01 78
829 00 01 78
887 00 00 93
886 00 19 02
885 00 16 92
888 00 00 81
889 00 01 04
903 00 06 96
902 00 11 75
901 00 24 85
925 00 00 05
900 00 03 68
908 00 01 07
922 00 17 44
920 00 00 54
919 00 14 43
912 00 00 02
913 00 04 83
914 00 09 40
916 00 07 56
915 00 00 55
533 00 01 14
328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 329 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
520 00 00 54
512 00 17 21
513 00 00 92
514 00 24 03
510 00 00 53
509 00 19 75
494 00 00 01
506 00 00 25
499 00 00 99
498 00 12 75
496 00 01 46
497 00 10 65
482 00 00 55
473 00 24 65
474 00 00 47
475 00 00 45
389 00 08 70
393 00 00 54
361 00 11 24
362 00 14 94
366 00 13 50
367 00 02 84
369 00 00 47
336 00 21 07
327 00 00 59
326 00 00 48
325 00 27 58
318 00 00 55
317 00 00 62
179 00 10 94
180 00 18 62
181 00 00 58
182 00 06 77
184 00 14 27
165 00 00 64
164 00 00 91
163 00 00 75
158 00 18 02
161 00 00 27
149 00 20 93
148 00 17 19
147 00 00 73
Total 05 78 25
भकौरौ 16 00 00 46
7 00 00 09
3 00 06 48
2 00 07 73
1 00 06 78
Total 00 21 54
कोटरा 952 00 07 59
951 00 14 40
954 00 00 41
962 00 18 31
963 00 03 15
950 00 02 18
947 00 01 93
946 00 01 93
931 00 13 72
930 00 11 73
929 00 01 67
929/1072 00 14 03
928 00 10 60
330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 331 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
894 00 01 67
473 00 15 88
860 00 00 20
859 00 00 90
893 00 02 02
858/1068 00 07 19
854 00 16 01
853 00 22 33
852 00 09 18
851 00 33 36
847 00 00 51
797 00 13 21
794 00 00 27
796 00 00 83
795 00 13 66
789 00 00 15
790 00 00 66
788 00 22 38
778 00 00 04
781 00 00 43
774 00 00 11
770 00 09 96
771 00 09 45
772 00 09 35
773 00 09 63
765 00 00 44
766 00 00 06
761 00 15 19
749 00 00 84
578 00 02 90
669/1081 00 02 84
669 00 01 59
668/1085 00 00 23
668 00 23 46
667 00 03 60
650 00 00 01
651 00 01 06
640 00 00 23
638 00 00 43
637 00 17 44
636 00 10 40
Total 03 81 75
सुहागपुरा 105 00 00 63
111 00 00 04
128 00 16 20
127 00 00 49
126 00 14 64
121 00 24 49
120 00 00 59
93 00 00 49
86 00 10 89
87 00 14 01
71 00 02 50
84 00 21 90
Total 01 06 87
स्यावरी 3251 00 35 46
3247 00 01 43
3246 00 00 75
3245 00 00 39
3244 00 02 36
3243 00 02 08
3240 00 00 49
332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 333 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
3189 00 11 47
3188 00 03 07
3185 00 00 41
3183 00 08 08
3182 00 00 56
3178 00 10 64
3180 00 01 09
3169 00 04 34
3170 00 16 32
3168 00 00 43
3167 00 27 72
3161 00 01 91
3158 00 28 10
3157 00 11 28
3159 00 00 54
3153 00 05 67
3117 00 02 39
3119 00 00 56
3120 00 01 97
3145 00 17 64
3146 00 01 23
3144 00 00 55
3141 00 24 99
3140 00 00 97
3134 00 01 54
3129 00 30 96
3128 00 08 01
3003 00 13 06
3004 00 00 38
3010 00 32 92
3008 00 01 89
3009 00 10 07
3019 00 00 60
3020 00 24 30
3042 00 00 36
3043 00 13 07
3044 00 02 66
3045 00 09 10
3124 00 00 52
3046 00 07 08
3047 00 00 81
3051 00 01 25
3093 00 00 68
3089 00 05 88
3090 00 07 59
3091 00 03 09
3092 00 03 55
3056 00 01 29
3057 00 55 66
3066 00 08 39
3067 00 06 88
3068 00 00 40
3069 00 16 15
3070 00 01 21
Total 04 94 24
चिमदवारा 680 00 01 73
681 00 00 14
682 00 10 90
685 00 00 30
683 00 10 31
684 00 03 52
687 00 00 71
334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 335 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
701 00 15 31
693 00 00 82
694 00 07 69
695 00 08 54
726 00 00 51
735 00 08 94
736 00 10 56
752 00 17 02
759 00 08 89
760 00 21 18
761 00 00 52
762 00 14 19
763 00 27 23
764 00 00 38
771 00 00 30
773 00 04 29
774 00 15 41
775 00 00 51
776 00 14 15
751 00 05 18
377 00 05 88
777 00 00 14
376 00 13 65
375 00 00 50
374 00 09 38
357 00 00 56
351 00 35 42
354 00 00 57
342 00 11 70
343 00 01 45
Total 02 88 48
र ेवन 1229 00 02 46
1231 00 01 20
1233 00 23 11
1250 00 01 04
1251 00 00 36
1255 00 24 67
1259 00 17 61
1258 00 02 26
1257 00 28 79
1217 00 01 47
1216 00 05 98
1215 00 04 42
1214 00 10 37
1213 00 06 09
1200 00 04 57
1201 00 00 76
1198 00 14 05
1203 00 00 21
1194 00 09 61
1193 00 00 55
1195 00 05 79
1196 00 01 24
1144 00 01 71
1146 00 12 61
1148 00 08 99
1151 00 09 58
1160 00 01 60
1150 00 10 66
1080 00 02 31
1081 00 05 17
1076 00 02 32
336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 337 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1077 00 23 89
1064 00 10 30
1065 00 09 03
1066 00 12 23
1067 00 11 38
1054 00 15 67
1037 00 09 18
1018 00 01 00
1017 00 08 40
1011 00 33 21
1010 00 06 23
952 00 00 99
874 00 03 97
873 00 20 69
872 00 00 45
871 00 24 89
870 00 00 32
869 00 00 23
866 00 20 08
868 00 00 12
867 00 00 02
855 00 01 01
679 00 26 28
678 00 21 06
677 00 00 63
676 00 22 02
675 00 14 12
673 00 03 26
674 00 06 69
685 00 03 48
672 00 00 44
670 00 20 86
512 00 02 37
390 00 45 10
399 00 01 11
400 00 12 22
383 00 00 41
367 00 18 45
432 00 01 25
115 00 21 11
114 00 06 26
116 00 00 53
110 00 09 35
120 00 22 46
152 00 00 42
153 00 00 63
164 00 31 70
165 00 09 78
166 00 15 53
168 00 00 53
183 00 18 68
167 00 02 40
108 00 03 45
103 00 01 59
100 00 01 80
184 00 00 34
99 00 09 03
98 00 04 97
97 00 00 68
96 00 13 23
94 00 06 59
87 00 04 32
338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 339 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
86 00 12 39
84 00 01 27
81 00 02 76
82 00 44 17
61 00 00 40
57 00 10 04
56 00 10 44
55 00 19 38
2 00 01 40
Total 09 22 23
किशोरपुरा 79 00 00 96
342 00 08 82
341 00 11 13
340/823 00 04 80
340/824 00 12 58
336 00 00 64
335 00 12 03
334 00 06 31
423 00 00 76
332 00 12 66
333 00 01 25
322 00 13 77
323 00 09 07
317 00 02 92
314 00 02 08
315 00 13 30
313 00 02 18
297 00 01 17
133 00 01 99
134 00 05 06
132 00 00 71
135 00 06 51
136 00 04 87
137 00 05 03
162 00 05 48
161 00 07 88
160 00 11 28
157 00 06 84
156 00 04 23
155 00 04 65
154 00 04 50
153 00 01 04
33 00 00 67
181 00 05 10
182 00 38 65
6 00 52 59
1 00 01 55
Total 02 85 06
बेरवई 732 00 02 79
579 00 01 16
580 00 04 23
581 00 07 75
577 00 05 16
578 00 01 30
Total 00 22 39
340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[फा. सं. आर-11025/(15)3/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29921]

पी. सोमाकु मार, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020

S. O. 128.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. NO.1479 dated the 06th August, 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 weekly Gazette of India 11th -17th August, 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 Bina – Panki Pipeline for transportation of Petroleum products from Bina (Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) to Panki (Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh) by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

341 [ II— 3(ii)]

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 12th October, 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 the 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 the publication of the declaration, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Bharat Petroleum 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.

SCHEDULE

Name of Village Survey No./Gata No. Area
Hectare Are Sqm.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Basari 349 00 08 79
350 00 02 78
351 00 07 80
346 00 40 06
345 00 02 07
341 00 10 22
340 00 09 61
376 00 01 51
318 00 09 18
317 00 21 53
314 00 09 45
322 00 08 48
311 00 11 64
308 00 05 67
323 00 02 06
307 00 00 81
324 00 03 66
303 00 03 05
302 00 16 12
299 00 06 64
290 00 04 26
298 00 01 77
291 00 10 13
293 00 07 24
287 00 10 08
283 00 04 67
285 00 02 33
284 00 08 28
286 00 03 78
278 00 06 69
Total 02 40 36
Deori Singhpura 1484 00 11 23
1485 00 04 65
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1479 00 00 27
1464 00 10 69
1463 00 07 24
1462 00 03 92
1461 00 22 73
1455 00 00 36
1434 00 08 54
1435 00 08 01
1436 00 08 78
1437 00 03 26
1438 00 00 73
1443 00 00 28
1442 00 14 19
1441 00 01 88
1440 00 01 43
1439 00 00 78
1444 00 00 76
1446 00 04 33
Total 01 14 06
Bhoraro 188 00 00 11
189 00 00 09
178 00 01 10
190 00 08 87
191 00 11 68
192 00 00 47
195 00 10 54
297 00 02 20
293 00 31 39
304 00 00 55
Total 00 67 00
Luhar Gaon Ranipur 1503 00 01 06
1506 00 35 13
1505 00 00 70
1504 00 06 60
1509 00 01 27
1513 00 09 00
1510 00 00 48
1511 00 00 41
1489 00 11 68
1488 00 11 68
1486 00 03 63
1481 00 01 15
1478 00 09 77
1479 00 19 88
1480 00 10 26
1482 00 00 46
1458 00 00 46
1384 00 01 87
1385 00 23 49
1386 00 05 54
1389 00 01 12
1397 00 02 09
1396 00 00 44
1393 00 17 28
1392 00 00 51
1390 00 23 98
1391 00 00 74
1409 00 00 51
1410 00 00 51
342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 343 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1317 00 09 14
1316 00 12 46
1315 00 00 42
1310 00 14 46
1309 00 07 55
1308 00 06 53
1307 00 00 53
1306 00 12 82
1297 00 09 36
1216 00 00 34
1217 00 25 72
1223 00 00 57
1224 00 32 76
1206 00 00 60
1205 00 07 85
1204 00 11 16
1203 00 15 53
1191 00 00 43
1190 00 00 39
1187 00 09 70
1186 00 12 24
1183 00 00 52
1179 00 08 28
1177 00 09 03
1176 00 00 51
1171 00 07 38
1172 00 22 32
1168 00 00 38
1033 00 26 80
1034 00 00 30
1035 00 25 01
1037 00 35 83
1039 00 02 81
639 00 00 96
638 00 00 82
637 00 02 35
566 00 00 71
558 00 05 14
559 00 25 61
560 00 02 60
555 00 16 20
552 00 09 75
570 00 00 98
551 00 02 35
548 00 18 04
549 00 00 56
542 00 19 02
539 00 22 28
538 00 02 34
Total 06 61 14
Pachauro 1102 00 00 15
772 00 06 96
767 00 00 54
771 00 04 24
769 00 01 80
770 00 10 84
765 00 02 82
764 00 05 72
751 00 05 40
786 00 02 07
750 00 06 09
744 00 19 23
747 00 02 16
745 00 00 31
746 00 04 51
731 00 01 59
730 00 09 41
728 00 02 37
713 00 07 45
708 00 23 58
629 00 00 57
707 00 00 02
630 00 04 29
631 00 06 21
632 00 04 86
635 00 01 95
641 00 06 95
640 00 02 54
646 00 13 14
650 00 02 99
651 00 05 10
652 00 04 97
659 00 00 74
658 00 03 96
657 00 02 13
656 00 01 10
589 00 00 03
588 00 12 59
591 00 00 64
587 00 04 67
586 00 00 88
584 00 12 78
565 00 29 15
567 00 03 30
570 00 06 27
569 00 05 66
571 00 00 07
375 00 04 19
376 00 00 85
377 00 03 59
380 00 04 60
379 00 01 27
366 00 09 56
365 00 17 21
356 00 00 66
334 00 23 40
336 00 17 29
329 00 00 72
328 00 12 87
321 00 06 26
320 00 00 72
303 00 02 37
302 00 14 91
300 00 00 30
299 00 13 38
297 00 00 60
296 00 09 85
344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 345 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
234 00 02 11
235 00 01 83
236 00 02 21
240 00 14 78
242 00 23 65
243 00 02 62
250 00 00 57
251 00 20 16
252 00 20 05
253 00 00 16
261 00 00 53
262 00 00 73
263 00 19 80
264 00 01 13
265 00 01 63
Total 05 11 36
Merki 826 00 00 57
825 00 00 70
824 00 07 71
823 00 22 54
822 00 06 13
827 00 00 79
832 00 14 15
831 00 09 50
833 00 03 81
834 00 22 14
835 00 13 01
830 00 01 70
838 00 01 78
829 00 01 78
887 00 00 93
886 00 19 02
885 00 16 92
888 00 00 81
889 00 01 04
903 00 06 96
902 00 11 75
901 00 24 85
925 00 00 05
900 00 03 68
908 00 01 07
922 00 17 44
920 00 00 54
919 00 14 43
912 00 00 02
913 00 04 83
914 00 09 40
916 00 07 56
915 00 00 55
533 00 01 14
520 00 00 54
512 00 17 21
513 00 00 92
514 00 24 03
510 00 00 53
509 00 19 75
494 00 00 01
506 00 00 25
499 00 00 99
498 00 12 75
496 00 01 46
497 00 10 65
482 00 00 55
473 00 24 65
474 00 00 47
475 00 00 45
389 00 08 70
393 00 00 54
361 00 11 24
362 00 14 94
366 00 13 50
367 00 02 84
369 00 00 47
336 00 21 07
327 00 00 59
326 00 00 48
325 00 27 58
318 00 00 55
317 00 00 62
179 00 10 94
180 00 18 62
181 00 00 58
182 00 06 77
184 00 14 27
165 00 00 64
164 00 00 91
163 00 00 75
158 00 18 02
161 00 00 27
149 00 20 93
148 00 17 19
147 00 00 73
Total 05 78 25
Bhakoro 16 00 00 46
7 00 00 09
3 00 06 48
2 00 07 73
1 00 06 78
Total 00 21 54
Kotra 952 00 07 59
951 00 14 40
954 00 00 41
962 00 18 31
963 00 03 15
950 00 02 18
947 00 01 93
946 00 01 93
931 00 13 72
930 00 11 73
929 00 01 67
929/1072 00 14 03
928 00 10 60
894 00 01 67
473 00 15 88
860 00 00 20
859 00 00 90
893 00 02 02
346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 347 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
858/1068 00 07 19
854 00 16 01
853 00 22 33
852 00 09 18
851 00 33 36
847 00 00 51
797 00 13 21
794 00 00 27
796 00 00 83
795 00 13 66
789 00 00 15
790 00 00 66
788 00 22 38
778 00 00 04
781 00 00 43
774 00 00 11
770 00 09 96
771 00 09 45
772 00 09 35
773 00 09 63
765 00 00 44
766 00 00 06
761 00 15 19
749 00 00 84
578 00 02 90
669/1081 00 02 84
669 00 01 59
668/1085 00 00 23
668 00 23 46
667 00 03 60
650 00 00 01
651 00 01 06
640 00 00 23
638 00 00 43
637 00 17 44
636 00 10 40
Total 03 81 75
Suhagpura 105 00 00 63
111 00 00 04
128 00 16 20
127 00 00 49
126 00 14 64
121 00 24 49
120 00 00 59
93 00 00 49
86 00 10 89
87 00 14 01
71 00 02 50
84 00 21 90
Total 01 06 87
Siaori 3251 00 35 46
3247 00 01 43
3246 00 00 75
3245 00 00 39
3244 00 02 36
3243 00 02 08
3240 00 00 49
3189 00 11 47
3188 00 03 07
3185 00 00 41
3183 00 08 08
3182 3178 00 00 00 10 56 64
3180 00 01 09
3169 00 04 34
3170 00 16 32
3168 00 00 43
3167 00 27 72
3161 00 01 91
3158 00 28 10
3157 00 11 28
3159 00 00 54
3153 00 05 67
3117 00 02 39
3119 00 00 56
3120 00 01 97
3145 00 17 64
3146 00 01 23
3144 00 00 55
3141 00 24 99
3140 00 00 97
3134 00 01 54
3129 00 30 96
3128 00 08 01
3003 00 13 06
3004 00 00 38
3010 00 32 92
3008 00 01 89
3009 00 10 07
3019 00 00 60
3020 00 24 30
3042 00 00 36
3043 00 13 07
3044 00 02 66
3045 00 09 10
3124 00 00 52
3046 00 07 08
3047 00 00 81
3051 00 01 25
3093 00 00 68
3089 00 05 88
3090 00 07 59
3091 00 03 09
3092 00 03 55
3056 00 01 29
3057 00 55 66
3066 00 08 39
3067 00 06 88
3068 00 00 40
3069 00 16 15
3070 00 01 21
Total 04 94 24
Chimadwara 680 00 01 73
681 00 00 14
682 00 10 90
685 00 00 30
683 00 10 31
348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 349 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
684 00 03 52
687 00 00 71
701 00 15 31
693 00 00 82
694 00 07 69
695 00 08 54
726 00 00 51
735 00 08 94
736 00 10 56
752 00 17 02
759 00 08 89
760 00 21 18
761 00 00 52
762 00 14 19
763 00 27 23
764 00 00 38
771 00 00 30
773 00 04 29
774 00 15 41
775 00 00 51
776 00 14 15
751 00 05 18
377 00 05 88
777 00 00 14
376 00 13 65
375 00 00 50
374 00 09 38
357 00 00 56
351 00 35 42
354 00 00 57
342 00 11 70
343 00 01 45
Total 02 88 48
Rewan 1229 00 02 46
1231 00 01 20
1233 00 23 11
1250 00 01 04
1251 00 00 36
1255 00 24 67
1259 00 17 61
1258 00 02 26
1257 00 28 79
1217 00 01 47
1216 00 05 98
1215 00 04 42
1214 00 10 37
1213 00 06 09
1200 00 04 57
1201 00 00 76
1198 00 14 05
1203 00 00 21
1194 00 09 61
1193 00 00 55
1195 00 05 79
1196 00 01 24
1144 00 01 71
1146 00 12 61
1148 00 08 99
1151 00 09 58
1160 00 01 60
1150 00 10 66
1080 00 02 31
1081 00 05 17
1076 00 02 32
1077 00 23 89
1064 00 10 30
1065 00 09 03
1066 00 12 23
1067 00 11 38
1054 00 15 67
1037 00 09 18
1018 00 01 00
1017 00 08 40
1011 00 33 21
1010 00 06 23
952 00 00 99
874 00 03 97
873 00 20 69
872 00 00 45
871 00 24 89
870 00 00 32
869 00 00 23
866 00 20 08
868 00 00 12
867 00 00 02
855 00 01 01
679 00 26 28
678 00 21 06
677 00 00 63
676 00 22 02
675 00 14 12
673 00 03 26
674 00 06 69
685 00 03 48
672 00 00 44
670 00 20 86
512 00 02 37
390 00 45 10
399 00 01 11
400 00 12 22
383 00 00 41
367 00 18 45
432 00 01 25
115 00 21 11
114 00 06 26
116 00 00 53
110 00 09 35
120 00 22 46
152 00 00 42
153 00 00 63
164 00 31 70
165 00 09 78
166 00 15 53
168 00 00 53
183 00 18 68
167 00 02 40
108 00 03 45
350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 351 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
103 00 01 59
100 00 01 80
184 00 00 34
99 00 09 03
98 00 04 97
97 00 00 68
96 00 13 23
94 00 06 59
87 00 04 32
86 00 12 39
84 00 01 27
81 00 02 76
82 00 44 17
61 00 00 40
57 00 10 04
56 00 10 44
55 00 19 38
2 00 01 40
Total 09 22 23
Kishorpura 79 00 00 96
342 00 08 82
341 00 11 13
340/823 00 04 80
340/824 00 12 58
336 00 00 64
335 00 12 03
334 00 06 31
423 00 00 76
332 00 12 66
333 00 01 25
322 00 13 77
323 00 09 07
317 00 02 92
314 00 02 08
315 00 13 30
313 00 02 18
297 00 01 17
133 00 01 99
134 00 05 06
132 00 00 71
135 00 06 51
136 00 04 87
137 00 05 03
162 00 05 48
161 00 07 88
160 00 11 28
157 00 06 84
156 00 04 23
155 00 04 65
154 00 04 50
153 00 01 04
33 00 00 67
181 00 05 10
182 00 38 65
6 00 52 59
1 00 01 55
Total 02 85 06
Berwai 732 00 02 79
579 00 01 16
580 00 04 23
581 00 07 75
577 00 05 16
578 00 01 30
Total 00 22 39
352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2020

—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गयी, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्रा—तिक गैस में मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1472 दिनांक 6 अगस्त 2019 जो भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र 11-17 अगस्त 2019 में प्रकाशित की गयी थी द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से पनकी (कानपुर) उत्तर प्रदेश तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए बीना-पनकी पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राज पत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 16 सितंबर 2019 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गयी थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन केंद्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी हैं;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर की उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्ंिचय किया है;

अतः अब, केन्दीय सरकार में उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा 1 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियाें का प्रयोग करते हुए या घोषणा करती है की इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की दिनांक से केंद्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर भारत पेट्रोल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगी।

353 [ II— 3(ii)]

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी छतिपूर्ति के लिए भारत पेट्रोल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगा और पाइपलाइन से सम्बंधित किसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के विरुद्ध कोई वाद, दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नहीं हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

तहसील – टहरौली

जिला-झांसी राज्य- उत्तर प्रदेश

गॉव का नाम सर्वे नं.\गाटा नं. क्षेत्रफल
हैक्टेयर एयर वगर्मीटर
महेबा 193 00 00 72
191 00 01 40
194 00 05 81
201 00 12 91
205 00 26 83
213 00 03 10
182 00 01 74
206 00 01 50
16 00 26 64
19 00 00 72
23 00 02 08
24 00 24 13
25 00 34 27
32 00 00 91
33 00 00 78
40 00 11 79
39 00 04 40
41 00 11 68
80 00 00 84
81 00 15 38
82 00 04 53
89 00 01 36
90 00 01 89
92 00 24 97
93 00 03 00
94 00 07 27
95 00 09 70
126 00 00 63
महेबा 127 00 00 58
96 00 00 50
133 00 02 38
134 00 16 29
138 00 29 69
137 00 11 02
139 00 00 95
140 00 01 05
142 00 07 42
143 00 11 17
144 00 00 74
145 00 00 68
146 00 13 27
159 00 01 58
158 00 00 06
168 00 30 19
169 00 00 76
299 00 00 55
300 00 02 51
301 00 01 38
496 00 00 71
497 00 00 52
587 00 12 31
586 00 18 99
588 00 02 05
589 00 03 59
586/1328 00 12 90
585 00 22 25
592 00 01 06
593 00 00 92
Total 04 49 05
दुगारा 1008 00 00 70
995 00 26 99
997 00 56 95
998 00 09 78
973 00 00 49
354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 355 [ II— 3(ii)]
दुगारा पण्डवाहा 956 00 05 77
955 00 10 00
954 00 07 22
957 00 03 98
951 00 00 67
950 00 57 73
879 00 01 30
878 00 23 35
877 00 11 75
872 00 00 39
865 00 33 61
864 00 26 53
857 00 00 40
859 00 00 52
858 00 31 50
856 00 00 40
855 00 30 34
848 00 09 28
844 00 20 90
831 00 00 56
Total 03 71 11
1036 00 37 23
1035 00 00 36
1029 00 29 53
1027 00 14 56
1048 00 31 15
1049 00 14 21
1050 00 18 09
946 00 01 10
940 00 09 87
941 00 09 53
944 00 29 15
945 00 00 50
947/1155 00 02 12
948 00 33 60
951 00 32 19
899 00 01 82
921 00 19 86
Total 02 84 87
छिरौरा बुजुर्ग 491 00 18 99
492 00 08 02
493 00 06 57
494 00 12 82
495 00 12 11
496 00 00 67
505 00 16 35
504 00 09 90
503 00 09 18
529 00 00 39
314 00 17 85
321 00 09 96
313 00 04 06
322 00 14 18
309 00 29 13
308 00 01 71
294 00 36 36
286 00 07 34
285 00 30 40
281 00 02 55
282 00 22 70
298 00 00 98
Total 02 72 22
जौनियां 121 00 00 76
115 00 32 00
116 00 17 07
119 00 21 79
Total 00 71 62
गढ़ा 349 00 47 11
350 00 00 60
353 00 13 43
354 00 12 32
357 00 30 30
356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 357 [ II— 3(ii)]
गढ़ा 358 00 09 52
359 00 07 10
361 00 11 50
362 00 01 16
367 00 01 33
497 00 04 54
498 00 08 23
500 00 21 05
501 00 26 64
502 00 11 46
503 00 02 81
511 00 18 00
515 00 00 54
517 00 18 71
518 00 11 52
521 00 32 00
522 00 02 43
523 00 02 49
524 00 07 09
524/856 00 09 36
526 00 09 65
527 00 07 97
530 00 08 88
531 00 19 43
532 00 09 10
536 00 14 94
537 00 15 25
670 00 09 01
671 00 18 50
672 00 00 49
673 00 39 65
675 00 16 83
676 00 25 02
678 00 00 61
694 00 12 01
695 00 26 68
गढ़ा 696 00 09 25
697 00 00 47
705 00 00 59
706 00 12 35
710 00 34 53
712 00 00 65
718 00 13 92
704 00 00 10
719 00 12 61
Total 06 29 73
तुर्क लहचुरा 1001 00 00 60
999 00 54 50
998 00 05 50
996 00 01 50
990 00 02 61
985 00 02 75
987 00 19 20
989 00 06 60
979 00 00 10
943 00 05 88
935 00 00 45
938 00 05 05
939 00 06 60
937 00 05 30
941 00 00 20
936 00 09 84
934 00 04 00
933 00 04 21
839 00 01 20
844 00 02 50
845 00 09 00
848 00 11 00
858 00 04 49
867 00 08 89
96 00 44 42
90 00 09 67
358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 359 [ II— 3(ii)]
तुर्क लहचुरा 89 00 01 03
91 00 02 76
58 00 07 85
59 00 29 56
60 00 11 82
54 00 00 72
50 00 11 60
1 00 00 59
Total 02 91 99
बिठौरा 331 00 00 71
322 00 21 61
320 00 11 88
314 00 01 65
299 00 05 87
300 00 02 70
297 00 02 70
295 00 01 40
294 00 02 84
291 00 07 41
292 00 12 20
293 00 19 24
271 00 01 74
Total 00 91 95

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/3/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29921]

पी. सोमाकु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020

S.O. 129.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 1472 dated 6th August 2019 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the weekly Gazette of India. 11th-17th August, 2019, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Bina-Panki Pipeline for transportation of Petroleum products from Bina (Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) to Panki (Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh) by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 16th September, 2019;

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

360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 the right of user therein.

Now, therefore, in the 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 the publication of the declaration, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claims or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the pipeline.

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL:- Tehroli DISTRICT:- Jhansi STATE:- Uttar Pradesh
Name of Village Survey No. Area
Hectare Are Sqm.
Maheba 193 00 00 72
191 00 01 40
194 00 05 81
201 00 12 91
205 00 26 83
213 00 03 10
182 00 01 74
206 00 01 50
16 00 26 64
19 00 00 72
23 00 02 08
24 00 24 13
25 00 34 27
32 00 00 91
33 00 00 78
40 00 11 79
39 00 04 40
41 00 11 68
80 00 00 84
81 00 15 38
82 00 04 53
89 00 01 36
90 00 01 89
92 00 24 97
93 00 03 00
94 00 07 27
95 00 09 70
126 00 00 63
127 00 00 58
96 00 00 50
133 00 02 38
134 00 16 29
138 00 29 69
137 00 11 02
139 00 00 95
140 00 01 05
142 00 07 42
143 00 11 17
144 00 00 74
145 00 00 68
146 00 13 27
361 [ II— 3(ii)]
Maheba 159 00 01 58
158 00 00 06
168 00 30 19
169 00 00 76
299 00 00 55
300 00 02 51
301 00 01 38
496 00 00 71
497 00 00 52
587 00 12 31
586 00 18 99
588 00 02 05
589 00 03 59
586/1328 00 12 90
585 00 22 25
592 00 01 06
593 00 00 92
Total 04 49 05
Dugada 1008 00 00 70
995 00 26 99
997 00 56 95
998 00 09 78
973 00 00 49
956 00 05 77
955 00 10 00
954 00 07 22
957 00 03 98
951 00 00 67
950 00 57 73
879 00 01 30
878 00 23 35
877 00 11 75
872 00 00 39
865 00 33 61
864 00 26 53
857 00 00 40
859 00 00 52
858 00 31 50
856 00 00 40
855 00 30 34
848 00 09 28
844 00 20 90
831 00 00 56
Total 03 71 11
Pandwaha 1036 00 37 23
1035 00 00 36
1029 00 29 53
1027 00 14 56
1048 00 31 15
1049 00 14 21
1050 00 18 09
946 00 01 10
940 00 09 87
941 00 09 53
944 00 29 15
945 00 00 50
947/1155 00 02 12
948 00 33 60
951 00 32 19
Chhiraura Buzurg 899 00 01 82
921 00 19 86
Total 02 84 87
491 00 18 99
492 00 08 02
493 00 06 57
494 00 12 82
495 00 12 11
496 00 00 67
505 00 16 35
504 00 09 90
503 00 09 18
529 00 00 39
314 00 17 85
321 00 09 96
313 00 04 06
322 00 14 18
309 00 29 13
308 00 01 71
294 00 36 36
286 00 07 34
285 00 30 40
281 00 02 55
282 00 22 70
298 00 00 98
Total 02 72 22
Joniya 121 00 00 76
115 00 32 00
116 00 17 07
119 00 21 79
Total 00 71 62
Gada 349 00 47 11
350 00 00 60
353 00 13 43
354 00 12 32
357 00 30 30
358 00 09 52
359 00 07 10
361 00 11 50
362 00 01 16
367 00 01 33
497 00 04 54
498 00 08 23
500 00 21 05
501 00 26 64
502 00 11 46
503 00 02 81
511 00 18 00
515 00 00 54
517 00 18 71
518 00 11 52
521 00 32 00
522 00 02 43
523 00 02 49
524 00 07 09
524/856 00 09 36
526 00 09 65
527 00 07 97
530 00 08 88
531 00 19 43
362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 363 [ II— 3(ii)]
Gada 532 00 09 10
536 00 14 94
537 00 15 25
670 00 09 01
671 00 18 50
672 00 00 49
673 00 39 65
675 00 16 83
676 00 25 02
678 00 00 61
694 00 12 01
695 00 26 68
696 00 09 25
697 00 00 47
705 00 00 59
706 00 12 35
710 00 34 53
712 00 00 65
718 00 13 92
704 00 00 10
719 00 12 61
Total 06 29 73
Turka Lahchura 1001 00 00 60
999 00 54 50
998 00 05 50
996 00 01 50
990 00 02 61
985 00 02 75
987 00 19 20
989 00 06 60
979 00 00 10
943 00 05 88
935 00 00 45
938 00 05 05
939 00 06 60
937 00 05 30
941 00 00 20
936 00 09 84
934 00 04 00
933 00 04 21
839 00 01 20
844 00 02 50
845 00 09 00
848 00 11 00
858 00 04 49
867 00 08 89
96 00 44 42
90 00 09 67
89 00 01 03
Turka Lahchura 91 00 02 76
58 00 07 85
59 00 29 56
60 00 11 82
54 00 00 72
50 00 11 60
1 00 00 59
Total 02 91 99
Bitthaura 331 00 00 71
322 00 21 61
320 00 11 88
314 00 01 65
299 00 05 87
300 00 02 70
297 00 02 70
295 00 01 40
294 00 02 84
291 00 07 41
292 00 12 20
293 00 19 24
271 00 01 74
Total 00 91 95
364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2020

—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्रा—तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1470 दिनांक 06 अगस्त, 2019 जो भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र 11-17 अगस्त, 2019 में प्रकाशित की गई थी द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से पनकी (कानपुर) उत्तर प्रदेश तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए बीना- पनकी पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 12 अक्टूबर, 2019 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्‌ और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

365 [ II— 3(ii)]

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की दिनांक सेे केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगी।

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी क्षतिपूर्ति के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगा और पाइपलाइन से सम्बन्धित किसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के विरूद्ध कोई वाद, दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नहीं हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

गॉव का नाम सर्वे नं./गाटा न. क्षेत्रफल
हैक्टेयर एयर वगर्मीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
बारेयों 541 00 13 61
439 00 16 31
437 00 01 03
436 00 00 87
434 00 02 35
429 00 28 49
430 00 03 46
427 00 00 45
352 00 25 96
350 00 00 54
351 00 00 50
348 00 13 96
349 00 09 00
346 00 00 50
345 00 00 54
344 00 18 14
354 00 01 51
363 00 05 72
364 00 00 80
325 00 34 00
747 00 11 32
752 00 14 74
753 00 00 82
758 00 01 71
757 00 00 51
754 00 10 58
755 00 21 63
756 00 00 50
320 00 03 37
220 00 12 12
221 00 00 73
223 00 22 74
224 00 00 76
212 00 04 87
211 00 13 06
210 00 14 26
209 00 05 73
227 00 00 78
228 00 24 04
242 00 00 86
229 00 00 61
243 00 05 95
244 00 26 27
245 00 02 03
246 00 04 99
292 00 04 00
250 00 01 46
247 00 00 50
253 00 41 92
259 00 00 54
260 00 00 52
264 00 23 26
270 00 00 62
273 00 15 27
272 00 02 86
283 00 00 79
291 00 01 27
284 00 18 00
285 00 00 61
286 00 13 95
366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 367 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
290 00 07 26
288 00 13 61
169 00 01 29
168 00 01 55
166 00 08 11
167 00 04 10
Total 05 44 21
अमौरा 132 00 02 48
95 00 01 45
96 00 20 40
94 00 08 10
53 00 13 52
52 00 05 47
51 00 00 08
68 00 13 00
67 00 00 84
66 00 18 27
65 00 01 11
63 00 00 77
62 00 00 41
61 00 14 16
60 00 00 89
56 00 21 85
41 00 02 32
17 00 23 69
16 00 11 68
18 00 00 52
22 00 05 18
21 00 16 61
20 00 16 15
24 00 00 55
29 00 02 00
28 00 00 67
27 00 09 87
26 00 06 16
25 00 04 87
605 00 03 31
606 00 22 99
Total 02 49 37
दरौनी 989 00 03 80
990 00 11 94
991 00 12 69
983 00 03 12
921 00 40 99
924 00 00 80
923 00 15 15
922 00 04 53
902 00 08 17
901 00 02 00
900 00 00 13
899 00 08 59
898 00 19 71
897 00 17 57
896 00 00 39
895 00 00 48
876 00 17 15
875 00 04 00
929 00 00 83
874 00 00 05
930 00 07 15
794 00 05 60
761 00 09 92
760 00 16 36
757 00 48 56
736 00 00 48
735 00 00 44
705 00 13 11
706 00 00 85
708 00 04 90
709 00 08 03
368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 369 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
710 00 01 48
711/1113 00 06 74
711 00 03 06
713 00 00 62
714 00 20 17
717 00 00 85
718 00 10 15
693 00 00 62
677 00 20 78
680 00 02 38
684 00 00 86
685 00 15 63
686 00 13 07
687 00 08 01
688 00 00 50
Total 03 92 41
पाह 1049 00 07 19
1048 00 21 22
1046 00 10 36
1075 00 31 56
1077 00 18 89
1078 00 05 26
1070 00 58 72
1065 00 10 47
1571 00 48 41
1537 00 17 61
1536 00 06 71
1538 00 12 67
1545 00 11 98
1544 00 00 67
1546 00 12 37
1547 00 10 30
1516 00 02 13
1515 00 13 95
1514 00 09 04
1513 00 00 70
1517 00 20 66
1509 00 01 87
1507 00 21 96
1492 00 36 38
1476 00 19 90
1477 00 12 21
1474 00 04 68
Total 04 27 87
सुनवाहा गिरन्ट 94 00 00 38
93 00 25 02
92 00 06 93
91 00 00 60
90 00 04 62
89 00 06 46
88 00 00 50
87 00 12 51
85 00 01 09
72 00 03 64
70 00 06 76
69 00 00 50
68 00 07 62
67 00 07 84
66 00 00 54
65 00 11 00
64 00 15 59
63 00 14 64
62 00 00 56
61 00 12 94
60 00 00 56
59 00 00 47
54 00 06 05
52 00 08 73
51 00 00 47
50 00 10 34
370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 371 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
49 00 00 46
48 00 18 22
45 00 00 58
47 00 02 00
44 00 06 00
43 00 01 59
42 00 10 41
39 00 00 53
38 00 16 78
5 00 00 48
Total 02 23 41
उमरी 447 00 00 73
453 00 03 40
454 00 14 71
459 00 00 55
463 00 13 67
462 00 10 98
464 00 01 05
466 00 15 78
465 00 29 31
468 00 00 68
470 00 20 53
471 00 00 50
477 00 13 29
478 00 10 98
498 00 00 39
489 00 06 05
479 00 01 54
483 00 03 03
484 00 02 62
485 00 31 91
481 00 00 71
386 00 15 64
385 00 18 54
488 00 00 37
393 00 00 10
383 00 00 60
381 00 13 87
382 00 07 25
380 00 32 43
379 00 01 17
376 00 03 80
374 00 05 13
370 00 28 79
368 00 05 62
367 00 00 81
366 00 12 74
364 00 00 36
365 00 19 02
362 00 00 47
361 00 17 19
360 00 00 46
348 00 07 93
346 00 00 48
344 00 17 24
352 00 00 63
Total 03 93 05
अजनौरा 905 00 00 72
902 00 15 70
903 00 00 71
882 00 04 59
881 00 12 18
883 00 00 46
886 00 14 69
880 00 06 23
879 00 00 58
878 00 11 28
877 00 00 61
876 00 09 21
868 00 00 59
372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 373 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
865 00 24 76
668 00 00 83
563 00 01 77
553 00 08 47
552 00 00 54
551 00 17 15
550 00 00 73
549 00 11 96
548 00 12 50
547 00 10 84
518 00 00 64
519 00 05 83
522 00 08 36
523 00 11 21
529 00 00 55
512 00 21 10
513 00 00 58
510 00 14 68
511 00 00 37
531 00 00 38
499 00 05 29
407 00 00 47
410 00 03 32
412 00 20 94
413 00 01 57
421 00 10 62
420 00 00 53
414 00 14 56
416 00 00 69
301 00 02 39
389 00 30 25
387 00 00 66
386 00 04 00
381 00 06 09
372 00 01 61
347 00 14 58
349 00 02 95
371 00 06 50
348 00 02 19
370 00 11 63
350 00 00 61
351 00 40 98
352 00 00 78
304 00 01 29
Total 04 15 30
क ु आगॉव 1939 00 02 55
1895 00 23 40
1897 00 00 62
1920 00 09 91
1917 00 19 12
1915 00 35 13
1912 00 03 78
1921 00 00 64
1911 00 02 01
1924 00 00 19
1795 00 03 34
1770 00 00 55
1761 00 20 29
1762 00 00 67
1768 00 12 75
1767 00 00 18
1769 00 01 04
1772 00 11 77
1777 00 00 17
1773 00 09 81
1775 00 07 18
1774 00 02 32
1632 00 00 52
1632/1947 00 02 13
1625 00 09 02
374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 375 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1626 00 14 20
1613 00 02 00
1628 00 00 87
1925 00 00 20
1610 00 00 30
1627 00 03 87
1629 00 00 36
1612 00 10 82
1611 00 23 86
1587 00 02 90
1588 00 01 41
1592 00 01 39
1589 00 09 35
1591 00 05 63
1590 00 19 29
864 00 01 11
858 00 00 64
856 00 03 07
855 00 07 61
849 00 00 44
847 00 06 69
845 00 00 41
843 00 13 64
842 00 00 47
1771 00 00 50
839 00 00 47
Total 03 10 59
बानपुर 1911 00 05 80
1910 00 02 98
1912 00 03 42
1915 00 08 63
1907 00 02 16
1916 00 06 45
1917 00 02 59
1906 00 09 99
1905 00 15 20
1972 00 08 90
1975 00 16 41
1893 00 15 63
1892 00 01 81
1987 00 02 25
1988 00 08 79
1891 00 01 28
1889 00 00 51
1890 00 06 30
1994 00 02 12
1995 00 00 35
1888 00 02 43
1996 00 26 77
1997 00 11 24
1999 00 01 23
1837 00 01 65
1775 00 17 61
1780 00 20 01
1781 00 01 16
1782 00 16 66
1791 00 05 34
1790 00 08 15
1802 00 10 32
1804 00 09 99
1806 00 42 76
902/1 00 05 30
901/1 00 00 20
901/2 00 16 81
901/3 00 17 90
900/1 00 10 35
899/1 00 03 71
899/2 00 08 47
896 00 05 85
893/1 00 05 72
376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 377 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
893/2 00 02 37
161 00 01 75
869/3 00 01 63
869/4 00 00 98
870 00 37 59
859 00 23 93
854 00 05 44
419 00 23 08
418 00 00 52
417 00 00 97
414 00 02 16
415 00 02 02
413 00 00 25
412 00 01 00
407 00 19 65
410 00 13 91
408 00 02 67
405 00 13 29
404 00 04 96
403 00 02 72
402 00 10 54
401 00 01 36
400 00 11 97
398 00 06 45
435/2 00 07 54
382/2 00 17 05
436 00 28 98
437/2 00 03 62
437/1 00 02 44
321/1 00 08 97
321/2 00 18 55
444 00 06 35
445 00 05 86
468 00 03 10
467 00 00 51
446 00 10 10
461 00 00 30
465 00 01 17
466 00 03 68
464 00 02 66
463 00 04 23
462 00 02 04
460 00 02 69
459 00 04 54
457 00 03 18
458 00 06 58
547 00 00 64
548 00 06 48
549 00 03 54
550 00 06 95
552 00 06 74
553/2 00 03 89
562 00 03 98
560 00 01 00
553/1 00 22 06
556 00 01 48
434/1 00 00 50
300 00 01 28
Total 07 65 09
गंगासागर 165 00 02 79
208 00 00 74
207 00 00 71
206 00 11 06
209 00 07 12
212 00 06 75
210 00 01 00
211 00 24 51
242 00 32 67
241 00 11 36
243 00 04 41
378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 379 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
239 00 09 68
244 00 00 47
377 00 22 03
380 00 04 68
381 00 19 43
382 00 05 11
363 00 00 56
372 00 00 59
361 00 07 25
360 00 13 72
352 00 00 63
351 00 05 08
350 00 00 80
346 00 29 84
345 00 00 63
343 00 09 55
343 00 01 00
341 00 02 41
385 00 02 29
Total 02 38 87
दौलतपुरा 362 00 02 09
349 00 05 88
360 00 14 40
359 00 06 89
358 00 07 54
357 00 06 85
355 00 00 40
356 00 12 58
315 00 01 57
341 00 13 36
317 00 00 50
316 00 00 45
301 00 16 83
302 00 00 69
314 00 05 52
312 00 01 77
311 00 11 93
310 00 10 28
137 00 00 51
130 00 05 80
129 00 05 35
131 00 01 07
135 00 15 88
132 00 01 00
Total 01 49 14
खाकरौन 962 00 01 80
972 00 04 17
971 00 00 71
966 00 09 56
965 00 02 66
967 00 00 79
970 00 04 16
969 00 17 89
976 00 00 34
977 00 01 09
979 00 02 37
991 00 00 79
992 00 18 39
993 00 11 06
994 00 00 63
1003 00 21 41
1005 00 08 53
929 00 03 77
928 00 06 82
927 00 03 95
968 00 00 30
1029 00 19 62
925 00 01 91
926 00 14 18
656 00 04 97
380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 381 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
659 00 00 72
658 00 09 76
660 00 00 79
661 00 05 59
664 00 19 90
666 00 00 55
697 00 07 84
693 00 13 82
692 00 00 20
695 00 00 50
698 00 08 37
699 00 04 24
906 00 01 88
907 00 05 60
908 00 13 15
894 00 00 71
896 00 21 86
895 00 00 41
887 00 14 11
885 00 00 65
884 00 04 03
877 00 00 41
879 00 03 78
878 00 00 37
872 00 00 62
869 00 06 42
865 00 00 47
857 00 16 62
853 00 00 50
847 00 07 46
846 00 07 98
842 00 00 47
838 00 14 96
839 00 02 10
836 00 00 63
834 00 03 43
831 00 15 29
830 00 00 30
825 00 00 76
824 00 00 70
823 00 06 73
822 00 04 18
821 00 00 70
820 00 12 77
819 00 04 37
832/1104 00 00 50
777 00 00 50
827 00 01 08
799 00 03 54
797 00 03 32
796 00 00 90
795 00 16 61
794 00 00 60
772 00 09 33
773 00 00 65
774 00 09 95
776 00 02 56
775 00 08 14
506 00 06 20
500 00 13 15
498 00 01 04
Total 04 86 64
बरतला 639 00 32 52
655 00 05 94
638 00 01 22
654 00 10 72
653 00 09 33
640 00 13 10
652 00 15 75
647 00 31 38
382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 383 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
646 00 09 90
645 00 00 88
644 00 01 27
642 00 25 09
643 00 01 21
Total 01 58 31
अमरपुर 122 00 01 54
142 00 04 76
140 00 18 40
139 00 19 63
135 00 11 46
150 00 00 63
131 00 07 12
154 00 20 13
153 00 00 58
157 00 00 58
169 00 17 05
168 00 04 06
167 00 21 31
179 00 00 49
180 00 00 49
198 00 19 95
197 00 00 34
196 00 00 83
195 00 15 67
194 00 13 94
193 00 15 00
202 00 00 50
192 00 00 54
Total 01 95 00
मौगान 1992 00 15 92
1990 00 00 27
1987 00 06 66
1993 00 08 07
2008 00 19 13
1963 00 13 95
1961 00 03 89
2009 00 25 94
2010 00 13 73
2011 00 02 85
2020 00 14 56
2021 00 05 92
2038 00 17 42
2037 00 09 38
Total 01 57 69
महुवा खेड़ा 427 00 05 54
426 00 27 52
425 00 08 10
424 00 07 67
433 00 00 84
435 00 00 13
434 00 00 71
436 00 04 01
437 00 26 27
442 00 04 39
443 00 05 00
444 00 10 30
398 00 00 42
349 00 19 40
350 00 02 32
351 00 13 09
352 00 01 83
353 00 00 20
354 00 18 03
355 00 01 63
356 00 03 95
360 00 03 48
359 00 04 60
357 00 00 98
358 00 20 48
384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 385 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
287 00 28 74
282 00 16 37
284 00 01 75
265 00 02 46
272 00 11 06
271 00 01 52
378 00 21 87
281 00 00 30
Total 02 74 96

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/3/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29921]

पी. सोमाकु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020

S.O. 130.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. NO.1470 dated the 06th August, 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 weekly Gazette of India 11th -17th August, 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 Bina – Panki Pipeline for transportation of Petroleum products from Bina (Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) to Panki (Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh) by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 12th October, 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 the 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 the publication of the declaration, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Bharat Petroleum 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.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Mehrauni District: Lalitpur State: Uttar Pradesh

Name of Village Survey No/Gata No Area Hectare Are Sqm.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Baryo 541 00 13 61
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
439 00 16 31
437 00 01 03
436 00 00 87
434 00 02 35
429 00 28 49
430 00 03 46
427 00 00 45
352 00 25 96
350 00 00 54
351 00 00 50
348 00 13 96
349 00 09 00
346 00 00 50
345 00 00 54
344 00 18 14
354 00 01 51
363 00 05 72
364 00 00 80
325 00 34 00
747 00 11 32
752 00 14 74
753 00 00 82
758 00 01 71
757 00 00 51
754 00 10 58
755 00 21 63
756 00 00 50
320 00 03 37
220 00 12 12
221 00 00 73
223 00 22 74
224 00 00 76
212 00 04 87
211 00 13 06
210 00 14 26
209 00 05 73
227 00 00 78
228 00 24 04
242 00 00 86
229 00 00 61
243 00 05 95
244 00 26 27
245 00 02 03
246 00 04 99
292 00 04 00
250 00 01 46
386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 387 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
247 00 00 50
253 00 41 92
259 00 00 54
260 00 00 52
264 00 23 26
270 00 00 62
273 00 15 27
272 00 02 86
283 00 00 79
291 00 01 27
284 00 18 00
285 00 00 61
286 00 13 95
290 00 07 26
288 00 13 61
169 00 01 29
168 00 01 55
166 00 08 11
167 00 04 10
Total 05 44 21
Amora 132 00 02 48
95 00 01 45
96 00 20 40
94 00 08 10
53 00 13 52
52 00 05 47
51 00 00 08
68 00 13 00
67 00 00 84
66 00 18 27
65 00 01 11
63 00 00 77
62 00 00 41
61 00 14 16
60 00 00 89
56 00 21 85
41 00 02 32
17 00 23 69
16 00 11 68
18 00 00 52
22 00 05 18
21 00 16 61
20 00 16 15
24 00 00 55
29 00 02 00
28 00 00 67
27 00 09 87
26 00 06 16
25 00 04 87
605 00 03 31
606 00 22 99
Total 02 49 37
Daroni 989 00 03 80
990 00 11 94
991 00 12 69
983 00 03 12
921 00 40 99
924 00 00 80
923 00 15 15
922 00 04 53
902 00 08 17
901 00 02 00
900 00 00 13
899 00 08 59
898 00 19 71
897 00 17 57
896 00 00 39
895 00 00 48
876 00 17 15
875 00 04 00
929 00 00 83
874 00 00 05
930 00 07 15
794 00 05 60
761 00 09 92
760 00 16 36
757 00 48 56
736 00 00 48
735 00 00 44
705 00 13 11
706 00 00 85
708 00 04 90
709 00 08 03
710 00 01 48
711/1113 00 06 74
711 00 03 06
713 00 00 62
714 00 20 17
717 00 00 85
718 00 10 15
693 00 00 62
677 00 20 78
388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 389 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
680 00 02 38
684 00 00 86
685 00 15 63
686 00 13 07
687 00 08 01
688 00 00 50
Total 03 92 41
Pah 1049 00 07 19
1048 00 21 22
1046 00 10 36
1075 00 31 56
1077 00 18 89
1078 00 05 26
1070 00 58 72
1065 00 10 47
1571 00 48 41
1537 00 17 61
1536 00 06 71
1538 00 12 67
1545 00 11 98
1544 00 00 67
1546 00 12 37
1547 00 10 30
1516 00 02 13
1515 00 13 95
1514 00 09 04
1513 00 00 70
1517 00 20 66
1509 00 01 87
1507 00 21 96
1492 00 36 38
1476 00 19 90
1477 00 12 21
1474 00 04 68
Total 04 27 87
Sunwahagrant 94 00 00 38
93 00 25 02
92 00 06 93
91 00 00 60
90 00 04 62
89 00 06 46
88 00 00 50
87 00 12 51
85 00 01 09
72 00 03 64
70 00 06 76
69 00 00 50
68 00 07 62
67 00 07 84
66 00 00 54
65 00 11 00
64 00 15 59
63 00 14 64
62 00 00 56
61 00 12 94
60 00 00 56
59 00 00 47
54 00 06 05
52 00 08 73
51 00 00 47
50 00 10 34
49 00 00 46
48 00 18 22
45 00 00 58
47 00 02 00
44 00 06 00
43 00 01 59
42 00 10 41
39 00 00 53
38 00 16 78
5 00 00 48
Total 02 23 41
Umari 447 00 00 73
453 00 03 40
454 00 14 71
459 00 00 55
463 00 13 67
462 00 10 98
464 00 01 05
466 00 15 78
465 00 29 31
468 00 00 68
470 00 20 53
471 00 00 50
477 00 13 29
478 00 10 98
498 00 00 39
489 00 06 05
479 00 01 54
483 00 03 03
484 00 02 62
485 00 31 91
390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 391 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
481 00 00 71
386 00 15 64
385 00 18 54
488 00 00 37
393 00 00 10
383 00 00 60
381 00 13 87
382 00 07 25
380 00 32 43
379 00 01 17
376 00 03 80
374 00 05 13
370 00 28 79
368 00 05 62
367 00 00 81
366 00 12 74
364 00 00 36
365 00 19 02
362 00 00 47
361 00 17 19
360 00 00 46
348 00 07 93
346 00 00 48
344 00 17 24
352 00 00 63
Total 03 93 05
Ajnora 905 00 00 72
902 00 15 70
903 00 00 71
882 00 04 59
881 00 12 18
883 00 00 46
886 00 14 69
880 00 06 23
879 00 00 58
878 00 11 28
877 00 00 61
876 00 09 21
868 00 00 59
865 00 24 76
668 00 00 83
563 00 01 77
553 00 08 47
552 00 00 54
551 00 17 15
550 00 00 73
549 00 11 96
548 00 12 50
547 00 10 84
518 00 00 64
519 00 05 83
522 00 08 36
523 00 11 21
529 00 00 55
512 00 21 10
513 00 00 58
510 00 14 68
511 00 00 37
531 00 00 38
499 00 05 29
407 00 00 47
410 00 03 32
412 00 20 94
413 00 01 57
421 00 10 62
420 00 00 53
414 00 14 56
416 00 00 69
301 00 02 39
389 00 30 25
387 00 00 66
386 00 04 00
381 00 06 09
372 00 01 61
347 00 14 58
349 00 02 95
371 00 06 50
348 00 02 19
370 00 11 63
350 00 00 61
351 00 40 98
352 00 00 78
304 00 01 29
Total 04 15 30
Kuwagaon 1939 00 02 55
1895 00 23 40
1897 00 00 62
1920 00 09 91
1917 00 19 12
1915 00 35 13
1912 00 03 78
1921 00 00 64
392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 393 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1911 00 02 01
1924 00 00 19
1795 00 03 34
1770 00 00 55
1761 00 20 29
1762 00 00 67
1768 00 12 75
1767 00 00 18
1769 00 01 04
1772 00 11 77
1777 00 00 17
1773 00 09 81
1775 00 07 18
1774 00 02 32
1632 00 00 52
1632/1947 00 02 13
1625 00 09 02
1626 00 14 20
1613 00 02 00
1628 00 00 87
1925 00 00 20
1610 00 00 30
1627 00 03 87
1629 00 00 36
1612 00 10 82
1611 00 23 86
1587 00 02 90
1588 00 01 41
1592 00 01 39
1589 00 09 35
1591 00 05 63
1590 00 19 29
864 00 01 11
858 00 00 64
856 00 03 07
855 00 07 61
849 00 00 44
847 00 06 69
845 00 00 41
843 00 13 64
842 00 00 47
1771 00 00 50
839 00 00 47
Total 03 10 59
Banpur 1911 00 05 80
1910 00 02 98
1912 00 03 42
1915 00 08 63
1907 00 02 16
1916 00 06 45
1917 00 02 59
1906 00 09 99
1905 00 15 20
1972 00 08 90
1975 00 16 41
1893 00 15 63
1892 00 01 81
1987 00 02 25
1988 00 08 79
1891 00 01 28
1889 00 00 51
1890 00 06 30
1994 00 02 12
1995 00 00 35
1888 00 02 43
1996 00 26 77
1997 00 11 24
1999 00 01 23
1837 00 01 65
1775 00 17 61
1780 00 20 01
1781 00 01 16
1782 00 16 66
1791 00 05 34
1790 00 08 15
1802 00 10 32
1804 00 09 99
1806 00 42 76
902/1 00 05 30
901/1 00 00 20
901/2 00 16 81
901/3 00 17 90
900/1 00 10 35
899/1 00 03 71
899/2 00 08 47
896 00 05 85
893/1 00 05 72
893/2 00 02 37
161 00 01 75
869/3 00 01 63
869/4 00 00 98
870 00 37 59
394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 395 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
859 00 23 93
854 00 05 44
419 00 23 08
418 00 00 52
417 00 00 97
414 00 02 16
415 00 02 02
413 00 00 25
412 00 01 00
407 00 19 65
410 00 13 91
408 00 02 67
405 00 13 29
404 00 04 96
403 00 02 72
402 00 10 54
401 00 01 36
400 00 11 97
398 00 06 45
435/2 00 07 54
382/2 00 17 05
436 00 28 98
437/2 00 03 62
437/1 00 02 44
321/1 00 08 97
321/2 00 18 55
444 00 06 35
445 00 05 86
468 00 03 10
467 00 00 51
446 00 10 10
461 00 00 30
465 00 01 17
466 00 03 68
464 00 02 66
463 00 04 23
462 00 02 04
460 00 02 69
459 00 04 54
457 00 03 18
458 00 06 58
547 00 00 64
548 00 06 48
549 00 03 54
550 00 06 95
552 00 06 74
553/2 00 03 89
562 00 03 98
560 00 01 00
553/1 00 22 06
556 00 01 48
434/1 00 00 50
300 00 01 28
Total 07 65 09
Gangasagar 165 00 02 79
208 00 00 74
207 00 00 71
206 00 11 06
209 00 07 12
212 00 06 75
210 00 01 00
211 00 24 51
242 00 32 67
241 00 11 36
243 00 04 41
239 00 09 68
244 00 00 47
377 00 22 03
380 00 04 68
381 00 19 43
382 00 05 11
363 00 00 56
372 00 00 59
361 00 07 25
360 00 13 72
352 00 00 63
351 00 05 08
350 00 00 80
346 00 29 84
345 00 00 63
343 00 09 55
343 00 01 00
341 00 02 41
385 00 02 29
Total 02 38 87
Daulatpur 362 00 02 09
349 00 05 88
360 00 14 40
359 00 06 89
358 00 07 54
357 00 06 85
355 00 00 40
396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 397 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
356 00 12 58
315 00 01 57
341 00 13 36
317 00 00 50
316 00 00 45
301 00 16 83
302 00 00 69
314 00 05 52
312 00 01 77
311 00 11 93
310 00 10 28
137 00 00 51
130 00 05 80
129 00 05 35
131 00 01 07
135 00 15 88
132 00 01 00
Total 01 49 14
Khakron 962 00 01 80
972 00 04 17
971 00 00 71
966 00 09 56
965 00 02 66
967 00 00 79
970 00 04 16
969 00 17 89
976 00 00 34
977 00 01 09
979 00 02 37
991 00 00 79
992 00 18 39
993 00 11 06
994 00 00 63
1003 00 21 41
1005 00 08 53
929 00 03 77
928 00 06 82
927 00 03 95
968 00 00 30
1029 00 19 62
925 00 01 91
926 00 14 18
656 00 04 97
659 00 00 72
658 00 09 76
660 00 00 79
661 00 05 59
664 00 19 90
666 00 00 55
697 00 07 84
693 00 13 82
692 00 00 20
695 00 00 50
698 00 08 37
699 00 04 24
906 00 01 88
907 00 05 60
908 00 13 15
894 00 00 71
896 00 21 86
895 00 00 41
887 00 14 11
885 00 00 65
884 00 04 03
877 00 00 41
879 00 03 78
878 00 00 37
872 00 00 62
869 00 06 42
865 00 00 47
857 00 16 62
853 00 00 50
847 00 07 46
846 00 07 98
842 00 00 47
838 00 14 96
839 00 02 10
836 00 00 63
834 00 03 43
831 00 15 29
830 00 00 30
825 00 00 76
824 00 00 70
823 00 06 73
822 00 04 18
821 00 00 70
820 00 12 77
819 00 04 37
832/1104 00 00 50
777 00 00 50
827 00 01 08
799 00 03 54
398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 399 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
797 00 03 32
796 00 00 90
795 00 16 61
794 00 00 60
772 00 09 33
773 00 00 65
774 00 09 95
776 00 02 56
775 00 08 14
506 00 06 20
500 00 13 15
498 00 01 04
Total 04 86 64
Bartala 639 00 32 52
655 00 05 94
638 00 01 22
654 00 10 72
653 00 09 33
640 00 13 10
652 00 15 75
647 00 31 38
646 00 09 90
645 00 00 88
644 00 01 27
642 00 25 09
643 00 01 21
Total 01 58 31
Amarpur 122 00 01 54
142 00 04 76
140 00 18 40
139 00 19 63
135 00 11 46
150 00 00 63
131 00 07 12
154 00 20 13
153 00 00 58
157 00 00 58
169 00 17 05
168 00 04 06
167 00 21 31
179 00 00 49
180 00 00 49
198 00 19 95
197 00 00 34
196 00 00 83
195 00 15 67
194 00 13 94
193 00 15 00
202 00 00 50
192 00 00 54
Total 01 95 00
Mogan 1992 00 15 92
1990 00 00 27
1987 00 06 66
1993 00 08 07
2008 00 19 13
1963 00 13 95
1961 00 03 89
2009 00 25 94
2010 00 13 73
2011 00 02 85
2020 00 14 56
2021 00 05 92
2038 00 17 42
2037 00 09 38
Total 01 57 69
Mahuwa Kheda 427 00 05 54
426 00 27 52
425 00 08 10
424 00 07 67
433 00 00 84
435 00 00 13
434 00 00 71
436 00 04 01
437 00 26 27
442 00 04 39
443 00 05 00
444 00 10 30
398 00 00 42
349 00 19 40
350 00 02 32
351 00 13 09
352 00 01 83
353 00 00 20
354 00 18 03
355 00 01 63
356 00 03 95
360 00 03 48
400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 401 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
359 00 04 60
357 00 00 98
358 00 20 48
287 00 28 74
282 00 16 37
284 00 01 75
265 00 02 46
272 00 11 06
271 00 01 52
378 00 21 87
281 00 00 30
Total 02 74 96

[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2020

—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गयी, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्रा—तिक गैस में मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1474 दिनांक 6 अगस्त 2019 जो भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र 11-17 अगस्त 2019 में प्रकाशित की गयी थी द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से पनकी (कानपुर) उत्तर प्रदेश तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए बीना-पनकी पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 16 सितंबर 2019 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गयी थीं;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन केंद्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर की उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;

अतः अब, केन्दीय सरकार में उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा 1 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियो का प्रयोग करते हुए या घोषणा करती है की इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की दिनांक से केंद्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर भारत पेट्रोल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगी।

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी छतिपूर्ति के लिए भारत पेट्रोल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगा और पाइपलाइन से सम्बंधित किसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के विरुद्ध कोई वाद, दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नहीं हो सकेगी।

गॉव का नाम सर्वे नं./ गाटा नं. क्षेत्रफल
हैक्टेयर एयर वगर्मीटर
रानापुरा 356 00 01 11
395 00 18 50
रानापुरा 405 00 01 17
409 00 22 85
408 00 32 63
407 00 01 33
406 00 01 56
388 00 00 10
387 00 11 94
386 00 04 00
327 00 00 47
326 00 23 52
323 00 10 46
322 00 00 52
320 00 14 77
319 00 10 89
318 00 00 57
317 00 01 05
316 00 00 50
315 00 20 38
314 00 04 30
313 00 01 69
Total 01 84 31
बिजौरा 267 00 01 99
274 00 05 00
273 00 00 72
272 00 10 29
270 00 26 71
268 00 00 61
266 00 04 04
265 00 00 79
262 00 13 83
261 00 07 50
258 00 12 20
259 00 10 15
239 00 00 81
402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 403 [ II— 3(ii)]
बिजौरा 241 00 17 80
242 00 01 83
217 00 07 85
219 00 10 10
220 00 01 50
216 00 01 50
214 00 35 77
215 00 10 12
224 00 00 67
178 00 14 69
177 00 05 38
174 00 01 66
172 00 38 00
165 00 01 39
166 00 05 90
167 00 01 92
140 00 29 00
138 00 00 57
134 00 02 66
126 00 01 50
127 00 25 81
129 00 26 34
116 00 00 59
111 00 26 93
112 00 11 00
103 00 00 67
104 00 30 16
54 00 00 86
11 00 28 54
10 00 25 74
06 00 00 85
01 00 14 75
Total 04 76 69
टोडी 71 00 00 54
73 00 13 92
74 00 16 50
टोडी 77 00 00 57
78 00 00 70
79 00 04 59
80 00 19 00
81 00 30 52
68 00 00 53
69 00 00 61
Total 00 87 48
सिर्वो 176 00 49 50
177 00 14 60
171 00 02 22
239 00 47 40
245 00 00 64
246 00 29 71
249 00 02 45
161 00 00 52
260 00 06 60
261 00 67 50
262 00 00 64
266 00 20 80
267 00 00 63
86 00 22 40
87 00 01 82
89 00 00 31
90 00 07 65
91 00 09 83
96 00 06 51
97 00 10 21
101 00 23 40
17 00 00 92
19 00 21 80
21 00 09 30
20 00 10 80
22 00 00 69
24 00 02 00
23 00 50 00
404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 405 [ II— 3(ii)]
सिर्वो 23/519 00 00 54
03 00 00 75
02 00 00 76
01 00 00 70
Total 04 23 60
चौकरी 733 00 15 61
732 00 07 00
731 00 02 31
727 00 01 51
729 00 09 39
730 00 01 83
728 00 04 07
691 00 15 26
692 00 05 11
693 00 03 89
694 00 00 61
687 00 00 83
688 00 15 17
689 00 14 59
583 00 00 88
581 00 29 71
577 00 00 79
585 00 03 79
576 00 31 64
574 00 06 46
572 00 00 72
571 00 00 54
564 00 09 07
570 00 19 23
569 00 02 44
594 00 03 61
595 00 03 84
597 00 01 37
598 00 00 98
548 00 03 24
547 00 17 00
चौकरी 545 00 00 23
546 00 00 64
544 00 01 82
543 00 01 81
348 00 01 65
349 00 00 50
350 00 08 82
354 00 15 32
355 00 30 56
358 00 01 39
344 00 06 31
345 00 42 07
315 00 14 33
335 00 00 82
332 00 06 21
316 00 00 73
305 00 00 20
304 00 31 00
295 00 01 37
293 00 19 88
292 00 00 97
290 00 20 28
196 00 02 87
189 00 00 75
193 00 27 80
Total 04 70 82
बसा 153 00 00 81
109 00 05 11
107 00 02 03
106 00 01 96
105 00 09 66
103 00 07 47
102 00 05 68
101 00 00 50
100 00 01 35
99 00 00 36
406 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 407 [ II— 3(ii)]
बसा 98 00 00 38
89 00 24 32
90 00 24 18
91 00 04 16
82 00 05 86
81 00 01 41
79 00 27 03
53 00 01 97
Total 01 24 24
बिरारी 359 00 03 17
351 00 30 87
350 00 00 43
346 00 11 75
345 00 16 75
344 00 04 00
343 00 00 54
317 00 17 11
282 00 00 59
278 00 25 00
277 00 00 85
279 00 00 71
281 00 36 90
280 00 00 55
257 00 17 55
227 00 02 22
198 00 05 75
199 00 21 00
200 00 00 42
201 00 00 28
215 00 05 30
216 00 09 78
214 00 12 00
217 00 00 43
220 00 16 40
221 00 03 60
222 00 00 90
बिरारी 224 00 00 48
225 00 22 00
206 00 00 60
117 00 00 57
Total 02 68 50
मडाेंरी 754 00 01 06
759 00 08 10
760 00 00 08
758 00 00 49
757 00 00 60
755 00 15 43
753 00 24 10
621 00 00 47
616 00 14 60
615 00 14 14
619 00 09 31
614 00 00 65
610 00 17 29
609 00 00 38
608 00 00 37
607 00 10 99
606 00 15 95
605 00 04 20
604 00 00 29
603 00 00 10
570 00 00 35
569 00 00 40
568 00 26 62
541 00 01 45
546 00 25 62
545 00 08 15
538 00 02 90
535 00 00 37
533 00 21 76
531 00 32 71
Total 02 58 93
408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 409 [ II— 3(ii)]
अस्ता 595 00 00 99
661 00 01 20
658 00 00 55
656 00 12 00
655 00 05 20
657 00 02 08
652 00 16 78
653 00 00 79
603 00 00 23
604 00 23 46
605 00 00 54
612 00 00 65
615 00 16 43
613 00 02 35
614 00 10 73
619 00 01 09
620 00 13 62
623 00 01 06
622 00 14 29
621 00 07 77
624 00 00 80
633 00 03 59
733 00 09 86
735 00 09 00
734 00 05 22
736 00 00 74
737 00 31 30
739 00 00 69
741 00 02 17
746 00 39 13
745 00 00 74
549 00 03 19
435 00 15 81
367 00 10 66
369 00 02 17
370 00 20 50
अस्ता 371 00 11 72
375 00 03 18
376 00 07 00
377 00 27 28
381 00 03 06
325 00 00 50
327 00 16 65
345 00 04 26
344 00 08 57
321 00 24 44
294 00 08 50
293 00 08 50
296 00 17 21
288 00 00 72
272 00 17 00
271 00 01 32
269 00 23 55
270 00 22 28
240 00 00 45
239 00 00 51
234 00 42 63
235 00 02 02
237 00 01 06
212 00 00 99
207 00 12 03
147 00 01 19
184 00 29 64
185 00 02 22
180 00 00 50
179 00 00 54
176 00 14 02
175 00 10 15
165 00 17 07
158 00 00 62
156 00 23 17
157 00 04 86
410 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 411 [ II— 3(ii)]
अस्ता 122 00 00 67
108 00 30 18
105 00 05 70
104 00 00 54
103 00 14 74
99 00 00 61
92 00 10 35
91 00 19 00
90 00 00 63
66 00 00 56
65 00 37 68
62 00 05 18
59 00 00 68
58 00 02 67
57 00 00 72
07 00 12 05
06 00 47 92
04 00 03 68
03 00 11 47
02 00 03 27
01 00 03 11
Total 8 68 20
सुट्‌टा 2003/2023 00 05 63
1995 00 00 18
1993 00 01 13
1982 00 00 22
1983 00 00 61
1990 00 35 34
1989 00 09 27
1988 00 08 08
1987 00 00 55
1986 00 00 46
1984 00 20 26
1985 00 00 47
1972 00 01 84
1971 00 35 26
सुट्‌टा 1969 00 05 07
1968 00 31 71
Total 01 56 08
सिंगार 2534 00 01 04
2528 00 52 20
2525 00 11 92
2519 00 00 53
2512 00 05 50
2511 00 54 38
2510 00 12 71
2506 00 00 53
2498 00 00 54
2451 00 27 96
2452 00 01 85
2456 00 15 16
2453 00 01 35
2447 00 00 15
2444 00 24 00
2443 00 07 80
2442 00 36 02
2441 00 00 93
2440 00 18 18
2419 00 01 02
2003 00 01 46
2004 00 01 44
2405 00 09 62
2404 00 22 93
2403 00 06 49
2401 00 00 51
2396 00 01 00
2395 00 18 00
2394 00 00 58
2393 00 10 21
2384 00 19 89
2373 00 01 29
2371 00 07 65
412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 413 [ II— 3(ii)]
सिंगार 2369 00 11 61
2368 00 00 50
2367 00 21 65
2358 00 00 53
2357 00 53 16
2356 00 00 54
2309 00 00 73
2267 00 10 95
2266 00 02 49
2264 00 04 41
2261 00 35 42
2260 00 31 47
2259 00 00 44
2258 00 23 24
2257 00 00 70
2126 00 13 37
2125 00 02 60
2123 00 05 67
2121 00 32 88
2118 00 00 53
2116 00 32 17
Total 06 59 90
दखनेश्वर 116 00 12 00
115 00 01 01
114 00 10 25
113 00 00 55
108 00 17 68
91 00 24 00
92 00 22 87
93 00 21 83
94 00 00 63
80 00 21 20
70 00 00 55
59 00 16 08
60 00 29 55
62 00 39 37
दखनेश्वर 45 00 00 49
32 00 35 74
28 00 27 61
25 00 00 40
22 00 41 92
07 00 00 55
04 00 50 51
Total 03 74 79
कुरैठा 186 00 00 38
180 00 21 55
179 00 11 85
178 00 02 60
177 00 01 28
165 00 37 80
164 00 00 43
163 00 28 80
162 00 00 87
158 00 35 55
156 00 19 20
155 00 38 10
152 00 00 63
151 00 00 74
48 00 08 30
47 00 10 71
46 00 08 54
45 00 30 55
44 00 00 54
24 00 38 30
Total 02 96 72
डूंडी 130 00 59 80
129 00 01 69
115 00 48 34
414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 415 [ II— 3(ii)]
डूंडी 113 00 00 53
112 00 00 20
111 00 16 50
110 00 08 70
102 00 18 10
101 00 05 40
103 00 00 09
104 00 00 10
100 00 15 76
99 00 18 72
97 00 00 32
92 00 03 65
93 00 08 06
78 00 10 80
77 00 00 54
72 00 39 50
74 00 25 90
64 00 05 80
49 00 06 22
47 00 20 00
40 00 37 35
37 00 06 02
02 00 23 55
43 00 02 93
Total 03 84 57
कुडरी 678 00 00 69
677 00 29 19
683 00 00 08
675 00 05 18
676 00 00 82
684 00 18 24
685 00 08 82
686 00 08 98
687 00 10 76
688 00 03 60
695 00 00 84
कुडरी 696 00 67 14
651 00 06 29
650 00 06 40
649 00 10 07
648 00 04 53
647 00 02 86
646 00 00 63
645 00 12 76
643 00 00 34
644 00 23 89
641 00 01 82
632 00 00 60
630 00 15 12
629 00 02 65
628 00 05 16
627 00 05 75
626 00 05 68
625 00 08 28
624 00 08 41
702 00 00 70
623 00 01 40
615 00 02 04
611 00 01 95
610 00 15 10
608 00 00 51
607 00 18 82
603 00 00 46
597 00 26 70
596 00 13 96
588 00 00 59
568 00 11 50
567 00 39 68
556 00 00 75
539 00 05 00
540 00 05 05
541 00 00 55
416 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 417 [ II— 3(ii)]
कुडरी 542 00 45 00
544 00 03 59
545 00 00 65
532 00 00 53
517 00 02 59
518 00 06 18
520 00 09 45
519 00 05 12
452 00 34 13
439 00 00 88
430 00 14 18
431 00 09 22
434 00 00 57
433 00 24 96
432 00 00 63
153 00 01 78
147 00 10 55
141 00 00 60
142 00 02 00
143 00 13 00
144 00 05 08
168 00 25 20
165 00 12 66
164 00 03 21
163 00 27 80
302 00 32 70
293 00 26 40
291 00 09 82
292 00 07 51
174 00 01 14
176 00 03 14
177 00 01 15
80 00 19 35
79 00 00 56
66 00 12 20
65 00 17 21
कुडरी 64 00 14 44
63 00 00 44
61 00 03 69
178 00 02 30
198 00 00 20
199 00 02 06
213 00 01 38
214 00 00 94
217 00 22 39
218 00 30 55
Total 08 89 47
418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/3/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29921]

पी. सोमाकु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020

S.O. 131.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. NO. 1474 dated 6th August 2019 issued under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to said Act), published in the weekly Gazette of India. 11th-17th August, 2019, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Bina-Panki Pipeline for transportation of Petroleum products from Bina (Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) to Panki (Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh) by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 17th August, 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 the right of user therein.

Now, therefore, in the 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 the publication of the declaration, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claims or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Garautha District : Jhansi State:-Uttar Pradesh

Name of Village Survey No. Area
Hectare Are Sqm.
Rana pura 356 00 01 11
395 00 18 50
419 [ II— 3(ii)]
Rana pura 405 00 01 17
409 00 22 85
408 00 32 63
407 00 01 33
406 00 01 56
388 00 00 10
387 00 11 94
386 00 04 00
327 00 00 47
326 00 23 52
323 00 10 46
322 00 00 52
320 00 14 77
319 00 10 89
318 00 00 57
317 00 01 05
316 00 00 50
315 00 20 38
314 00 04 30
313 00 01 69
Total 01 84 31
Bijaura 267 00 01 99
274 00 05 00
273 00 00 72
272 00 10 29
270 00 26 71
268 00 00 61
266 00 04 04
265 00 00 79
262 00 13 83
261 00 07 50
258 00 12 20
259 00 10 15
239 00 00 81
241 00 17 80
242 00 01 83
217 00 07 85
219 00 10 10
220 00 01 50
216 00 01 50
214 00 35 77
215 00 10 12
224 00 00 67
178 00 14 69
177 00 05 38
174 00 01 66
172 00 38 00
165 00 01 39
166 00 05 90
167 00 01 92
140 00 29 00
138 00 00 57
134 00 02 66
126 00 01 50
127 00 25 81
129 00 26 34
116 00 00 59
111 00 26 93
112 00 11 00
Bijaura 103 00 00 67
104 00 30 16
54 00 00 86
11 00 28 54
10 00 25 74
06 00 00 85
01 00 14 75
Total 04 76 69
Tori 71 00 00 54
73 00 13 92
74 00 16 50
77 00 00 57
78 00 00 70
79 00 04 59
80 00 19 00
81 00 30 52
68 00 00 53
69 00 00 61
Total 00 87 48
Sirbo 176 00 49 50
177 00 14 60
171 00 02 22
239 00 47 40
245 00 00 64
246 00 29 71
249 00 02 45
161 00 00 52
260 00 06 60
261 00 67 50
262 00 00 64
266 00 20 80
267 00 00 63
86 00 22 40
87 00 01 82
89 00 00 31
90 00 07 65
91 00 09 83
96 00 06 51
97 00 10 21
101 00 23 40
17 00 00 92
19 00 21 80
21 00 09 30
20 00 10 80
22 00 00 69
24 00 02 00
23 00 50 00
23/519 00 00 54
03 00 00 75
02 00 00 76
01 00 00 70
Total 04 23 60
Chokri 733 00 15 61
732 00 07 00
731 00 02 31
727 00 01 51
729 00 09 39
730 00 01 83
728 00 04 07
691 00 15 26
420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 421 [ II— 3(ii)]
Chokri 692 00 05 11
693 00 03 89
694 00 00 61
687 00 00 83
688 00 15 17
689 00 14 59
583 00 00 88
581 00 29 71
577 00 00 79
585 00 03 79
576 00 31 64
574 00 06 46
572 00 00 72
571 00 00 54
564 00 09 07
570 00 19 23
569 00 02 44
594 00 03 61
595 00 03 84
597 00 01 37
598 00 00 98
548 00 03 24
547 00 17 00
545 00 00 23
546 00 00 64
544 00 01 82
543 00 01 81
348 00 01 65
349 00 00 50
350 00 08 82
354 00 15 32
355 00 30 56
358 00 01 39
344 00 06 31
345 00 42 07
315 00 14 33
335 00 00 82
332 00 06 21
316 00 00 73
305 00 00 20
304 00 31 00
295 00 01 37
293 00 19 88
292 00 00 97
290 00 20 28
196 00 02 87
189 00 00 75
193 00 27 80
Total 04 70 82
Basa 153 00 00 81
109 00 05 11
107 00 02 03
106 00 01 96
105 00 09 66
103 00 07 47
102 00 05 68
101 00 00 50
100 00 01 35
99 00 00 36
Basa 98 00 00 38
89 00 24 32
90 00 24 18
91 00 04 16
82 00 05 86
81 00 01 41
79 00 27 03
53 00 01 97
Total 01 24 24
Birari 359 00 03 17
351 00 30 87
350 00 00 43
346 00 11 75
345 00 16 75
344 00 04 00
343 00 00 54
317 00 17 11
282 00 00 59
278 00 25 00
277 00 00 85
279 00 00 71
281 00 36 90
280 00 00 55
257 00 17 55
227 00 02 22
198 00 05 75
199 00 21 00
200 00 00 42
201 00 00 28
215 00 05 30
216 00 09 78
214 00 12 00
217 00 00 43
220 00 16 40
221 00 03 60
222 00 00 90
224 00 00 48
225 00 22 00
206 00 00 60
117 00 00 57
Total 02 68 50
Madori 754 00 01 06
759 00 08 10
760 00 00 08
758 00 00 49
757 00 00 60
755 00 15 43
753 00 24 10
621 00 00 47
616 00 14 60
615 00 14 14
619 00 09 31
614 00 00 65
610 00 17 29
609 00 00 38
608 00 00 37
607 00 10 99
606 00 15 95
605 00 04 20
604 00 00 29
422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 423 [ II— 3(ii)]
Madori 603 00 00 10
570 00 00 35
569 00 00 40
568 00 26 62
541 00 01 45
546 00 25 62
545 00 08 15
538 00 02 90
535 00 00 37
533 00 21 76
531 00 32 71
Total 02 58 93
Asta 595 00 00 99
661 00 01 20
658 00 00 55
656 00 12 00
655 00 05 20
657 00 02 08
652 00 16 78
653 00 00 79
603 00 00 23
604 00 23 46
605 00 00 54
612 00 00 65
615 00 16 43
613 00 02 35
614 00 10 73
619 00 01 09
620 00 13 62
623 00 01 06
622 00 14 29
621 00 07 77
624 00 00 80
633 00 03 59
733 00 09 86
735 00 09 00
734 00 05 22
736 00 00 74
737 00 31 30
739 00 00 69
741 00 02 17
746 00 39 13
745 00 00 74
549 00 03 19
435 00 15 81
367 00 10 66
369 00 02 17
370 00 20 50
371 00 11 72
375 00 03 18
376 00 07 00
377 00 27 28
381 00 03 06
325 00 00 50
327 00 16 65
345 00 04 26
344 00 08 57
321 00 24 44
294 00 08 50
Asta 293 00 08 50
296 00 17 21
288 00 00 72
272 00 17 00
271 00 01 32
269 00 23 55
270 00 22 28
240 00 00 45
239 00 00 51
234 00 42 63
235 00 02 02
237 00 01 06
212 00 00 99
207 00 12 03
147 00 01 19
184 00 29 64
185 00 02 22
180 00 00 50
179 00 00 54
176 00 14 02
175 00 10 15
165 00 17 07
158 00 00 62
156 00 23 17
157 00 04 86
122 00 00 67
108 00 30 18
105 00 05 70
104 00 00 54
103 00 14 74
99 00 00 61
92 00 10 35
91 00 19 00
90 00 00 63
66 00 00 56
65 00 37 68
62 00 05 18
59 00 00 68
58 00 02 67
57 00 00 72
07 00 12 05
06 00 47 92
04 00 03 68
03 00 11 47
02 00 03 27
01 00 03 11
Total 8 68 20
Sutta 2003/2023 00 05 63
1995 00 00 18
1993 00 01 13
1982 00 00 22
1983 00 00 61
1990 00 35 34
1989 00 09 27
1988 00 08 08
1987 00 00 55
1986 00 00 46
1984 00 20 26
1985 00 00 47
1972 00 01 84
424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 425 [ II— 3(ii)]
Sutta Singar 1971 00 35 26
1969 00 05 07
1968 00 31 71
Total 01 56 08
2534 00 01 04
2528 00 52 20
2525 00 11 92
2519 00 00 53
2512 00 05 50
2511 00 54 38
2510 00 12 71
2506 00 00 53
2498 00 00 54
2451 00 27 96
2452 00 01 85
2456 00 15 16
2453 00 01 35
2447 00 00 15
2444 00 24 00
2443 00 07 80
2442 00 36 02
2441 00 00 93
2440 00 18 18
2419 00 01 02
2003 00 01 46
2004 00 01 44
2405 00 09 62
2404 00 22 93
2403 00 06 49
2401 00 00 51
2396 00 01 00
2395 00 18 00
2394 00 00 58
2393 00 10 21
2384 00 19 89
2373 00 01 29
2371 00 07 65
2369 00 11 61
2368 00 00 50
2367 00 21 65
2358 00 00 53
2357 00 53 16
2356 00 00 54
2309 00 00 73
2267 00 10 95
2266 00 02 49
2264 00 04 41
2261 00 35 42
2260 00 31 47
2259 00 00 44
2258 00 23 24
2257 00 00 70
2126 00 13 37
2125 00 02 60
2123 00 05 67
2121 00 32 88
2118 00 00 53
2116 00 32 17
Total 06 59 90
Dakhaneshwar Dakhaneshwar 116 00 12 00
115 00 01 01
114 00 10 25
113 00 00 55
108 00 17 68
91 00 24 00
92 00 22 87
93 00 21 83
94 00 00 63
80 00 21 20
70 00 00 55
59 00 16 08
60 00 29 55
62 00 39 37
45 00 00 49
32 00 35 74
28 00 27 61
25 00 00 40
22 00 41 92
07 00 00 55
04 00 50 51
Total 03 74 79
Kuretha 186 00 00 38
180 00 21 55
179 00 11 85
178 00 02 60
177 00 01 28
165 00 37 80
164 00 00 43
163 00 28 80
162 00 00 87
158 00 35 55
156 00 19 20
155 00 38 10
152 00 00 63
151 00 00 74
48 00 08 30
47 00 10 71
46 00 08 54
45 00 30 55
44 00 00 54
24 00 38 30
Total 02 96 72
Dundi 130 00 59 80
129 00 01 69
115 00 48 34
113 00 00 53
112 00 00 20
111 00 16 50
110 00 08 70
102 00 18 10
101 00 05 40
103 00 00 09
104 00 00 10
100 00 15 76
99 00 18 72
97 00 00 32
426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 427 [ II— 3(ii)]
Dundi 92 00 03 65
93 00 08 06
78 00 10 80
77 00 00 54
72 00 39 50
74 00 25 90
64 00 05 80
49 00 06 22
47 00 20 00
40 00 37 35
37 00 06 02
02 00 23 55
43 00 02 93
Total 03 84 57
Kudri 678 00 00 69
677 00 29 19
683 00 00 08
675 00 05 18
676 00 00 82
684 00 18 24
685 00 08 82
686 00 08 98
687 00 10 76
688 00 03 60
695 00 00 84
696 00 67 14
651 00 06 29
650 00 06 40
649 00 10 07
648 00 04 53
647 00 02 86
646 00 00 63
645 00 12 76
643 00 00 34
644 00 23 89
641 00 01 82
632 00 00 60
630 00 15 12
629 00 02 65
628 00 05 16
627 00 05 75
626 00 05 68
625 00 08 28
624 00 08 41
702 00 00 70
623 00 01 40
615 00 02 04
611 00 01 95
610 00 15 10
608 00 00 51
607 00 18 82
603 00 00 46
597 00 26 70
596 00 13 96
588 00 00 59
568 00 11 50
567 00 39 68
556 00 00 75
539 00 05 00
Kudri 540 00 05 05
541 00 00 55
542 00 45 00
544 00 03 59
545 00 00 65
532 00 00 53
517 00 02 59
518 00 06 18
520 00 09 45
519 00 05 12
452 00 34 13
439 00 00 88
430 00 14 18
431 00 09 22
434 00 00 57
433 00 24 96
432 00 00 63
153 00 01 78
147 00 10 55
141 00 00 60
142 00 02 00
143 00 13 00
144 00 05 08
168 00 25 20
165 00 12 66
164 00 03 21
163 00 27 80
302 00 32 70
293 00 26 40
291 00 09 82
292 00 07 51
174 00 01 14
176 00 03 14
177 00 01 15
80 00 19 35
79 00 00 56
66 00 12 20
65 00 17 21
64 00 14 44
63 00 00 44
61 00 03 69
178 00 02 30
198 00 00 20
199 00 02 06
213 00 01 38
214 00 00 94
217 00 22 39
218 00 30 55
Total 08 89 47
428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2020

—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की ध ारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्रा—तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना429 [ II— 3(ii)] संख्या का.आ. 1478 दिनांक 06 अगस्त, 2019 जो भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र 11-17 अगस्त, 2019 में प्रकाशित की गई थी द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से पनकी (कानपुर) उत्तर प्रदेश तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए बीना- पनकी पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 12 अक्टूबर, 2019 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्‌ और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की दिनांक सेे केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगी।

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी क्षतिपूर्ति के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगा और पाइपलाइन से सम्बन्धित किसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के विरूद्ध कोई वाद, दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नहीं हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

तहसील- ललितपुर जिला- ललितपुर राज्य– उत्तर प्रदेश

गॉव का नाम सर्वे न./गाटा न. क्षेत्रफल
हैक्टेयर एयर वगर्मीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
मैनवार 1390 00 38 16
1383 00 41 39
1382 00 03 30
1380 00 33 06
1379 00 16 09
1378 00 14 99
1377 00 30 81
1371 00 07 14
1372 00 00 97
1376 00 21 12
Total 02 07 03
खजुरिया 176 00 17 08
179 00 01 39
180 00 48 82
181 00 02 02
182 00 53 56
205 00 44 08
207 00 05 42
208 00 18 18
209 00 07 22
210 00 04 46
214 00 31 32
108 00 30 55
107 00 26 72
222 00 21 77
223 00 17 78
224 00 00 05
225 00 12 06
226 00 15 30
227 00 21 78
229 00 01 72
230 00 00 87
240 00 54 68
248 00 30 69
253 00 00 94
263 00 31 65
255 00 01 98
264 00 22 52
270 00 63 92
Total 05 88 53
छिल्ला 395 00 39 78
399 00 22 75
402 00 66 19
407 00 03 51
403 00 14 70
404 00 03 33
412 00 25 20
430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 431 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
414 00 03 53
432 00 40 32
441 00 00 88
443 00 18 10
442 00 07 62
444 00 00 41
436 00 00 02
446 00 07 70
447 00 08 75
448 00 02 52
225 00 01 37
476 00 01 29
295 00 01 14
461 00 25 87
463 00 52 39
467 00 00 96
468 00 03 77
Total 03 52 10
बजर्रा 486 00 63 10
477 00 11 31
479 00 37 31
474 00 17 70
399 00 01 47
400 00 08 69
401 00 08 65
397 00 06 57
396 00 02 63
394 00 28 60
395 00 01 39
77 00 04 99
79 00 13 15
78 00 13 66
83 00 00 17
82 00 66 80
41 00 59 48
भडरऊ 45 00 16 19
9 00 40 56
7 01 03 55
221 00 02 75
6 00 14 66
222 00 10 34
223 00 67 30
224 00 01 96
225 00 47 25
Total 06 50 23
84 00 03 55
85 00 42 44
90 00 12 67
89 00 28 04
92 00 01 13
86 00 66 82
170 00 02 97
171 00 16 23
172 00 09 17
167 00 02 70
166 00 01 76
163 00 02 56
164 00 12 77
165 00 18 49
189 00 66 45
246 00 36 56
247 00 27 21
267 00 05 53
265 00 05 54
Total 03 62 59
432 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[फा. सं. आर-11025/15/3/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29921]

पी. सोमाकु मार, अवर सचिव433 [ II— 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020

S.O. 132.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. NO. 1478 dated the 06th August, 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 weekly Gazette of India 11th -17th August, 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 Bina – Panki Pipeline for transportation of Petroleum products from Bina (Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) to Panki (Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh) by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 12th October, 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 the 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 the publication of the declaration, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Bharat Petroleum 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.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Lalitpur District: Lalitpur State: Uttar Pradesh

Name of Village Survey No./Gata No. Area
Hectare Are Sqm.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Menwar 1390 00 38 16
1383 00 41 39
1382 00 03 30
1380 00 33 06
1379 00 16 09
1378 00 14 99
1377 00 30 81
1371 00 07 14
1372 00 00 97
1376 00 21 12
Total 02 07 03
Khajuriya 176 00 17 08
179 00 01 39
180 00 48 82
181 00 02 02
182 00 53 56
205 00 44 08
207 00 05 42
208 00 18 18
209 00 07 22
210 00 04 46
214 00 31 32
108 00 30 55
107 00 26 72
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
222 00 21 77
223 00 17 78
224 00 00 05
225 00 12 06
226 00 15 30
227 00 21 78
229 00 01 72
230 00 00 87
240 00 54 68
248 00 30 69
253 00 00 94
263 00 31 65
255 00 01 98
264 00 22 52
270 00 63 92
Total 05 88 53
Chhilla 395 00 39 78
399 00 22 75
402 00 66 19
407 00 03 51
403 00 14 70
404 00 03 33
412 00 25 20
414 00 03 53
432 00 40 32
441 00 00 88
443 00 18 10
442 00 07 62
444 00 00 41
436 00 00 02
446 00 07 70
447 00 08 75
448 00 02 52
225 00 01 37
476 00 01 29
295 00 01 14
461 00 25 87
463 00 52 39
467 00 00 96
468 00 03 77
Total 03 52 10
Bajarra 486 00 63 10
477 00 11 31
479 00 37 31
474 00 17 70
399 00 01 47
400 00 08 69
401 00 08 65
397 00 06 57
396 00 02 63
394 00 28 60
395 00 01 39
77 00 04 99
79 00 13 15
78 00 13 66
83 00 00 17
82 00 66 80
41 00 59 48
45 00 16 19
434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 435 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
9 00 40 56
7 01 03 55
221 00 02 75
6 00 14 66
222 00 10 34
223 00 67 30
224 00 01 96
225 00 47 25
Total 06 50 23
Bhadrau 84 00 03 55
85 00 42 44
90 00 12 67
89 00 28 04
92 00 01 13
86 00 66 82
170 00 02 97
171 00 16 23
172 00 09 17
167 00 02 70
166 00 01 76
163 00 02 56
164 00 12 77
165 00 18 49
189 00 66 45
246 00 36 56
247 00 27 21
267 00 05 53
265 00 05 54
Total 03 62 59

[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2020

—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का

अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्रा—तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1475 दिनांक 06 अगस्त, 2019 जो भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र 11-17 अगस्त, 2019 में प्रकाशित की गई थी द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से पनकी (कानपुर) उत्तर प्रदेश तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए बीना- पनकी पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 22 अक्टूबर, 2019 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्‌ और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है;

436 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की दिनांक सेे केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगी।

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी क्षतिपूर्ति के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगा और पाइपलाइन से सम्बन्धित किसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के विरूद्ध कोई वाद, दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नहीं हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

तहसील- पाली जिला- ललितपुर राज्य– उत्तर प्रदेश

गॉव का नाम सर्वे न./गाटा न. क्षेत्रफल
हैक्टेयर एयर वगर्मीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
पुरा 1 00 13 19
4 00 25 83
28 00 21 29
27 00 14 03
26 00 32 16
23 00 00 48
23/186 00 09 77
19/185 00 22 07
15 01 07 61
56 01 09 39
64 00 46 54
68 00 67 17
Total 04 69 53
गिल्टोरा 2 00 96 10
1 00 01 04
18 00 31 61
19 00 01 07
Total 01 29 82
सेमरा 148 00 00 63
153 00 15 95
437 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
144 00 01 35
145 00 12 84
133 00 89 48
43 00 66 57
1 00 00 38
3 00 02 05
12 01 01 68
13 00 04 28
Total 02 95 21
बालाबेहट 254 00 77 53
255 00 41 17
253 00 01 07
252 00 40 93
201 00 51 02
169 01 58 54
168 00 00 98
161 00 01 20
159/5 00 11 30
159/4 00 20 66
159/3 00 14 11
160 00 36 42
149 00 06 28
131 01 93 10
128 00 08 32
122 00 86 62
120 01 39 64
159/2 00 00 30
Total 08 89 19
रसोई 206 01 14 59
52 00 19 31
54 00 19 15
55 00 22 92
56 00 01 32
201 00 23 29
200 00 00 70
198 00 17 34
196 00 06 95
197 00 00 40
194 00 14 76
185 00 04 00
186 00 11 56
175 00 03 80
171 00 51 09
169 00 01 66
170 00 01 29
Total 03 14 13
महोली 564 00 05 62
565 00 01 28
566 00 20 37
567 00 00 07
561 00 13 32
571 00 11 63
572 00 08 01
573 00 12 15
597 00 15 58
595 00 12 68
596 00 08 01
590 00 15 97
589 00 01 04
588 00 06 42
587 00 06 40
586 00 01 71
585 00 00 99
335 00 02 18
337 00 10 10
336 00 06 99
338 00 11 37
339 00 12 36
438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 439 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
342 00 12 96
343 00 11 44
345 00 00 58
330 00 22 34
324 00 02 89
325 00 15 68
310 00 73 66
311 00 22 49
284 00 01 06
285 00 41 69
286 00 01 88
303 00 95 24
305 00 04 57
Total 04 90 73
बरखेड़ा 1 00 02 20
48 00 13 10
52 00 00 50
51 00 04 92
50 00 05 06
49 00 03 37
44 00 25 88
60 00 07 92
43 00 12 73
14 00 14 06
15 00 20 89
36 00 18 71
30 00 11 84
32 00 00 30
31 00 10 07
70 00 01 90
Total 01 53 45
पटना सिंदवाहा 161 00 90 40
Total 00 90 40
डोरना 427 00 01 83
424 00 04 00
422 00 05 30
423 00 01 59
421 00 00 51
419 00 00 28
420 00 11 83
150 00 09 29
154 00 15 07
146 00 14 63
145 00 03 75
156 00 00 49
128 00 13 70
126 00 18 94
111 00 00 50
113 00 03 12
112 00 07 36
107 00 09 38
105 00 04 95
104 00 06 26
101 00 05 58
102 00 05 65
46 00 12 50
42 00 22 76
41 00 31 17
40 00 17 23
Total 02 27 67
उमरिया डोंगरा 11 00 17 82
10 00 15 65
12 00 21 80
83 00 04 99
82 00 01 75
165 00 12 50
164 00 05 18
163 00 16 57
440 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 441 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
171 00 07 67
161 00 18 23
158 00 06 97
159 00 11 97
141 00 23 73
130 00 06 80
129 00 02 43
131 00 13 47
127 00 10 70
126 00 13 34
125 00 12 76
111 00 03 60
115 00 36 77
113 00 02 73
Total 02 67 43
बेटना 544 00 01 99
527 00 14 74
530 00 23 61
541 00 08 60
531 00 18 16
540 00 01 20
513 00 05 94
497 00 37 07
495 00 12 02
493 00 15 38
492 00 07 54
491 00 09 35
480 00 03 57
481 00 21 85
459 00 73 90
462 00 01 53
Total 02 56 45
सलैया 239 00 01 49
237 00 37 45
234 00 41 15
218 00 10 91
220 00 09 60
221 00 00 05
223 00 24 72
211 00 00 10
210 00 18 80
209 00 13 95
141 00 15 86
143 00 14 77
170 00 07 16
169 00 24 51
166 00 04 79
167 00 11 67
168 00 27 94
2 00 01 24
33 00 00 62
36 00 11 29
34 00 04 39
35 00 10 40
28 00 25 20
27 00 17 39
25 00 14 11
26 00 01 99
140 00 00 60
Total 03 52 15
पिपरिया पाली 581 00 36 61
582 00 05 79
641 00 09 76
640 00 30 86
645 00 00 60
639 00 08 39
637 00 00 80
636 00 13 48
442 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 443 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
634 00 09 45
633 00 10 23
632 00 00 10
592 00 16 00
591 00 11 67
594 00 11 08
613 00 01 48
615 00 38 78
497 00 13 54
513 00 06 87
498 00 15 49
500 00 01 82
501 00 16 28
502 00 16 16
447 00 16 36
504 00 01 75
414 00 21 85
415 00 21 80
416 00 10 00
417 00 16 74
408 00 15 30
420 00 02 20
419 00 27 69
421 00 14 98
422 00 19 59
423 00 25 11
424 00 00 55
427 00 20 09
426 00 02 44
Total 04 91 69
कलौथरा 551 00 01 95
553 00 07 26
549 00 23 78
548 00 01 45
547 00 09 87
534 00 26 77
535 00 03 25
536 00 11 83
531 00 34 45
529 00 05 60
528 00 00 64
Total 01 26 85
कोकटा 319 00 03 12
318 00 08 27
Total 00 11 39
सतौरा 839 00 33 36
841 00 10 05
842 00 11 03
1048 00 40 23
1047 00 02 98
1036 00 32 07
1035 00 07 87
1034 00 31 80
882 00 00 18
1032 00 23 20
1031 00 08 40
1029 00 01 71
1028 00 29 98
1025 00 00 10
1026 00 24 72
985 00 00 59
Total 02 58 27
सिंगैपुर 57 00 00 43
55 00 23 86
56 00 07 83
54 00 12 23
49 00 31 25
42 00 13 90
444 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 445 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
47 00 40 90
44 00 37 16
10 00 32 11
6 00 01 83
11 00 29 84
101 00 27 36
Total 02 58 70

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/3/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29921]

पी. सोमाकु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2020

S.O. 133.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. NO.1475 dated the 06th August, 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 weekly Gazette of India 11th -17th August, 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 Bina – Panki Pipeline for transportation of Petroleum products from Bina (Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) to Panki (Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh) by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 22nd October, 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 the 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 the publication of the declaration, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Bharat Petroleum 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.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Pali District: Lalitpur State: Uttar Pradesh

Name of Village Survey No./Gata No. Area
Hectare Are Sqm.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Pura 1 00 13 19
4 00 25 83
28 00 21 29
27 00 14 03
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
26 00 32 16
23 00 00 48
23/186 00 09 77
19/185 00 22 07
15 01 07 61
56 01 09 39
64 00 46 54
68 00 67 17
Total 04 69 53
Giltora 2 00 96 10
1 00 01 04
18 00 31 61
19 00 01 07
Total 01 29 82
Semara 148 00 00 63
153 00 15 95
144 00 01 35
145 00 12 84
133 00 89 48
43 00 66 57
1 00 00 38
3 00 02 05
12 01 01 68
13 00 04 28
Total 02 95 21
Balabehat 254 00 77 53
255 00 41 17
253 00 01 07
252 00 40 93
201 00 51 02
169 01 58 54
168 00 00 98
161 00 01 20
159/5 00 11 30
159/4 00 20 66
159/3 00 14 11
160 00 36 42
149 00 06 28
131 01 93 10
128 00 08 32
122 00 86 62
120 01 39 64
159/2 00 00 30
Total 08 89 19
Rasoi 206 01 14 59
52 00 19 31
54 00 19 15
55 00 22 92
56 00 01 32
201 00 23 29
200 00 00 70
198 00 17 34
196 00 06 95
197 00 00 40
194 00 14 76
185 00 04 00
186 00 11 56
175 00 03 80
171 00 51 09
446 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 447 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
169 00 01 66
170 00 01 29
Total 03 14 13
Maholi 564 00 05 62
565 00 01 28
566 00 20 37
567 00 00 07
561 00 13 32
571 00 11 63
572 00 08 01
573 00 12 15
597 00 15 58
595 00 12 68
596 00 08 01
590 00 15 97
589 00 01 04
588 00 06 42
587 00 06 40
586 00 01 71
585 00 00 99
335 00 02 18
337 00 10 10
336 00 06 99
338 00 11 37
339 00 12 36
342 00 12 96
343 00 11 44
345 00 00 58
330 00 22 34
324 00 02 89
325 00 15 68
310 00 73 66
311 00 22 49
284 00 01 06
285 00 41 69
286 00 01 88
303 00 95 24
305 00 04 57
Total 04 90 73
Barkhera 1 00 02 20
48 00 13 10
52 00 00 50
51 00 04 92
50 00 05 06
49 00 03 37
44 00 25 88
60 00 07 92
43 00 12 73
14 00 14 06
15 00 20 89
36 00 18 71
30 00 11 84
32 00 00 30
31 00 10 07
70 00 01 90
Total 01 53 45
Patna Sindhbaha 161 00 90 40
Total 00 90 40
Dorna 427 00 01 83
424 00 04 00
422 00 05 30
423 00 01 59
421 00 00 51
419 00 00 28
420 00 11 83
150 00 09 29
154 00 15 07
146 00 14 63
145 00 03 75
156 00 00 49
128 00 13 70
126 00 18 94
111 00 00 50
113 00 03 12
112 00 07 36
107 00 09 38
105 00 04 95
104 00 06 26
101 00 05 58
102 00 05 65
46 00 12 50
42 00 22 76
41 00 31 17
40 00 17 23
Total 02 27 67
Umariya Dongra 11 00 17 82
10 00 15 65
12 00 21 80
83 00 04 99
82 00 01 75
165 00 12 50
164 00 05 18
163 00 16 57
171 00 07 67
161 00 18 23
158 00 06 97
159 00 11 97
141 00 23 73
130 00 06 80
129 00 02 43
131 00 13 47
127 00 10 70
126 00 13 34
125 00 12 76
111 00 03 60
115 00 36 77
113 00 02 73
Total 02 67 43
Betna 544 00 01 99
527 00 14 74
530 00 23 61
541 00 08 60
531 00 18 16
540 00 01 20
513 00 05 94
497 00 37 07
495 00 12 02
448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 449 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
493 00 15 38
492 00 07 54
491 00 09 35
480 00 03 57
481 00 21 85
459 00 73 90
462 00 01 53
Total 02 56 45
Salaiya 239 00 01 49
237 00 37 45
234 00 41 15
218 00 10 91
220 00 09 60
221 00 00 05
223 00 24 72
211 00 00 10
210 00 18 80
209 00 13 95
141 00 15 86
143 00 14 77
170 00 07 16
169 00 24 51
166 00 04 79
167 00 11 67
168 00 27 94
2 00 01 24
33 00 00 62
36 00 11 29
34 00 04 39
35 00 10 40
28 00 25 20
27 00 17 39
25 00 14 11
26 00 01 99
140 00 00 60
Total 03 52 15
Pipriya Pali 581 00 36 61
582 00 05 79
641 00 09 76
640 00 30 86
645 00 00 60
639 00 08 39
637 00 00 80
636 00 13 48
634 00 09 45
633 00 10 23
632 00 00 10
592 00 16 00
591 00 11 67
594 00 11 08
613 00 01 48
615 00 38 78
497 00 13 54
513 00 06 87
498 00 15 49
500 00 01 82
501 00 16 28
502 00 16 16
447 00 16 36
504 00 01 75
414 00 21 85
415 00 21 80
416 00 10 00
417 00 16 74
408 00 15 30
420 00 02 20
419 00 27 69
421 00 14 98
422 00 19 59
423 00 25 11
424 00 00 55
427 00 20 09
426 00 02 44
Total 04 91 69
Kalothra 551 00 01 95
553 00 07 26
549 00 23 78
548 00 01 45
547 00 09 87
534 00 26 77
535 00 03 25
536 00 11 83
531 00 34 45
529 00 05 60
528 00 00 64
Total 01 26 85
Kokta 319 00 03 12
318 00 08 27
Total 00 11 39
Sataura 839 00 33 36
841 00 10 05
842 00 11 03
1048 00 40 23
1047 00 02 98
1036 00 32 07
1035 00 07 87
1034 00 31 80
882 00 00 18
1032 00 23 20
1031 00 08 40
1029 00 01 71
1028 00 29 98
1025 00 00 10
1026 00 24 72
985 00 00 59
Total 02 58 27
Singepur 57 00 00 43
55 00 23 86
450 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 451 [ II— 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
56 00 07 83
54 00 12 23
49 00 31 25
42 00 13 90
47 00 40 90
44 00 37 16
10 00 32 11
6 00 01 83
11 00 29 84
101 00 27 36
Total 02 58 70

[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

का.आ. 134.—कें द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में विद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन पावरग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के अंतर्गत पूर्वी क्षेत्र पारेषण प्रणाली-1 के 765/400 के .वी. उप कें द्र, गांव व पोस्ट गडगांव, थाना- ईटकी, जिला रांची तथा गया उप कें द्र, गांव बारा, प्रखंड-बोधगया, जिला गया, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृ ंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है।

[सं. 11011/9/2017-हिंदी]

राज पाल, आर्थिक सलाहकार

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 134.—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 Sub Station, Village & PO Garhgaon, PS-Itki, Distt. Ranchi and Gaya Sub Station, Village Bara, Block Bodhgaya, Distt. Gaya of Eastern 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]

RAJ PAL, Economic Adviser

पर्यटन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी, 2020

का.आ. 135.—सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृ त अधिभोगियों की बेदखली) अधिनियम 1971 (1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और पर्यटन मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना, भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 22 अक्तू बर, 2011 में प्रकाशित दिनांक 11 अक्तू बर, 2011 का.आ. संख्या 2950; भारत के राजपत्र452 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] दिनांक 5 दिसंबर, 2009 में प्रकाशित दिनांक 24 नवंबर, 2009 का.आ. संख्या 3259; भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 17 जनवरी, 2009 में प्रकाशित दिनांक 2 जनवरी, 2009 का.आ. संख्या 87 का अधिक्रमण करते हुए और ऐसे अधिक्रमण से पूर्व, किए गए अथवा किए जाने वाले कार्यों से चूकने से संबंधित को छोड़कर, भारत सरकार एतद्वारा नीचे दी गई तालिका के कॉलम (1) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी को इस अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी होने के लिए सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के पद के समतुल्य होने के कारण अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है और उक्त तालिका के कॉलम (2) में तदनुरूपी प्रविष्टि में यथा निर्दिष्ट, सरकारी स्थानों की स्थानीय सीमाओं को भी परिभाषित करती है, जिसके संबंध में उक्त सम्पदा अधिकारी, सम्पदा अधिकारी द्वारा अथवा उक्त अधिनियम के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा, और अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का निष्पादन करेगा।

तालिका

अधिकारी का पदनाम (1) सरकारी स् थान की श्रेणियां और अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमाएं। (2)
उपाध्यक्ष, मैसर्स भारत पर्यटन विकास निगम लिमिटेड, मुख्यालय, स्कोप कॉम्प्लेक्स, कोर 8, 7 लोदी रोड, नई दिल्ली – 110003 दिल्ली, मध्य प्रदेश, उत्तर प्रदेश, ओडिशा और कें द्र शासित प्रदेश जम्मू एवं कश्मीर में स्थित मैसर्स भारत पर्यटन विकास निगम लिमिटेड की अथवा उसके द्वारा पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी स् थान या परिसंपत्तियां।

[फा. सं. ई.ओ.एन.पी.एस.यू.-6/15/2018-पी.एस.यू.]

मीनाक्षी मेहता, उप महानिदेशक (सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र का उपक्रम)

MINISTRY OF TOURISM

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2020

S.O. 135.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Tourism, S.O. No. 2950 dated 11th October, 2011 published in the Gazette of India dated 22nd October, 2011; S.O. No. 3259 dated 24th November, 2009 published in the Gazette of India dated 5th December, 2009 and S.O. No. 87 dated 2nd January, 2009 published in the Gazette of India dated 17thJanuary, 2009 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Government of India hereby appoints the officer mentioned in the column (1) of the table below, being the officer equivalent to the rank of gazetted officer of the Government to be the Estate Officer for the purposes of this Act and also defines the local limits of public premises, as specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said table, in respect of which the said estate officer shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform duties imposed, on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act.

453 [ II— 3(ii)]

TABLE

Designation of the Officer. (1) Categories of public premises and local limits of the jurisdiction. (2)
Vice President, M/s .India Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Head Quarter, Scope Complex, Core 8, 7 Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110003. All premises or properties belonging to or taken on lease by M/s. India Tourism Development Corporation Limited situated in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha and Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

[F. No. EON.PSU-6/15/2018-PSU]

MEENAKSHI MEHTA, Dy. Director General (Public Sector Undertaking)

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 07/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/117/2004-आईआर (सी-1)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 07 of 2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/117/2004-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 07/2005

Employer in relation to the management of Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma. Adv.

For the workman. : None.

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated 26.12.2019454 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/117/2004-IR (C-I) dated 15/12/2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the management of

BCCL, Lodna Area of regularizing Shri Arjun Paswan as Driver w.e.f. 1.12.92 and for paying

wages in Grade-V w.e.f. 1.12.92 is just, fair and legal? If so, to what relief is the workman

entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but the workman didn't appear before the Tribunal. However, the management has appeared in this case. Case is pending since 03/01/2005 and workman is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 10/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/153/2004-आईआर (सी-1)

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.10 of 2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/153/2004-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference: No. 10/2005

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma, Adv.

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated 30.12.2019455 [ II— 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/153/2004- IR (C-1) dated 17/12/2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing

Sri Radhwa Bhuia from the services of the company w.e.f. 23.05.2002 is fair and justified? If not,

to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and the sponsoring Union appeared and filed written statement but subsequently workman/Union left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued to the union. In the meantime the Vice President of union is appeared and seen the record but even than he did not take any step in this case. Case is pending since 03/01/2005 and workman is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate..

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स टाटा स्टील लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 20/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/38/2011-आईआर (सीएम-1)

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.20 of 2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Tata Steel Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/38/2011-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 20/2013

Employer in relation to the management of Bhelatand Colliery of M/s.Tata Steel Ltd.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma. Advocate

For the workman. : Sri A. D. Chaudhary. Advocate

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated 30.12.2019456 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/38/2011-(IR (CM-I)) dated 08/07/2013 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bhelatand Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. in not

treating the date of birth of Md. Kasim as 05.11.1957 and superannuating him prematurely from

the services of the company is fair and justified? To what relief is the concerned workman

entitled to?"

2. The Union Colliery Karamchari Sangh representing the workman Md. Kasim and the Management of Sijua Colliery, Dhanbad have appeared before the Tribunal and have filed their written statement on 09/12/2013 and 26/08/2014 respectively. The workman has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management on 09/04/2015.

3. The case of the Union representing the workman Md. Kasim as per his written statement in brief, is as follows:-

That the concerned workman namely Md. Kasim son of Late Kabir Mistry was a permanent employee of Bhelatand Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel since 21/09/1982 and at the time of procurement of service the date of birth of the workman was recorded as 05/11/1957 on the basis of medical examination as well as on his self statement. Subsequently identity card was also issued to the concerned workman by the management mentioning his date of birth as 05/11/1957. Further in all the records of the company including C.M.P.F, L.T.C records, Gratuity records, Medical reports, Pension records and even in his PAN card the date of birth of workman has been mentioned as 05/11/1957, but in the year 2007 the workman received a letter issued by Chief (HR/TR) Jamadoba, regarding completion of 60 years with a direction to him to appear before the Medical Board for consideration and fitment for extension of one year service, vide letter JMB/HRD/102/801487 mentioning the date of birth of concerned workman as 05/11/1947 instead of 05/11/1957. After that the workman has received another letter issue by the Management vide letter no. 283 dated 18/10/2007 and subsequently another Identity card was issued on 2003 but delivered after 2007. Thereafter the workman has received another letter issued by management vide letter no 284 dated 07/08/2008 mentioning completion of sixty years which is contradictory to the letter no. 102 dated 13/07/2007. Late Kabir Mistry had three sons namely Samsul Haque, Ainul Haque and Md. Kasim the concerned workman and the date of birth of elder brother of concerned workman namely Samsul Haque who was also an employee of Bhelatand Colliery had been mentioned as 12/07/1948. A prayer has been made for setting aside the letter no. 284 of the G.M. (JH) dated 07/08/2008 treating the date of birth of the concerned workman as 05/11/1957 and allowing him to serve remaining years with full back wages and other perks & benefits with retrospective effects.

4. On the other hand the management of Tata Steel has filed written statement. The case of the management is as follows:-

That Md. Kasim, EX-P No. 213946, Ex-Onsetter was appointed on 21/09/1982 and subsequently retired from the company w.e.f. 30/11/2008. The service record of an employee was opened in Jharia Division of Tata Steel at the time of his appointment and maintained centrally in the office of Chief (HRM) and the service record of Md. Kasim was also maintained in the same process which was signed by Chief Personnel and Welfare Officer on 24/10/1982. The date of birth of Md. Kasim as per service record so prepared and maintained was recorded as 05/11/1947 and the management vide letter dated 11/09/2007 had issued a notice to the concerned workman mentioning therein that he would complete 60 years of age on 04/11/2007 as his date of birth has been recorded as 05/11/1947 and he was advised to appear before the Medical Board on 26/09/2007 for ascertaining his fitness of extension of one year of service beyond 60 years. The concerned workman appeared before the Medical Board on 26/09/2007 and Medical Board declared him fit for extension of one year of his service beyond 60 years of age vide Medical Board report no. TCH/51-694/07 dated 29/09/2007. The management subsequently extended the service of the concerned workman for one year w.e.f. 05/11/2007 with specific stipulation that he would be superannuated on expiry of extended period of one year on 30/11/2008 and accordingly he retired from the service of the company on 30/11/2008. The workman after retirement had raised an Industrial dispute vide representation dated 10/06/2009 and the workman had also filed a Title Suit No. 103 of 2008 in the Court of the Munshif 2nd Court at Dhanbad demanding correction of his date of birth and the same was dismissed for non-compliance of the order of the Court by the plaintiff. There is a typographical error on the I.D.Card no. 15965 dated 25/10/1983 and Medical Service Book issued to him on 06/07/2004 mentioning his date of birth as 05/11/1957 but management had issued a fresh I.D. Card on 01/07/2006 with the correct date457 [ II— 3(ii)] of birth recorded on it. A prayer has been made for holding action of management of Bhelatand Colliery as just and fair as well as non-entitlement of any relief by the workman.

5. The concerned union/workman has submitted a rejoinder to the written statement and denied all the averments mentioned in the written statement of management.

6. The union/workman has examined only one witness. He is WW-1 Md. Kasim.

The WW-1 Md. Kasim has deposed before the Tribunal that he had joined Tata Steel on 21/09/82 and his father Late Kabir Mistri was also an employee of Tata Steel. He has further deposed that his eldest brother namely Samsul Haque was an employee on the length of service career of his father Late Kabir Mistri and he procured his service on self strength. He has further stated that his eldest brother joined Tata Steel on 27/03/73 and his date of birth has been recorded as 12/07/48 whereas he joined in the year 1982 and his date of birth has been recorded as 05/11/57. He has also stated that in the year 2007 a fresh ID card was issued mentioning his date of birth as 05/11/47 whereas his date of birth recorded in records of the management including CMPF, Gratuity, Medical and others like PAN Card, Driving License as 05/11/57. He has also stated that a letter was issued to him to attend a Medical Board with instruction that if he failed to attend the Board his attendance would not be allowed to be marked. He has also stated that he was asked to sign a fresh (new) Form B register but he declined and refused to sign on it. He has further stated that he was prematurely retired from the service of Tata Steel management.

In the cross-examination he has stated that on 11/09/2007 he had received a letter that he would be retired on 04/11/2007 but he would continue for one year subject to Medical fitness and accordingly he went for Medical test where he was found fit and his job was extended for further one year. He has also stated that he had worked for eleven and half months and therefore, management asked him to sign on Form-B register and on his decline he was ousted. He has also stated he had filed a Title Suit and it was dismissed for default. He has denied the suggestions that he was retired on the basis of documents available before the company.

The workman has proved the following documents in support of his case which are as:-

Ext.W-1:- Letter for appearing Medical Board for Extension of service.

Ext.W-2:- Letter of Fitness certificate of Md. Kasim issued by Management.

Ext.W-3:- Letter regarding rejection of request for correction of date of birth of Md. Kasim.

Ext.W-4:- Letter addressed to Samsul Haque regarding extension of his one year service.

Ext.W-5:- Letter for allotment of Quarter.

Ext.W-6:- Identity card of Md. Kasim showing his date of birth as 05/11/1957.

Ext.W-7:- Medical book of Md. Kasim.

Ext.W-8:- PAN card of Md. Kasim showing his date of birth as 05/11/1957.

Ext.W-9:- Certificate of Ex-Surpanch regarding three son of Late. Kabir Mia.

Ext.W-10:- Notice for vacation of Quarter.

7. The management has examined only one witness. He is MW-1 Sapan Kumar Patra.

The MW-1 Sapan Kumar Patra has deposed before court that at present he is working as clerk in the office of Chief (HRM), Jharia division of Tata Steel. He has further stated that workman Md. Kasim was appointed on 21/09/82 and after his appointment the service record card was opened in which his date of birth was recorded as 05/11/47. He has further stated that the management had issued a notice vide letter dated 11/09/2007 to the workman concerned mentioning therein that he would complete 60 years of age on 04/11/2007, so he was advised to appear before the Medical Board on 26/09/2007 along with his Medical Service Book for ascertaining his fitness for extension of one year of his service beyond 60 year of age. He has also deposed that the concerned workman appeared before the Medical Board and Medical Board had declared him fit for extension of one year beyond 60 years of age and accordingly vide order dated 18/10/2007 the management extended the service of concerned workman for one year with specific stipulation that he would superannuate on expiry of extended period of one year on 31/11/08. He has also stated that the concerned workman had filed a Title Suit No. 103 of 2008 in the court of Munsif IInd Court at Dhanbad, demanding correction of his date of birth and the said Title Suit was dismissed.

458 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he has deposed the facts of this case on the basis of records available in his office. He has also deposed that the Form-'B' register of workman is maintained and it is an old case so it would be produced after finding it.

The management has proved the following documents which are marked as:-

Ext. M-1:- Photocopy of service record of Md Kasim maintained at Central Office.

Ext. M-2:- Photocopy of service record of Md Kasim maintained at his working place, Sijua

Colliery.

Ext. M-3:- Photocopy of letter No. JMB/HRD/102 for ascertaining his medical fitness for 1 year

extension of service beyond 60 yrs of age with receiving of peon book.

Ext. M-4:- Photocopy of Medical Board Report No TCH/51/624/07 dated 26.09.2007 fitness

report of Md Kasim.

Ext. M-5:- Photocopy of one year extension letter No JMB/283/002643 dated 18.10.2007 beyond

60 years of age with receiving of peon book.

Ext. M-6:- Photocopy of order dated 11.01.2010 of Title No 103/2008.

8. The learned lawyer of the union/workman has submitted before the Tribunal that the concerned workman namely Md. Kasim joined Tata Steel in year 1982 and at that time his date of birth was recorded as 05/11/1957 in the all the official documents of the Tata Company but the Company arbitrarily noticed him on 11/09/2007 to appear before the Medical Board for extension of his service of one year as he was going to retire on 04/11/2017. He has also submitted that the workman had appeared before the Medical Board without knowing the consequences and the company extended one year of his service after finding him medically fit but he subsequently got retired on completion of one year on 30/11/2008. He has further submitted that the evidence of MW-1 is of no use as he has no personal knowledge of this case. He has further stated that all the documents filed on behalf of the workman shows that his date of birth is 05/11/57 instead of 05/11/47. He has also submitted that the eldest brother of workman namely Samsul Haque joined Tata Steel Ltd. on 27/08/73 and his date of birth was mentioned as 12/07/48, so it is not possible that the date of birth of Md. Kasim who is younger to Samsul Haque would be 05/11/47.

He has also submitted that the management has not produced Form-'B' register in which the date of birth of workman has been mentioned as 05/11/57 but has produced a manufactured document in which there are many irregularities. He has also submitted that the I-Card Number which is actually issued in chronological order year wise and naturally the I-Card cannot issued in descending order, so the management has erroneously superannuated the concerned workman.

He has submitted that the superannuation notice of workman issued by Tata Company is not valid and Tata Company may be directed to reinstate the workman with all back wages along with all the perks and benefit.

9. On the other hand the learned lawyer of management has submitted that in all the records of the Company date of birth of Md. Kasim has been mentioned as 05/11/47 and on that basis a notice was issued to him vide letter dated 11/09/2007 informing him that he would be 60 years on 04/11/17 but he was directed to appear before the Medical Board for extension of service of one year and the concerned workman after accepting the proposal appeared before the Medical Board. He has also argued that on the basis of record of Medical Board the concerned workman was granted one year extension of his service and thereafter, on completion of one year he was superannuated. He has further submitted that the Company has not committed any error in calculating the age of the concerned workman and the said workman has been rightly retired/superannuated on completion of 60 years of age, so the case of workman is not maintainable.

10. Now the only point of determination in this case is whether the action of management of Bhelatand Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. treating the date of birth of Md. Kasim as 05/11/1957 and superannuating him prematurely from the service of the company is fair and justified and to what relief he is entitled to.

FINDINGS

11. In the light of argument advanced by the learned lawyer of both the parties, the Tribunal will first of all examine the oral and documentary evidences available on the record.

12. At the outset of discussions it is required to mention here that WW-1, Md. Kasim is the most competent witness in this case. He has categorically deposed before Tribunal that he had joined Tata Steel on 21/09/1982 and at that time his date of birth was 05/11/1957. He has also deposed that his eldest brother ex-459 [ II— 3(ii)] employee of Tata Steel Ltd. namely Samsul Haque was employed on the length of service career of his father on 27/03/1973 and his date of birth was 12/07/1948 whereas his date of birth was 05/11/1957. He has further deposed that his date of birth has been mentioned in the records like CMPF, Gratuity, Medical, PAN Card and Driving License as 05/11/1957 and in his original Identity Card his date of birth has been mentioned as 05/11/1957. He has also stated before Tribunal he was forced to attend the Medical Board fitness otherwise his attendance would not had been marked. He has also deposed that he was prematurely retired from service and he was asked to sign a fresh (New Form-B Register) but he declined.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he had received a letter dated 11.09.2007 mentioning therein that he would retire on 04/11/07 and for extension of service for one year he had to appear before medical board for medical fitness. He has also stated that he was asked to sign new form B register to which declined and he was ousted.

13. On the other hand the MW-1 has stated that the workman Md. Kasim was appointed on 21/09/1982 and his date of birth was mentioned in his service record as 05/11/1947. He has also stated that letter dated 11/09/2007 was issued to him that he would retire on 04/11/2007, so he was asked to appear before Medical Board on 26/09/2007 along with Medical Service Book for ascertaining his fitness. He has also stated that the service of workman was extended for one year after finding his fitness and subsequently he retired on 31/11/2008. He has also deposed that the workman had filed a title suit no. 103/2008 in the Court of Munsif 2nd, Dhanbad for correction of date of his date of birth but the same was dismissed.

In the cross-examination he has stated that the form B register of workman was maintained but it is an old case, so it would be produced after finding it.

14. Now coming to the documentary evidence it is found that the Ext W-1 and W-2 as well as Ext M-3 and M-5 are same, and both the parties have no dispute over these documents.

Further the Exhibit W-3 is a letter issued to the Md. Kasim rejecting the request of workman for correction of his date of birth and the Exhibit W-4 is a letter issued by management to Samsul Haque mentioning that he had completed 60 years of age on 11/07/2008 and he had been granted extension of one year and he would superannuate w.e.f. 12/07/2009. Moreover the Exhibit W-5 is a letter addressed to the workman Md. Kasim regarding allotment of double room quarter and the Exhibit W-6 is the I-Card of workman Md. Kasim showing I-Card No. 15965, Ticket No. 57689, Personal No. 213946, Date of Employment 21/09/1982 and Date of Birth 05/11/1957. The said I-Card was issued on 25/10/1983.

Additionally, the Exhibit W-7 is the photo copy of Medical Service Book issued on 06/07/2004 in which his age has been mentioned as 47 years, The Exhibit W-8 is the Permanent Account Number of Md. Kasim in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 05/11/1957 and the Exhibit W-9 is a Certificate issued by Sarpanch, Bhelatand Gram Panchayat mentioning therein that Late. Kabir Mistry had three sons eldest Samsul Haque, next Ainul Haque and last Md. Kasim.

15. It is relevant to mention here that the Exhibit W-4 shows that Samsul Haque, elder brother of Md. Kasim would retire on 11/07/08 after completion of sixty years so after calculation his date of birth would comes to 12/07/1948.

16. The management has produced the photocopy of service record of Md. Kasim maintained at Central Office and at working place Sijua Colliery which are marked as Exhibit M-1 and Exhibit M-2 respectively. After going through the Exhibit M-1 it appears that the date of birth of Md. Kasim has been mentioned as 05/11/1947 but it further appears that the concerned workman has been re-designated on 27/01/1998 on banksman/on-setter in Cat. IV in the existing grade of pay and thereafter on 01/01/1997 the workman was upgraded in Cat. V, so there are discrepancy in this document and as such it is not trustworthy.

Further after going through the Exhibit M-2 which was maintained in the Sijua Colliery it appears that it is a hand written copy and it is written in one stretch starting from 21/09/1982 till up-gradation in scale VI from 01/01/2004, so it is also not trustworthy.

The management has not produced the original copy of Form-B register of the concerned workman namely Md. Kasim and in this regard the MW-1 has categorically deposed that the same would be produced after finding it but the management has failed to produce the said documents before the Tribunal.

17. It is relevant to mention here that the workman has admitted in his evidence that he had filed a title suit before the Civil Court and the same was dismissed.

460 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Exhibit M-6 shows that the title suit no. 103/2008 has been dismissed for non appearance of the plaintiff and it has not been decided on the merit, so the issue of date of the concerned workman has not been decided on merit by the competent Court.

18. It is relevant to mention here that the management has not denied in its written statement that Late Kabir Mistry was not his employee and his son Samsul Haque having date of birth as 12/07/1948 was not his employee and the concerned workman is not brother of Samsul Haque.

19. Now after analysing all the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties in this case it is very much clear that the workman Md. Kasim is the son of Late Kabir Mistri who was also an employee of Tata Steel Ltd. and this fact has not been denied by the management of Tata Steel. Further it is also evident that Late Kabir Mistri had three sons and his eldest son namely Samsul Haque was employed in Tata Steel on the strength of the service of his father Late Kabir Mistri and his date of birth was 12/07/1948. The management of Tata Steel had also not denied this fact.

Further, there are discrepancies in the Exhibit M-1 and Exhibit M-2 and management has not produced Form B Register so in absence of Form B Register these documents are not trustworthy.

Further, it is improbable that the date of birth of younger brother namely Md. Kasim is 05/11/1947 and date of birth of elder brother namely Samsul Haque is 12/07/1948.

Moreover in all other documents submitted by workman Md. Kasim his date of birth has been mentioned as 05/11/1957.

Hence the Tribunal finds that the date of birth of concerned workman namely Md. Kasim is 05/11/1957.

20. In view of above discussions the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the M/s. Tata Steel Company in not treating the date of birth of Md. Kasim as 05/11/1957 and superannuating him prematurely from service is not fair and justified. Hence the concerned workman is entitled for relief.

21. In view of above discussion the Tata Steel Ltd. is directed to reinstate the concerned workman in service by considering his date of birth as 05/11/1957 but in that circumstances the concerned workman would retire in the month of November 2017.

Now the workman has completed more than 60 years of age on the date of award, so the Tribunal directs the M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. to pay half back wages i.e Fifty percent of back wages from the date of superannuation of the workman on 30/11/2008 till the completion of 60 years of age i.e. 30/11/17 considering the date of birth of workman as 05/11/1957 with all allowances including perks and other benefits like bonus, LTC, LLTC etc. within one month after publication of Award.

This is the award of the Tribunal

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (14 का 1947) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 21/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/191/2004-आईआर (सी-1)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 21 of 2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/191/2004-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer461 [ II— 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 21/2005

Employer in relation to the management of Kedla UGP of M/s.CCL.

AND

Their workmen

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated 26.12.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/191/2004-IR (C-I) dated 17/12/2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the BCKU from the management of CCL, Kedla UGP for

regularization of the 24 workmen (as per list) in-time rate category from the date of their actual

authorization; and 2) demand for protection of pay they were getting before such regularization;

are just, fair and legal? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled and from what date?"

List of the Workmen

1. Shri Chotelal Manjhi. 13. Shri Mangra Orawan II.

2. Shri Birju Bhuiya. 14. Shri Santosh Yadav.

3. Shri Jagdish Mahto. 15. Shri Ganesh Ram.

4. Shri Jageshwar Mahto. 16. Smt. Budhni Kamin.

5. Shri Siban Rajwar. 17. Smt. Fulmani Kamin.

6. Shri Bartu Orawn. 18. Smt. Danti Kamin.

7. Shri Santosh Kumar. 19. Smt. Saramati Devi.

8. Shri Har Prasad. 20. Smt. Sita Nonia.

9. Shri Azad Kumar. 21. Shri Gopal Mahto.

10. Shri Dijoy Prakash Minz. 22. Shri Churak Mahto.

11. Shri Munga Lal Mahto. 23. Shri Hussain Orawn.

12. Shri Kanhaiya Chouhan. 24. Shri Sikari Manjhi.

2. After receipt of the reference both parties were noticed but both parties didn't appear before this Tribunal,. Case is pending since 03/01/2005 and workman is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer462 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स टिस्को लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 138/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/510/1999-आईआर (सी-1)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.138 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. IISCO Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/510/1999-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 138/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Chasnala Colliery of M/s. IISCO Ltd.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : D. K. Verma. Advocate.

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated 26.12.2019

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/510/1999-IR (C-I) dated 01/03/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Chasnala Colliery of M/s. IISCO Ltd. is not paying

the contractor transportation Mazdoor wages, allowance and other benefits as per NCWAs is

legal, justified and as per constitutional provision? If not, to what benefits the concerned

workmen are entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently the workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued to the workman but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since 13/03/2000 and workman is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer463 [ II— 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इस्को लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 151/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/511/1999-आईआर (सी-1)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No.151 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. IISCO Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/511/1999-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 151/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Chasnalla Colliery of M/s. IISCO Ltd.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

For the Contractor : None

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated : 27.12.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/511/1999-IR (C-I) dated 02/03/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Chasnalla Colliery of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel

Company Ltd. (IISCO) in not paying wages dearness allowance and other benefits as per

national coal wage agreement to the transport contractor workers is legal, justified and logical in

view of constitutional provision? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, all three parties were noticed and two parties appeared for certain dates but contractor didn't appear before the Tribunal. Subsequently both the parties left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued to all three parties but even then no one appeared on behalf of the Union and others. Case is pending since 13/03/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost his interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer464 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 202/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/17/1997-आईआर (सी-1)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 202 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/17/1997-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 202/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Gobindpur Area No. III of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : D. K. Verma. Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated 26.12.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/17/1997-IR (C-I) dated 17/07/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of United Coal Workers Union that Sri Ramjatan Singh, Shovel Operator,

BCCL Gobindpur Area be promoted to grade D with effect from 07.06.1986, thereafter grade C

with effect from 07.06.1989 and grade B with effect from 07.06.1992 and payment of difference of

wages for the aforesaid period is legal and justified? If yes, to what direction is required to be

given in this respect?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently the workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued to the workmen but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workmen. Case is pending since 02/08/2000 and workman is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer465 [ II— 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 206/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/20/2000-आईआर (सी-1)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 206 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/20/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 206/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Katras Choitudih Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : Sri S.C. Gour. Adv.

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated 26.12.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/20/2000 (C-I) dated 24/07/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Katras-Choitudih Colliery under Katras Area of M/s.

BCCL in stopping the signalman and looseman allowance to the Trammers is justified, legal and

fair? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but subsequently workman left taking step in this case. Further in course of hearing of the case, the Vice President of Sponsoring Union has informed that union is not interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman has lost his interest in this matter. Hence "No dispute" award is passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer466 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 212/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/07/2000-आईआर (सी-1)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 212 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/07/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 212/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Lodna Coke Plant of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri D.K. Verma. Adv.

For the workman. : Sri S.C. Gour. Adv.

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated : 27.12.2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/07/2000 (C-I) dated 24/07/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Union for employment of Sri Shankar Bhuia, son of Late Somri

Bhuia of Lodna Coke Plant from the management of M/s BCCL under para 9.3.2 of NCWA V is

justified? If so, to what relief Sri Shankar Bhuia is entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but subsequently workman left taking step in this case. Further in course of hearing of the case, the Vice President of Sponsoring Union has informed that union is not interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman has lost his interest in this matter. Hence "No dispute" award is passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer467 [ II— 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.-1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 331/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/306/2000-आईआर (सी-1)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2020

S.O. 145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 331 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-20012/306/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 331/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Amlabad Colliery of M/S. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : Sri S.C. Gour. Rep.

State : Jharkhand. Industry:- Coal

Dated : 30.12.2019

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/306/2000 (C-I) dated 22/11/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Project Officer, Amlabad Colliery, in not allowing Sri Suresh Rajak

to resume his duties w.e.f. 17.08.98 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both the parties appeared for certain dates but subsequently workman left taking step in this case. Further in course of hearing of the case, the Vice President of Sponsoring Union has informed that union is not interested in contesting the case. It is felt that the workman has lost his interest in this matter. Hence "No dispute" award is passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer468 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एवं सिन्ध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 90/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/49/2015-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2020

S.O. 146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sindh Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31.01.2020.

[No. L-12012/49/2015-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/90/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Biharilal Kushwaha S/o Shri Kishorilal Kushwaha, (Bhutpurv Peon), Resident of 36-B, Tamayae Marg, Vivekanand Ward No.9 Chhatarpur (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Branch Manager Punjab & Sindh Bank Sagar Road, Chhatarpur (M.P.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 10thday of JANUARY-2020)

1. As per letter dated 15-9-2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-L-12012/49/2015-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Kya brapbhandhantantra Shakha Prabhandak Panjab & Sindh Bank, Sagar Road, Chhatarpur

(M.P.) ke dwara Shri Biharilal Kushwaha, S/o Shri Kishorilal Kushwaha ko bank shakha

Chhararpur mein varsh2011 se Asthai Peon ke pad par nerantar Karya Karaye jaane pashchat

Audyogik vivad Adhiniyam m, 1947 Dhara 25-F ke vepareet uske sevayein 29-7-2015 se samapt

karne ke karyawahi nyayochit hai? Yadi nahi to sambhandit Karmachari kes anutosh ka haqdar hai

? ."

2. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties who filed their respective claim in defence.

3. During pendency of the case, the workman filed an application for withdrawal of his claim on the ground that the Management has employed him on permanent basis as par time sweeper and hence he does not want to pursue his claim.

4. The Management has also made endorsement regarding no objection for withdrawal because the dispute has been settled out of Court between the parties and grievance of workman remains addressed.

469 [ II— 3(ii)]

5. In the light of these factual scenario, since the dispute has been settled between the parties and there is no dispute as mentioned in the reference, there is no requirement of any award to be passed.

6. Reference is answered accordingly.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 10.1.2020

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 4/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/85/2014-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2020

S.O. 147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31.01.2020.

[No. L-12011/85/2014-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/4/2015

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary Rashtriyakruth Bank Karmachari Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engineering College Ujjain (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Assistant General Manager Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office, 1513/1/1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (M.P.)-462011

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 8thof JANUARY-2020)

As per letter dated 21/12/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/85/2014-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, Bhopal in dismissing the series of

workman ShriMohanlalMalviyaw.e.f. 14-11-2011 is justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to? ."

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was first appointed as peon on November-20-1976 and was working to the satisfaction of his superiors. He was issued a charge sheet for alleged acts of misconduct on January-6-1997 without basis. Before this he was suspended vide order dated470 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 11-4-1996 which was against the established procedure and charge sheet was issued after suspension. The charge against the workman was that he mis-appropriated foreign currency of total 400 U.S. dollars kept in two envelopes for sending it to Bank's Overseas branch at New Delhi on June-6-1995 and put in Rs.10 and Rs.7 currency in those envelopes thus mis-appropriated the amount of Rs.9000/- & Rs.3000/- respectively. According to the workman this charge was leveled against him to save the other officials involved in the scam. A departmental inquiry was conducted in English language though the workman had specifically requested to conduct it in hindi because he did not know English, thus depriving him to defend himself effectively . Also that the inquiry was not conducted as per the established principles of natural justice. The workman was not given opportunity to defend himself. Charges were held wrongly proved in the inquiry report and he was wrongly dismissed by the Controlling Authority . On the basis of such an inquiry report, on his appeal against dismissal was also dismissed by Controlling Authority. According to the Workman the First Information Report in this case was registered by bank against him and trial was going on which had not concluded, hence the inquiry could not be proceeded against him due to pendency of trial. Accordingly the workman has prayed for his reinstatement with all back wages and benefits.

3. According to the Management the workman was initially recruited for the post of peon on November- 20-1976 and at the relevant time of the incident, he was serving as a Bills Collector in Malviya Nagar Branch of Bhopal. He used to absent himself without reason fort which memo dated 23-10-1978, December-7-1979 and January-31-1990 as well as April 12-1982 were issued against him. According to the Management, while he was discharging his duties as Bills Collector, he removed 400 US dollars kept in two envelopes which were to be sent to the Overseas bank of New Delhi in two separate covers by registered insured letters for Rs,3000/- and Rs.9000/- respectively. It was reported by the Overseas Branch that these two envelopes were found with 05 Indian Currency notes of denomination Rs.10/- each and 07 Indian currency notes of denomination Rs.10/- each within them. The first information report was registered by bank with police on June 18-1995. During investigation, the workman was found involved in the mis-appropriation and charge sheet was sent by police in relevant section for which trial proceeded. The Management, suspended the workman vide order dated November-4-1996 for the charge and issued a charge sheet dated January-6-1997 regarding the charges. The workman submitted his explanation dated January-28-1997 denying his involvement. It was decided to proceed with the departmental inquiry and charges were leveled vide order dated November-7-2000. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The suspension of workman was revoked on March-28-2001. The inquiry commenced from January-10-2001 at Zonal Office . The workman filed a request to keep the inquiry in abeyance till conclusion of criminal case pending against him in the light of Bi-Partite Settlement. Hence the inquiry proceedings was stayed till further orders but since the trial remained pending for more than seven years and there was no possibility of its conclusion in near future, it was decided to proceed with the Inquiry vide order dated December-18-2008. The workman preferred a Writ petition No.1707/2009 before Hon'ble High Court seeking stay on inquiry on the ground that the criminal proceeding were going on for same charges, which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated July-12-2011. After dismissal of the writ petition, the inquiry again proceeded. The workman was given opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report on July-28-2011after issuing a show cause notice to the workman on the basis of punishment dated November-3-2011, and hearing his side by way of granting an opportunity of personal hearing. The Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned sentence of dismissal without notice on November- 14-2011. The workman did not prefer an appeal against this punishment which was also dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated January-8-2014. According to the management the inquiry was conducted as per law, charges were found proved and since the charge was of major misconduct, warranting major punishment, the workman was punished accordingly. The Management has further prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

4. At the stage of evidence, the workman did file photocopy of inquiry proceedings but no witness appeared on his behalf. The workman also did not examine himself.

5. The management examined Chief Manager Ramesh Kolekar who proved the pleadings of Management as stated above and the inquiry papers which are Exhibits M-1 to M-29.

6. At the stage of argument, no one appeared from the side of workman. The workman did file the written arguments. The Management has also filed written arguments through its counsel Shri Shailendra Pandey. Both the written arguments are part of the record. I have gone through the written arguments and record.

7. Following issues arise in the case in hand on the basis of pleadings:-

1. Whether the Departmental Inquiry conducted is legal and proper?

2. Whether the charges are proved in the inquiry?

3. Whether the punishment awarded is excessive?

471 [ II— 3(ii)]

8. ISSUE NO. 1:-

The burden to prove this issue is on the workman. Except his pleadings, there is nothing in the form of statement on oath to prove this. The Management has examined its witness, who is the Chief Manager who has deposed about the inquiry and has proved the inquiry proceedings as well as reports. After perusal of Inquiry proceedings, there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any illegality committed or principles of natural justice were violated by Inquiry Officer during the inquiry. Hence holding the inquiry conducted as per law, this issue is decided against the workman. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

9. ISSUE No. 2:-

A written argument does not indicate any fact to doubt the finding of the Inquiry Officer. From the perusal of the statement of the witness filed with the Inquiry Report as well as documents also, I am in agreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer that charge of misconduct as stated above is proved. Issue No.2 is also decided accordingly.

10. ISSUE NO.3:-

According to the Bi-Partite settlement governing the service conditions anddepartmental inquiry the charge of misconduct proved is acting against the interest of Bank resulting into monetary loss to the Bank which is a serious misconduct warranting dismissal also . Secondly it is not disputed that no employer can compromise with the integrity of its workers. The worker should possessone hundred per cent integrity, further the fraudulent acts by workman creates loss of confidence in him by Management. Integrity, devotion, diligence and honesty is the core factor of banking business which cannot be compromised. Hence in the light of above discussion the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be excessive. Issue No,3 is answered accordingly.

11. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the managementof Union Bank of India, Bhopal in dismissing of workman

Shri Mohanlal Malviya w.e.f. 14-11-2011 is held legal and justified.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 8.1.2020

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 23/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/213/2004-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2020

S.O. 148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31.01.2020.

[No. L-12012/213/2004-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer472 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH JANUARY 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 23/2005

I Party

II Party

The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Karnataka Zone, No. 11, K.G. Road, Bangalore - 560 009.

Mrs. Yasmeen Fathima, No. 111, 1st Floor, Ranka Garden Apartments, 4th Cross, 2nd Main, Wilson Garden, Bangalore - 560 027.

Appearance :

Advocate for I Party   :    Mr. S. V. Shastri
Advocate for II Party  :    Mr. Pradeep S Sawkar

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/213/2004-IR(B-II) dated 04.05.2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the management of Bank of India is justified having dismissed Smt. Yasmeen Fathima,

Clerk from Services of the Bank w.e.f. 10.10.2002? If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to

and from which date?"

1. The 1st Party workman is the Ex-employee of the 2nd Party Bank who is dismissed from service w.e.f 10.10.2002 as a measure of Disciplinary Action; before her dismissal she was issued Charge Sheet, since she denied the charges, Domestic Enquiry was conducted; on completion of the Enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings that the charges are proved. The 2nd Party acting on the Enquiry Report has taken action against her.

2. The grievance of the 1st Party workman was, the Domestic Enquiry was conducted without providing proper opportunity to her; the charges framed were vague in nature. There was no documentary evidence to sustain the alleged charges; entire Enquiry proceeding was vitiated; the Punishment Order is disproportionate to the gravity and circumstances of the case; she is unemployed and is sole earning member in the family.

3. The 2nd Party in their counter statement justified their action.

4. On the rival pleadings touching the validity of the Domestic Enquiry a Preliminary Issue was raised, tried and adjudicated by holding that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper.

5. Thereafter, the 1st Party workman adduced evidence stating that because of the punishment order she is put to financial loss and inconvenience; her service was unblemished, she is a widow having a son and without any other source of income.

6. Vide Charge Sheet dated 24.06.1999 she was charged on five counts.

Firstly, in collusion with an outsider Sh. P A Parekh she issued 16 cheques of large amounts without keeping the Balance in her SB Account and OD Account with the Bangalore Main Branch in favour of M/s Kismat Sales and Services, those cheques were received by the Service Branch of the 2nd Party, in clearing; she unauthorisedly removed said cheques along with Branch schedule before they were sent to Bangalore Main Branch.

473 [ II— 3(ii)]

Secondly, she issued 3 cheques from her SB Account No. 10164 maintained at Jayanagar Branch in favour of M/s. Kismat Sales and Services; when the said cheques were issued in clearing, she unauthorisedly removed cheques along with Branch schedule.

Thirdly, she removed 38 cheques which were issued by Mr Pankaj A Parekh favouring M/s Kismat Sales and Services, M/s. Kismat Service Centre and M/s Fortune Times without keeping sufficient balance in his SB A/c 5834 with the Sanjay Nagar Branch of the 2nd Party. She deliberately removed the said cheque along with Branch schedule. When the cheques were received in clearing, Gandhinagar Branch of the 2nd Party gave credit to the respective Accounts, thus serious financial loss was caused to the 2nd Party.

Fourthly, she altered the original date of clearing stamp on the cheques to a subsequent date of clearing stamp with a view to commit fraud.

Fifthly, on 09.02.1999 she went to Bangalore Service Branch at 8.am along with Mr. Riyazullah Baig, Sub-Staff and broke the door by cutting the portion of the lock, entered the premises of the Bank, stole 'B' Register with a view to destroy the evidence and to prevent the Branch Officials from locating the exact area of clearing differences.

Each of her action amounted to misconduct in terms of Para 19.5(j) of First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966.

7. She was issued supplementary charge sheet dated 13.08.1999 and the allegations were, Firstly, she had drawn 8 cheques (as per the details mentioned in the charge sheet) on her SB A/c No. 10164 with the Jayanagar Branch of the 2nd Party without keeping sufficient balance in the said account; when they were received in clearing they were intercepted and removed/ destroyed by her along with Branch schedule, thereby caused financial loss of Rs. 3,10,000/- to the 2nd Party.

Secondly, Sh. Pankaj A Parekh had drawn 8 cheques in his SB A/c 5834 at Sanjaynagar Branch of the 2nd Party without keeping sufficient balance; the 1st Party intercepted, removed / destroyed the cheques along with the Branch schedules received in clearing (as per the details mentioned in the charge sheet) thereby caused financial loss of Rs. 3,95,000/- to the 2nd Party.

Thirdly, 4 cheques (as per the details mentioned in the charge sheet) were drawn by her on her OD Account 30260 with Bangalore Main Branch without keeping sufficient balance in the said Account; when they were received in clearing they were intercepted and removed /destroyed by her along with Branch schedule, thereby fraudulently got the amount credited to the payees accounts and misappropriated the amount thereby causing financial loss of Rs. 3,25,000/- to the 2nd Party.

Each of her action amounted to gross misconduct in terms of Para 19.5(j) of First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966.

8. During the Enquiry on behalf of the Management three witnesses were examined and 38 documents were exhibited for the 2nd Party. There was no defence evidence.

However, 26 documents were marked for the workman.

9. MW-1 was the then officer working in Bangalore Service Branch since 03.07.1995. During his evidence he narrated the nature of the work in the clearing department and further stated that the CSE worked as a Clerk at Bangalore Service Branch from 21.11.1994 to 13.02.1999; she was allotted clearing department work which includes other departmental work, inward clearing also. He produced ME-19 the particulars of the leave availed by her; he further stated that she was allotted the work of delivering outward clearing instruments and bringing Bank's inward clearing instruments for several months from Reserve Bank of India; she had to type individual cheques of various Banks drawn on Bank of India, Branches in Bangalore and received from various Banks, amount wise to confirm and report to the Clearing Officer, the concern of their claims on Bank of India, any discrepancy in the claims, any alternation in clearing stamps should be brought to the notice of the Clearing Officer; she was to help the Department in removing the other Banks schedules attached to the cheques presented by them; at times she had to sort the cheque Branch wise, further the cheques thus sorted would be again typed, amount wise on electronic calculators to determine the total value of the cheques sent by Service Bank to other Branches of the 2nd Party at Bangalore; thus she could get access to the instruments from the stage of bringing the instruments from the RBI clearing house, upto the stage of listing the instrument Branch wise.

She had to report to the Clearing Officer about any instrument not delivered by the Presenting Banks but amount474 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] claimed by them; identified differences should be accounted by passing suspense entries duly authorised by concerned Officials. She was also attending other types of clearing like return clearing, high value clearing, IBT clearing etc. Any unidentified differences arrived at, after aggregating Branch wise / Department wise instruments and comparing the same with RBI figure would also be accounted for, by passing suspense entries by the Clerk duly authorised by the concerned Officials. The witness identified ME-1 and ME-2 which are the Statements of Account of CC A/c No. 3672 of M/s Kismat Sales and Services and CC A/c No. 10964 of M/s Kismat Service Centre at Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar Branch for the period 01.01.1998 to 23.12.1998 and 01.01.1998 to 13.02.1999 respectively. ME-3 is the Statements of Account of CA 17649 of M/s Fortune Times Account with Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar Branch, Bangalore for the period 01.01.1998 to 12.02.1999. ME- 26 list of cheques drawn on Bank of India and presented to clearing by Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar Branch for the credit of CA 10964, CC 3672, SB 106607 of Mrs. Asha P Parekh and CA 17649, the list contains 61 cheques issued on Bank of India and Branches of Bangalore Main, Sanjaynagar and Jayanagar. Except the items 1 to 3 which are credited as per Syndicate Bank Certificate all other items listed by Syndicate Bank in this document have been credited to respective accounts. From ME-1 to ME-3 there is no single debit entry pertaining to 58 clearing cheques drawn on Bank of India, all the 58 cheques were honoured within the stipulated time, hence they are not returned. Entries at ME-13 are issued to CSE on her overdraft A/c No. 30206 and SB A/c No. 17128 at Bangalore Main Branch. At ME-1 there is credit entry of Rs. 35,000/- by clearing cheque No. 432960 drawn on overdraft A/c No. 30260 of the CSE on Bangalore Main Branch, the entries of 02.07.1998 at ME-1 corresponds to the cheques issued to her as detailed in ME-13. Clearing cheque No. 432969 is for Rs. 37,000/- and 432968 is for Rs. 38,000/- which are credited, these cheques were issued in the Overdraft Account of the CSE. There is credit entry for Rs. 50,000/- at ME-2 by clearing cheque No. 382305 and Rs. 15,000/- by clearing cheque No. 382304 and crediting another Rs. 75,000/- by clearing cheque No. 395081. The amount mentioned at ME-13 are issued to her in respect of SB A/c No. 17128, the entry at ME-2 is the clearing credit pertaining to cheque No. 432959 credited on 09.06.1998 for Rs. 35,000/-, in respect of her over draft A/c 30260; the entry at ME-3 is for credit of Rs. 45,000/- by clearing cheque No. 438807 and Rs. 85,000/- by clearing cheque No. 438808; ME-12 is the statement of Account of her overdraft A/c 30260 at the main Branch for the period 01.01.1997 to 27.02.1999 but none of these cheques have been debited in her OD A/c 30260. Vide work allocation order ME-18 she was allotted reconciliation work and work of attendant Reserve Bank of India for outward clearing. She had been typing the amounts of instruments from Bank's lots brought from the clearing house, thus she had access to inward clearing instruments sent by some Banks even though she was not in clearing department throughout the day. Normally the Clearing Officer will not be allotting specific lot of instrument to specific clerks, thus she could get access to any cheques or any lots of her choice.

10. The witness further stated that he noticed that there was huge difference in inward clearing during the period May 1998 to January 1999; she had taken verification cheques tendered by Syndicate Bank, Federal Bank, SBI, Karnataka Bank etc; on many occasion relevant schedules of a few Branches of other Banks were missing. While going through the cause for unidentified differences, he noticed repeated instances of instruments tendered by Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar Branch had not been reported to the Clearing Officer, even though they had been listed during the course of verification. Subsequently they are not reported against drawee Branches, sometime verification is done by the CSE.

Further the witness stated that many of the cheques which had gone unaccounted, the witness opines that there were numerous attempt by the CSE to manipulate differences in clearing and deliberate attempts to remove instruments after listing the same during the first stage of verification of other Bank claims; during her tenure in Net Clear Department (while working under the witness) she was tactfully coming there, during the relevant period she was showing unusual interest in Clearing Departmental work but was not reporting the difference about other Banks claims. As per ME-29 Certificate issued by the 2nd Party mentions she enjoyed an overdraft limit of Rs. 15,000/- from 10.10.1995 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 26,800/- on 16.04.1997. ME-9 to ME-12 are the statements of her SB Account and OD Account.

The witness by verifying the statements further deposed that except on 09.06.1998 there was no sufficient balance in her Account to cover the cheques drawn on the Account nor they have been debited to the Account. The cheques are credited in the Accounts of M/s Kismat Sales / Kismat Service Centre etc., indicating close nexus between the beneficiary and the CSE. Hence, the 2nd Party is put to loss of identical amounts. The transactions pertaining to Sh. Pankaj A Parekh are marked as ME-33 to ME-39; ME-14 is the statement of Account 5834 of Sh. Pankaj A Parekh with Sanjaynagar Branch in respect of the transaction from 06.09.1998 to475 [ II— 3(ii)] 18.08.1999. ME-26 is the Certificate by Syndicate Bank Gandhinagar Branch, containing list of cheques presented through Bank of India for clearing, deposited by Kismat Service Centre, Fortune Times and Mrs Asha P Parekh.

11. The witness through his oral evidence rectified the discrepancy appearing relating to Charge 3 in the charge sheet pertaining to item No. 5,9, 34 and 35. He further stated from the statements at ME-39 (Cheque Book requisition form) that 60 cheque leaves were issued by Sanjaynagar to Mr. Pankaj A Parekh to his SB A/c 5834; except one cheque bearing No. 738436 for Rs. 40,000/- remaining 37 cheques do not find place in the statement of his account. Those cheques are not delivered to Sanjaynagar Branch; CSE was on duty on all the days on which 37 instruments were received by Bangalore Service Branch at inward clearing but they have not reached the drawee Bank. ME-30 is the letter issued by the Travel Air Pvt. Ltd. who sold tickets to the CSE and Mr. Pankaj A Parekh for their Travel from Mumbai to Zurich on 22.08.1998; on receiving part payment of Rs. 69,000/-. ME-28 is her leave application seeking leave for 9 days from 21.08.1998 to 29.08.1998 on the ground of attending marriage. She has hidden the actual fact of her journey to Zurich; the witness further stated that he noticed huge differences which were continuous especially from May 1998 to January 1999, around 35 lakhs of clearing difference as due to removal of cheques received in inward clearing and drawn on accounts of Mr. Pankaj A Parekh and CSE; then the witness came to conclusion that most of the unreconciled difference had their genesis in removal of instruments probably by CSE who had access to clearing instrument at Service Branch; in her absence there was no instances of removal of instruments.

Further the witness in chronological order and by connecting the events stated how the CSE hatched conspiracy with Mr. Pankaj A Parekh by choosing inward clearing – Non MICR since their records received from other participating Bank would not contain the details of the cheque tendered like cheque No., Drawee Branch, name etc. The witness referred to the instance where they added Rs. 3,25,000/- to Malleswaram West Branch schedule on 04.08.1998 to temporarily hide 4 cheques of identical amounts issued by CSE and presented by Federal Bank, Bhasyam Nagar Branch but not delivered since they were removed by CSE.

The witness further stated that attempts were made by her and her accomplice to trouble honest officers working at Bangalore Service Branch who helped in unearthing the details of the fraud. These misdeeds were brought to the notice of the Police; she was in possession of large number of cheque books issued by Main Branch and the Jayanagar Branch in respect of her account and many of which are yet to be traced; 82 cheques aggregating to Rs. 35.03 lakhs have been traced and removed in inward clearing their number and amount may go up huge financial transaction has taken place from 1995 in the account of Mr. Pankaj A Parekh and CSE.

12. The second witness / MW-2 was the then Officer in the outward and inward, clearing draft payable department; the activities therein are daily cash book despatch, collection and payment of dividend and warrant in Service Branch; on the basis of the documentary proof she fully corroborated the evidence of MW-1. She had deposed that when there was allocation for collection of cheques from RBI there were no lady volunteers as it was the early morning hours i.e. 9. am; CSE volunteered to take up this job, she was also enthusiastic in typing the first lot of inward clearing cheque and sorting branch wise; in allocation of the duty among the clerical staff effective from 16.11.1998 she was allotted interbranch reconciliation statement, LMO statement, related IOMS / letters, preparation of quarterly, half quarterly, statement of un-reconciled LMOs entries, reminder follow up for un-reconciled inter branch / LMO entries, attending RBI for outward clearing; many times she volunteered in inward clearing, her assistance was availed due to time constraints though she was not allotted the job; during her absence there was no cheque presented for clearing that are listed under ME-6; the credits as at ME-6 to the account are not on the days she was on leave.

13. MW-3 is the Watchman working at the Main Branch; he identified the written statement given by him in Tamil language to the Investigating Officer. His deposition was to the effect that on 09.02.1999 he was on duty between 6 am and 10 am, at about 8 am CSE came in auto after 10 minutes Mr. Riyazullah Baig / Sub- ordinate staff joined her, they went upstairs, after about 20 minutes they came down, CSE was holding Black clearing bag and a register, both of them went in the Scooter of Mr. Riyazullah Baig; on the same evening he reported to duty at 6 pm, he was called by Officer, Service Branch and asked who all had came in the Morning, it was informed to him that lock of the Service Branch was broke open.

14. All the three witnesses were thoroughly cross examined. CSE was not able to examine the witnesses of her choice, she either did not give any statement also. From the statements of the witnesses MW-1 and MW-2 which was supported with the documentary proofs i.e. ME-1 to ME-3, ME-10, ME-11, ME-13, ME-24 to ME-476 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 27, ME-29, ME-30, ME-32, ME-33, the Enquiry Officer has extracted that without having sufficient balance available in the account (when the cheques were supposed to have been received by Bangalore Main Branch), 16 cheques were issued either by CSE or by somebody by drawing through her cheque, those cheques must have reached Bangalore Main Branch were the accounts are maintained and should have been returned by them on the same day as there was no sufficient balance; CSE did not deny the above evidence by adducing rebuttal evidence. Thus, the finding regarding charge no. 1 of charge sheet dated 24.06.1999 went in favour of the prosecution.

15. With regard to charge No. 2 of charge sheet dated 24.06.1999 placing reliance on the documentary proof of ME-21 (undisputed document) / Certificate issued by the Branch, items appearing against 12, 13 and 60 from ME-26, the Enquiry Officer recorded that the cheques are received in their Accounts of Kismat Sales and Service and Fortune Times and presented for clearing at the 2nd Party Branch. ME-1 and ME-3 of Kismat Sales and Service and Fortunes Times established that the amounts of 3 cheques were credited to the respective accounts. As per the deposition of MW-2, 2 accounts have not been debited for any return of cheques in clearing; as per ME-1 and ME-3 funds relating to the said cheques were parted by Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar; there was no debit entry at ME-20 the accounts statement of CSE maintained at Jayanagar Branch of 2nd Party. There was no sufficient amount in her account also when the cheques were supposed to be received by Jayanagar Branch, there were no debits in the said account for the period 13.09.1996 to 26.03.1999.

16. Regarding charge 1 of the supplementary charge sheet dated 13.8.1999, the Enquiry Officer counted upon the evidence that CSE did not deny that 8 cheques were issued to her by Jayanagar Branch on her account as evidenced by ME-21. As per ME-26 items at S. No. 14 and 15 first two cheques in the above referred charge was received by Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar Branch in the SB A/c of Asha P Parekh and was presented for clearing to 2nd Party; the statement of account of Asha P Parekh / ME-5 established credit of the cheques to the account to a total amount of Rs. 85,000/- and the same was parted by Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar. ME-6 is the statement of SB Account of one Mr. Venkatesha maintained at Syndicate Bank, Balepet for the relevant period, the amounts mentioned at item 3 to 8 of the charge was credited to the said account, this was supported by the evidence of MW-2. Credit was given to the respective account by Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar and Balepet Branch but debit was not given for any return in clearing. There was no sufficient balance in the SB Account of the CSE as per ME-20 on which said 8 cheques were drawn. Thus, the said charge was held proved.

17. With regard to charge 3 of supplementary charge sheet, the Enquiry Officer found that, 4 cheques referred in the charge are issued to CSE by the Bangalore Main Branch on her overdraft account as evidenced in ME-13 and the same was not disputed by CSE. Though there was no further documentary proof, the Presenting Officer had contended that these were presented by Federal Bank, Bhashyam Nagar on 04.08.1998 and were credited to the current account of M/s Kismat Service Centre and the credit was given on 04.08.1998. The Enquiry Officer found support from the overdraft's statements of CSE's Account 30260 (ME-12) that on 04.08.1998 the date on which 4 cheques should have been received by Bangalore Main Branch in clearing she had a balance of Rs. 66,000/- and none of the 4 cheques were debited to the said account. The balance available in the Account was not sufficient to cover 4 cheques. Thus, the Enquiry Officer records his finding in accordance with the charge sheet allegation.

18. With regard to the further allegations, the Enquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence of MWs with were all supported with the documentary proofs. The CSE since had not adduced evidence neither she had submitted her written brief, the documents produced by her as DE-23 and DE-26 were not counted upon.

Though there was no direct evidence about removal of cheque by CSE acting upon the evidence of MWs and the circumstantial evidence available, it was held that the evidence sufficiently point to the removal of cheque by CSE. Thus, the finding that all the 8 charges referred in the charge sheet dated 24.06.1999 and 13.08.1999 are proved against the CSE was reached.

19. On a meticulous scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence lead in I am convinced that the above finding does not suffer with any material defect. It is a Departmental Enquiry, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not the parameter for appreciation of evidence. A copy of the Judgment passed by Special Court against the CSE as first accused, Pankaj A Parekh as second, Asha P Parekh as third, Venkatesha as fourth and Riyazulla Baig as fifth in Special CC No. 187/2000 is found in the file. The accused were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under 120 B r/w 201, 381, 420, 451, 477A IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, on similar set of allegations. After a full-fledged trial, vide judgment dated 30.03.2010 the 1st Party herein was convicted for the offence under 120B, 420, 381, 451, 477A of IPC, she is also convicted for offence477 [ II— 3(ii)] under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, she was imposed punishment both of imprisonment and fine.

20. In the written argument submitted by the 1st Party it is contended that order of dismissal is not proportionate to the alleged charges. The three authorities submitted by her are of no avail for her, since the enquiry finding is neither arbitrary nor perverse.

Show cause notice proposing punishment was issued to her and she had appeared in the personal hearing. The contentions raised by her during the personal hearing were not appreciated. By recording the satisfaction about the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer the proposed punishment of dismissal was confirmed. 2nd Party being a Nationalised Bank handling the Public Fund and any aberration in the administration and Business of the Bank will shatter the trust of the Public in the Institution. Due to the misconduct, the 2nd Party has suffered huge financial loss which is a grave misconduct. Each of the charge proved against her amounts to misconduct as enunciated by Para 19.5(j) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966, the Disciplinary Authority was well within its propriety in passing the order of dismissal from service in terms of clause 6(a) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. I am convinced that this order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is well within his propriety and commensurates with the gravity of allegations proved against her.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20th January, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी, 2020

.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 3/1998) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/225/1997-आईआर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2020

S.O. 149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/1998) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31/01/2020.

[No. L-12012/225/1997-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/3/1998

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The Bank of India Staff Union (MP) C/o Jabalpur Branch Ashirwad market, Jabalpur-482001

…Workman478 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The Bank of India Regional Manager, Bank of India, R.O. Govind Kunj Colony, Napier Town, Near Russel Chowk Jabalpur-482001

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 9thday of JANUARY-2020)

1. As per letter dated 5-1-1998 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/225/97/IR(B-II).The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Jabalpur in dismissing the services of

Shri Prakash J.Meshram, staff Daftari, Bilaspur Branch by an order dated 22.3.1996 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ? ."

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was charge-sheeted on 10-12-1993 wherein following charges were leveled against him :-

1. Theft of two blank pay slips jon 7-2-1991.

2. Forging signature of Shri K. K. Rahaon the pay-slips and writing the name of Jay Bharat

Cycle Stores, Bilaspur and Rohra Cycle Stores, Bilaspur.

3. The Workman received through Ashok Kumar Sahu articles on the basis of pay slips from

M/s Jay Bharat Cycle Stores, Bilaspur by delivering him pay slips of Rs.12000/- forged by

him.

4. The workman received articles from M/s Rohra Cycle Stores, Bilaspur through

Shri A. K. Sahu who delivered Rs. 12000/- on payslips forged by him.

3. According to the workman charge No.3 and 4 were not found proved in inquiry and Charge No. 1 and 2 were held proved by the Inquiry Officer in inquiry. The case of the workman is that the inquiry was not conducted properly in the light of settled legal principles because the workman was not granted sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the hand writing expert produced by Department during the inquiry. The necessary documents namely viz. complaint dated 21-2-1991 verifying the card and withdrawal forms and pay slips as well as copy of ledger required and other documents mentioned in para-3 of the statement of claim.

Also that on the ground that the Inquiry Officer was biased against the workman. He discriminated in giving time for cross-examination of hand writing expert of workman by the Management whereas no sufficient time was granted to workman to cross-examine the hand writing expert of Management. The inquiry Officer illegally relied on the statement of hand writing expert of Management and discarded the evidence of hand writing expert of workman without sufficient reasons and without assigning any reason, hence committed illegality. Hence the charges were held wrongly proved by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly accepted such an Inquiry Report and passed dis-propionate punishment of dismissal from service inspite of the fact that there was no previous complaint and the workman had rendered about 22 years of satisfactory service to the Management. Accordingly the workman prayed for setting aside his dismissal and his reinstatement with all back wages and benefits.

4. According to the Management, the inquiry was conducted legally and properly. The charges were proved on the basis of evidence. No discrimination in granting time in cross-examination was done by the Inquiry Officer. The inquiry report is not based only on the statement of handwriting expert, and the479 [ II— 3(ii)] punishment is not dis-proportionate to the charge because it was major misconduct warranting maximum sentence.

5. Vide order dated 8-1-1989 the inquiry proceedings were held legal and proper by my learned Predecessor. After hearing final arguments,theaward was passed by my learned Predecessor on 10-4-2001 which was published. According to the Award the action of Management in dismissing the petition was held justified and the workman was held not entitled to any relief.

6. The workman did prefer W.P.No.722/2002 before Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh which was decided by Hon'ble High Court vide Judgment dated 14-3-2018. Hon'ble High Court set aside the Award passed by my learned Predecessor with the following observation mentioned in para-13 and 14 of the Judgment, which is as follows:-

Para-13:-Thus, on the basis of principle of law flowing from above stated judgments, it is quite

clear that the Industrial Tribunal has failed to follow the appropriate procedure in dealing with

the reference. After having held that the domestic enquiry against the petitioner is just and

proper, the Tribunal could have independently assessed material available on record to come to

an independent conclusion that the finding of misconduct found by the Enquiry Officer is proper

and thereafter, could have considered the issue of quantum of punishment and other ancillary

issues, which the Tribunal has failed to observe.

Para-14:- As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition is allowed and

the impugned award is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the said Tribunal for

following the correct procedure and passing fresh order after hearing the parties in accordance

with law within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to cost(s).

7. After receipt of order of Hon'ble High Court, the notices were issued to parties. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on remaining points/issues which are as follows:-

1. Whether the charges are proved?

2. Whether the punishment given is proportionate to the charge?

3. Relief to which the workman is entitled to ?

8. ISSUE NO. 1:-

The workman side examined theworkman on remaining issues. The management did not produce any witnesses. I have heard arguments of learned counsel of workman Shri Arun Patel and Mr. A. K. Shashi, Advocate, learned Counsel for Management. I have gone through the records as well.

9. Charges against the workman have been detailed earlier which were leveled against the workman during the inquiry. The inquiry report reveals that charge No.1 which is that the workman committed theft of two pay slips and Charge No.2 that the workman committed forgery in these two pay slips in favour of Rohra Cycle Stores and Jay Bharat Cycle Stores was held partially proved. The inquiry reports itself reveals that the Inquiry Officer found that there was no direct evidence against the workman with respect to Charge No.1 and Charge No.2 but according to the Inquiry Officer, the workman was Daftari in the Branch and he was in possession of the documents of the bank including the pay-slips. These two pay-slips were mis-used for mis- appropriation, hence on the basis of pre-ponderance of probability, the Charge No.1 was found partially proved against the workman. Similarly Charge No.2 regarding forging of pay-clips was alsoheld partially proved by the Inquiry Officer. The inquiry report further reveals that the Inquiry Officer evaluated the evidence of hand writing experts which were contradictory to each other in their opinion. The Inquiry Officer discarded the opinion of hand writing expert produced by the workman on the ground that the finding of the expert that the alleged writing in two pay-slips was of another employee Khubuk RamSonwani on the ground that Khubuk480 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ram Sonwaniwasa sub-staff of Bilaspur Branch who was dismissed from services on the charge of forgery and also on the ground of deficiencies brought in the cross-examination of hand writing expert produced by the workman. The Inquiry Officer does not mention about the deficiency which led him to dis-believe thestatement of hand writing expert examined by the workman. It seems that due to this only the Inquiry Officer concluded the charge partially proved though he never explains anywhere in his Inquiry Report as to what he means by holding the charge being partially proved.

10. Hence on the basis of the above discussion, there may be some ground to believe that since the workman was in possession of the pay-slips which were found to be mis-appropriated hence Charge No.1 can be held proved against him to the extent that he allowed these two pay-slips to escape from his custody/possession to be mis-used for fraudulent payments but as regards the finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding Charge No.2 partially proved, I do not subscribe to his view on the basis of evidence collected during the inquiry ,I hold that finding of Inquiry Officer of Charge No.2 is only without basis and Charge No.2 is also held not proved.

Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered.

11. ISSUE NO. 2 & 3:-

The charge No.1 which has been held proved is a gross misconduct within the purview of para-19.5(J) as per first Bi-Partite Settlement dated 19-10-1969.Hence this charge attracts major punishment of dismissal also. The point further arises that when there is nothing on record to show that the workman had committed any type of misconduct in his service career earlier to this episode coupled with the fact that the proof of charge is not based on direct evidence, punishment of dismissal appears to be shockingly dis-appropriate for a workman who has rendered about 24 years of satisfactory service to is masters. Accordingly, holding the punishment shockingly dis-appropriate, I am of the considered view that punishment of compulsory retirement of the workman would have served justice in the given circumstances. Issue No.2 and 3 is answered accordingly.

12. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the managementof Bank of India, Jabalpur in dismissing the services of Shri

Prakash J. Meshram, staff Daftari, Bilaspur Branch by an order dated 22.3.1996 is held not

legal and justified.

B. Setting aside the dismissal, the workman is held liable to be compulsorily retired from the

date of his order of his alleged dismissal. He shall accordingly be entitled to all the benefits

available to an employee on his compulsory retirement.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 9.1.2020

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स सिंगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 10/2017, 11/2017, 12/2017 & 13/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/85/2016-आईआर (सीएम-2), सं. एल-22012/77/2016-आईआर (सीएम-2), सं. एल-22012/69/2016-आईआर (सीएम-2), सं. एल-22012/76/2016-आईआर (सीएम-2)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी481 [ II— 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2017, 11/2017, 12/2017 & 13/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.01.2020.

[No. L-22012/85 /2016-IR (CM-II),

No. L-22012/77/2016-IR (CM-II),

No. L-22012/ 69/2016-IR (CM-II),

No. L-22012/76/2016-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/10-2017-; NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2017:

NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/2017; NO. CGIT/LC/R/13-2017

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The President Coal India Pensioners Association, Branch Bishrampur Area, Qtr. No. IB-32, Bishrampur District Surajpur (CG)-497226

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager SECL, Bishrampur Colliery District- Surajpur (CG)-497226

…Management

NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2017

The President Coal India Pensioners Association, Branch Bishrampur Area, Qtr. No. IB-32, Bishrampur District Surajpur (CG)-497226

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager SECL Brishrampur Area, PO-Bishrampur Colliery District Surajpur (CG)-49722

…Management

NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/2017

The President, Coal India Pensioners Association, Branch Bishrampur Area, Arr. No. IB-32, Bishrampur District Surajpur (CG)-497226

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager SECL, Bishrampur Area, PIO-Bishrampur Colliery District-Surajpur (CG)-497226

…Management

NO. CGIT/LC/R/13-2017

The President Coal India Pensioners Association Branch Bishrampur Area, Qtr. No. IB-32, Bishrampur District Surajpur (CG)-497226

…Workman482 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Versus

The General Manager SECL, Bishrampur Area, PO-Bishrampur Colliery District Surajpur (CG)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 15th day of JANUARY-2020)

1. As per letter dated 3-2-2017 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/85/2016-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference (NO. CGIT/LC/R/10-2017) relates to:

"Whether the action on part of General Manager, Bishrampur Area SECL in withholding the

terminal benefits viz. wage arrears, arrears of gratuity and settlement allowance as per eligibility

after retirement on ground of alleged company quarter retention by Shri Mathura Prasad Gupta,

Ex-Office Superintendent is justified, if not, what relief the workman is entitled to? ."

2. As per letter dated 3-2-2017 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/77/2016(IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference(NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2017) relates to:

"Whether the action of the General Manager of Bishrampur Area of SECL in withholding the

terminal benefits viz. leave encashment, settling allowance and PLRs amount unpaid as per

eligibility after retirement on ground of alleged quarter retention in respect of Shri Ram Lakhan

Gupta, Ex-Clerk Grade-II is qualified. If not what relief the workman is entitled to? ."

3. As per letter dated 3-2-2017 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/69/2016-(IR(CM-II) The dispute under reference(NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/2017) relates to:

"Whether the action on part of General Manager, Bishrampur Area of SECL in withholding the

terminal benefits viz. Yearly Bonus,Transport Allowance, earned leave encashment , Settlement

Allowance and PLRS as per eligibility after retirement on ground of alleged company quarter

retention by Smt. K Henry Ex.Matron is justified. If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?''

4. As per letter dated 3-2-2017 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-22012/76/2016-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference (NO. CGIT/LC/R/13-2017) relates to:

"Whether the action on part of General Manager, Bishrampur Area of SECL in withholding the

terminal benefits viz. leave encashment and NCWA-IX arrears as per eligibility after retirement on

ground of alleged company quarter retention by Shri Mukhwant Singh, Ex-Dragline Operator, is

justified, if not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?".

5. After registering separate cases on the basis of these reference, notices were issued to parties. The workman did not appear in any of these cases, inspite of service of notice to them by speed post.

6. The management filed their statement of defence. The common facts are that the workman were allotted different accommodations during their employment with the Management. They superannuated but even then they did not vacate the accommodation allotted to them after expiry of date of superannuation and extended it above the period admissible to them as per rules of service. They were paid their dues but some of their dues namely leave encashment, settle-in allowance on vacation of company quarter and arrears due to revision in basic have been withheld to be paid to them after they produce a no dues certificate obtained by the Management. Since they withheld the accommodation allotted to them while in service and did not vacate even after superannuation they are liable to pay penal rent and eviction for which proceedings have been initiated against the workman before the Competent Authority and eviction order have also been passed. Accordingly, according to the Management since the penal rent is to be recovered from workman, their dues have been withheld for settlement and Management is ready to pay the dues after settlement of penal rent and handing over of vacant possession of the allotted house by the workman.

7. No evidence has been filed by any of the workman in any of the cases, whereas the Management has filed affidavit of its witnesses in support of its statement of defence and has corroborated its pleadings. These affidavits are un-cross-examined as none of the workman was ever present to cross-examine the witness.

483 [ II— 3(ii)]

8. At the time of arguments also no one appeared for workman. Shri A. K. Shashi, learned counsel for Management appeared and his arguments were heard and records have been perused by me.

9. Since the facts are mainly the same and evidence is also mainly one and same a common order is

being passed in these cases, after consolidating the cases.

10. The reference is the point of determination in this case in hand.

11. The burden to prove their claims lies on the workman which they have failed to discharge. On the other hand the Management has been successful in proving its case as stated in its written statement of defence which need not be repeated here.

12. On the basis of the above discussions, the following common award is passed in the above stated references:-

A. Accordingly, keeping in view such nature of evidence, the action of Management in

withholding dues of workman as mentioned in the reference is held justified in law and fact.

B. The workman are held entitled to no claim.

C. The above references are answered accordingly. A copy of the award be kept in their

respective files.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE:15.1.2020

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स डब्ल्यू. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 24/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/93/2014-आईआर (सीएम-2)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.01.2020.

[No. L-22012/93/2014-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/24/2015

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H J.S..( Retd).

Shri Nathu Prasad S/o Madhu Ex. Electrical Fitter, Umaraia Fadali P. O. Jumkunda, Tehsil Junnardev Chhindwara (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager, Kanhan Area, M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. P. O. Dungaria, Tehsil Junnardeo Chhindwara (M.P.)

…Management484 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Passed on this 16th day of JANUARY-2020)

1. As per letter dated 27-2-2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/93-2014-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Kya Mukhya Prabhandak. Western Coalfields Limited Kanhan Area, District Chhindhwara dwara

avedak Shri Nathu Prasad, S/o Madhu, Ex.Electrical Fitter, Ambada Colliery ko unke seva mein

bhartu ke smay prathmik record form-B mein darj date of birth 16-4-1957 ko kaat kar 1-7-1954

karna va sanshodhit date of birth dated (1-7-1952) ke adhar par sevanevrat kiya jana nyaysangat

hai? Yadi nahi to karmkar kya anutosh paane ke aadhikari hain.? ."

2. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

3. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that the workman was first appointed in General Mazdoor Category-1 on 1-12-1975 in Ambada Colliery of Management. His age was mentioned in Form-B old record as 21 years on the date of his employment. In new form-B prepared in the light of NCW A-2(1.1.1979 to 31.12.1982 under I.I.No.37) Letter No.JBCCI/IR/94/IMP/1173 dated 5-2-1981 as 16-4-1957. He was informed of overwriting in his date of birth column in new Form-B by Mines Management Ambada Colliery on 25-1-1988 is original date of birth which is 16-4-1957 mentioned in the Form-B was converted into 1-7-1954 by way of over writing without any Authority which was unjustified in fact and law. He made a representation for correcting the mistake on 12-9-1989 with a copy of his school leaving certificate showing his date of birth as 16-4-1957. He further made several representations in this respect but Management did not act on representations and without correcting his date of birth restoring to his original date of birth. He was superannuated on the basis of in correct date of birth which is 1-7-1954 entered by way of over writing in service record which is against law. He raised a dispute with the Regional Labour Commissioner after failure of conciliation the reference was sent to this Court for adjudication. The workman has prayed for setting aside his superannuation and further granting service benefits and wages deemed as per original date of birth i.e. 16-4-1957.

4. According to the Management, the workman was first appointed as a Genenral Mazdoor on 1-12-1975. He declared his age as 21 years at the time of his appointment which was referred in old Form-B, maintained by Management as service record. His date of birth 1-7-1954 was recorded in that form. The workman has specifically signed the said record after verifying the entries in the register, thereafter another Form-B was prepared wherein his date of birth was recorded as 1-7-1954. The workman was further required to submit particulars of his family in nomination form as PS-3 and PS-4 respectively. He certified his date of birth as 1-7-1954 in this form. The employees were further directed in 1987 to furnish particulars of their family for verification of record. The workman declared his date of birth as 1-7-1954 while submitting the service excerpts. The Management further pleaded that the workman never objected about his age recorded in service book. He started representing in this respect at the fag-end of his career which could not be permitted in law. According to the Management, the workman never produced mark-sheet at the time of appointment. Had he produced the mark sheet, he would not have signed all the documents in which his date of birth was recorded as 1-7-1954 or 21 years as on 1-12-1975. The workman has produced a wrong mark sheet at the fag end of his career is not permissible under law. Further the case of Management is that I.I.No.76 will not apply in this case as there is no variation regarding entry of date in the service record. The Management also denied receipt of any earlier representations by the workman for correction of date of birth. The job was meant for illiterate persons. The workman intentionally suppressed the information regarding his education at the time of getting employment and now producing it which is against law and he cannot be given benefit in this respect. Accordingly, the Management has prayed that the reference to be answered against the workman.

5. The workman has filed and proved documents mark-sheet of Class-8th, School Leaving Certificate dated 1-8-1975, representation dated 1-7-2010, 13-10-2011, 4-9-2013, Old Form-B, New Form-B, copy of NCWA-2, copy of letter of Management informing his service details dated nil, Form PS-3 and form PS-4, letter dated 20-6-2014 issued by the Management as Exhibits W-1 to W-14.

6. The Management has filed old and new Form-B, form PS-3 and Form PS-4, service excerpts and copy of I.I.No.76.

7. The documents filed by Management and Workman except the rules are the same.

8. The workman has further examined himself on oath. He has been cross-examined by learned counsel for Management.

485 [ II— 3(ii)]

9. The Management has examined its witness Shri Arun Kumar Sharma who has been cross-examined by learned Counsel for the workman.

10. I have heard arguments of Shri R.K.Soni, learned Counsel for workman and Shri A. K .Shashi, learned Counsel for the Management and have gone through the records.

11. The perusal of records in the light of rival arguments makes out following issues for determination:-

1. Whether there was a change of date of birth from 16-4-1957 to 1-7-1954 without any

authority of law?

2. Subject to the finding on Issue No.1, whether superannuation of the workman on the basis of

his changed date of birth is justified in law and fact?

3. Subject to finding on Issue No.1 and Issue No.2, whether the workman is entitled to any

relief?

12. ISSUE NO. 1.;-

The respective claims of both the sides have been detailed earlier on this point. The first document in this respect is admittedly Form-B which is Exhibit W-6 on which both the sides rely. According to the case of the Management and statement of its witnesses, the date of birth of the workman was recorded in Form No.-B as 1-7-1954. This pleading is factually incorrect and is not proved in the light of old Form No.B which goes to show that date of birth of none of the workman is mentioned in the old Form No.B whereas only date of entry in service and age at the time of entry is mentioned. The date of the entry of present workman is mentioned as 1-12-1975 and his age is 21 years at the time of entry in service as mentioned. This old Form-B does not contain the date of birth of any workman.

13. There is nothing on record to show the basis of recording the age of workman, hence it may be that it was the approximate age either disclosed by the workman or noted by the persons making entries on the basis of his own experience keeping in view the physical character of the workman. The second document submitted is new Form-B which is service record Exhibit W-7 of which both the parties rely. There is no overwriting in this form in the column of date of birth. It is also mentioned that there is one over writing which has been signed on 25-1-1988. The date of birth 1-7-1954 has been written by way of overwriting in this column. Age 28 years is mentioned if it is taken that this overwriting was done on 25-1-1988 as the endorsement and signature discloses, the age of the workman could not be 28 years as on 25-1-1988 , If date of birth is taken as 1-7-1954 as written by over writing in this form. The next document is Form PS-3 and PS-4 relied upon by both the sides these are Exhibit W-10 and W-11. There is overwriting in the date of birth of the workman in these two forms also which can be noticed by naked eye. It can be seen that the original date of birth was 16-4-1957 which was made 1-7-1954 by way of overwriting in these two documents also. Thus this fact that there is change in the date of birth of workman is established from his service record referred to above.

14. Now the question arises under whose Authority or orders these date of birth were changed by way of over writing. The Management could not produce any such order of any Authority issuing directions for change in date of birth. The change of date of birth implies review regarding it. The procedure of review of date of birth as mentioned in I.I.No./76 with a copy of relevant provisions is being reproduced as follows:-

(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.

(i)(a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary

Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued

by the Board of Education and /or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards

issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the

said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment.

(i)(b)…….

15. Since there is a change in date of birth in service record of the workman established from evidence which will be deemed review regarding date of birth. The arguments of learned counsel for Management that directions in I.I.No.76 will not be applicable has no leg to stand. Since the procedure above mentioned in I.I.No.76 has not been followed in the case of present workman, hence change in his date of birth cannot be said to be justified in law and fact and is held against law. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16. ISSUE NO. 2;-

On the basis, in the light of finding on Issue No.1, the superannuation of the workman Nathu Prasad on the basis of his changed date of birth regarding 1-7-1954 is held unjustified in law. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

17. ISSUE NO.3;-

In the light of the finding recorded earlier that the change of date of birth of the workman in his service record was established to be against law and hence his superannuation on the basis of his changed date of birth is also against law. Now the question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled to? Learned counsel for the Management has referred to case G.M.Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors.(2000)8 SCC 696, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that where question regarding correctness of date of birth as entered in service record raised by employee long after his joining the service and was decided by Competent Authority following the procedure in absence of any arithmetical or typographical error apparent on the face of the record, the decision of employer cannot be interfered by Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. In another Case Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh(1993)2 SCC162, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that when the time prescribed seeking alteration in fundamental rules was five years and alteration in date of birth was sought after 35years and no objection was raised in this period, the relief could not be granted to the petitioner. In another case of State of U.P. and Another Vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya(2005)6 SCC 49 it has been held that the date of birth as recorded in service book should be decisive and correction can be sought only in accordance with procedure within a reasonable time in absence of any rule or order.

Para-9 of this order is being re-produced as follows:-

"9. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts. Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the Public Servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, in as much as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury as much as because of the correctness of the date of birth, the officer concerned continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievances of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court of the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and within the time fixed by any rule order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service book. In many cases it is part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service book. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service , unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to his immediate Junior."

487 [ II— 3(ii)]

19. Learned Counsel for Management has further referred to Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.and Others Vs.

Bajrangi Rabidas Civil Appeal No. 8634-2013 decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 23-9-2013 wherein the

workman permitted his date of birth to be mentioned, took benefit of it to secure employment and later on agitated against it as his claim was not accepted and he was held to be estopped from doing so.

20. The facts of the case referred by learned counsel for Management as above can be easily distinguished from the facts of the case in hand in the referred case, the first mentioned date of birth was claimed to be incorrect and a correct date of birth was sought to be incorporated in service record by the employees, whereas the case in hand, there is unauthorized change of date of birth by Management in service record without any order or inqury hence, the case laws referred by learned counsel for Management does not help me in this case

21. From the above discussion and finding it is established that the workman was wrongly superannuated by Management on the basis of change in his date of birth by Management which was without authority.

Keeping in view that even taking his original date of birth to be 16-4-1957 also he would have superannuated earlier, hence there is no question of his reinstatement though his superannuation is certainly without basis of law. In such circumstances, he is held entitled to all the service benefits and wages till date of his superannuation on the basis of his date of birth i.e. 16-4-1957 treating him to be in continuous service of Management till that date. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

22. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management Western Coalfields Limited Kanhan Area, District

Chhindhwara in superannuating the workman Nathu Prasad on the basis of his changed

date of birth is held illegal and un justified in fact and law.

B. The workman is held entitled to all service benefits and back wages treating him to be in

continuous service of Management till the date of his superannuation on the basis of his

original date of birth i.e.16-4-1957 as mentioned in his service record.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer DATE: 16.1.2020

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 30/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/174/2011-आईआर (सीएम-2)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.01.2020.

[No. L-22012/174/2011-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer488 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R-30-2012

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S.( Retd)

Shri Bharat Singh, General Secretary Sanuket Colya Mazdoor Sang (ATAC) EKKLHAR Chhindwara (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Chief Manager WCL Pench Area-Praceya , District Chhindwara (M.P.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 10th day of JANUARY-2020)

As per letter dated 1-2-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/174/2011-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Kya Mahaprabhandak dwara Swargeya Peerchand ke aashrit putra Shri Shivshankar ko samast

dastawej janch karne ke uprant bhi rojgar pradan nahi kiya jana nyayuchhit hai? Yadi nahi to

Shri Shivshankar kya anutosh paane ke adhikari hain? ."

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

2. In the statement of claim filed by the Union on behalf of the applicant/workman, the applicant is dependent son of late Peerchand, Tub Loader , Token No.628 working in Thisgora Mines who died in service of Management on 6-8-2002. According to the NCWA between the parties, one dependent heir of the workman deceased during employment will be given employment on compassionate basis. According to the claim, the applicant filed an application for compassionate appointment as dependent son of deceased employee.

He received a reply of Management on 25-2-2009 wherein he was required to give some explanation regarding discrepancy in his name. The applicant filed a reply dated 12-3-2009 to Management stating that Shivshankar and Shivkumar, both are his two names. The Management got this fact verified by Superintendent of Police Chhindwara(M.P.) who verified the fact and informed the Management that on inquiry by police, it was found that Shivshankar and Shivkumar are one and same person who is son of Peerchand, Son of Teeje, Resident of Bhatti Mohalla Persia, Tehsil and Thana, District Chhindwara. Inspite of this clarification the Management has wrongfully withheld the appointment of the applicant which is refusal of appointment on compassionate basis to which the workman is entitled .

3. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that management be directed to appoint him on compassionate basis as the dependent son of late Shri Peerchand who died during the employment of Management.

4. According to the management, since , there is discrepancy in the name of the applicant as his name Shivshankar is not available in records of Management but there is name of Shivkumar, hence due this discrepancy, compassionate appointment could not be given. Also that workman did not submit any orders of Competent Authority stating that Shivshankar and Shivkumar are one and the same person.

5. The workman Union filed documentary evidence , photocopy letter dated 25 & 27th February, 2009

sent by Management on discrepancy relating names, reply of applicant dated 12-3-2009, application of Mines

Sup-erintendent sent to Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara on 1-1-2010 regarding verification whether

Shivshankar and Shiv Kumar are two names of one and the same person, who is son of Peerchand addressed

mentioned in the letter, photocopy of registry, photocopy of death certificate of Peerchand, photocopy of

guidelines of NCWA, photocopy of LTC form submitted by deceased workman while he was in service489 [ II— 3(ii)] mentioning the name of his son as Shivkumar, photocopy letter dated 6-7-2004 ad 13-8-2004 stating that there is discrepancy in the name of the applicant in service record P.S-3 and LTC form. There is mention of Shivshankar in P.S-3 where as Shivkumar in LTC form which requires to be explained. The application of widow of deceased workman states that Shivshankar and Shivkumar are two names of his son proved and marked as Exhibit W-1 to W-10 respectively.

6. Management has filed photocopy of death certificate, photocopy of LTC form mentioned earlier and photocopy of letter dated 6-7-2004 and 13-8-2004 marked as Exhibit M-1 to M-4 respectively.

7. The applicant/union further examined applicant Shivshankar and Shivkumar on oath who was cross examined by Management. The Management also examined Hirkok Sarkar, Senior Manager on oath who was cross-examined.

8. I have heard arguments of Union representative Shri Mahendra Chaterjee and learned counsel for Management Shri A. K. Shashi. I have perused the record as well.

9. Reference is the points of determination in the case in hand.

10. Applicant Shivkumar has corroborated his claim as mentioned above and has stated that inspite of the established fact that he has two names Shivshankar and Shivkumar, he has been refused compassionate appointment on this ground only. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has one elder brother, one younger brother and three sisters. His elder brother is a driver and his younger brother is a student and he himself works as a labour. He cannot explain as to why in PS form his father mentioned his name as Shivshankar and Shivkumar in LTC form because he was a minor at that time.

11. On the other hand Management witness has stated on oath that due to discrepancy in names, compassionate appointment could not be provided. The Management witness admits that he has been member of the committee for verification of name. The committee has got verification from police according to which Shivshankar and Shivkumar are one and the same person and these two names are of the one same person has been established.

12. From the discrepancy to above evidence in the form of statement of oath and documents referred, it is established that Shivshankar and Shivkumar are two names of one and the same person who is the dependent son of late Peerchand, who died in employment of Management.

13. This is also not disputed that NCWA provides compassionate appointment to one dependent of workman deceased during employment, hence the applicant being dependent son of deceased workman has a rightful claim of compassionate appointment. The only ground for refusal of claim by Management is the discrepancies in the name of applicant which is settled, hence in the light of this fact that since it is settled that Shivshankar and Shivkumar are two names of one and the same person i.e. they are two names of the applicant, refusal of appointment on compassionate ground is nothing but unjustified in fact and law.

14. It came out during arguments that affidavit/no objection for the employment to the proposed applicant/dependent son, from other adult dependent members of the family of workman has not been filed though it has been rebutted by workman side that even if it is not available with the management, the workman may file it and thereafter Management may issue offer of compassionate appointment to the applicant to which he is entitled.

15. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management in not providing compassionate appointment to the

applicant (dependent son of deceased workman) is unjustified in law and fact.

490 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

B. The workman/applicant is held entitled to compassionate appointment on filing of

no-objection/affidavits by other adult dependent members of the family of the deceased.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 10.1.2020

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 40/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/13/2014-आईआर (सीएम-2)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.01.2020.

[No. L-22012/13/2014-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/40/2015

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The Zonal Mahamantri Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association, Ward No.10, Gudi, PO Palachaurai, District Chhindwara (MP)

…Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area Dungaria P.O Dungaria, District Chhindwara (MP)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 3rd day of JANUARY-2020)

1. As per letter dated 11/5/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/13/2014/IR(CM-II))The dispute under reference relates to:

"Kya Mukhya Prabhandak Western Coal Fields Ltd., Kanhan Area, Dungariya, Tehsel Junnaerdev,

Districtr Chinddhwars(MP) dwara sevanevrat karmachari Shri Harishankar, S/o later

Shri Bhawani, Purv Electrric Foreman, Ambada Colliery Kanhan Area, Dungariya, Post

Dungariya, Tehsil Junnardev, District Chhindwara (MP) jo ke dated 1-7-2011 ko sevanevrat hue ke

ashrit putra Shri Vijay Matoliya ko NCWA (Rashtriya Coal Vetan Samjhota_ dwitya ke dhara

10-4-4 evan NCWA(Rashtriya Coal Vetran Samjhota)Tritya ke Dhara 9.4.4 ke aadhar par rozgar na

diya jana nyaya sangat hai? Yadi nahi to purv kamgar kya anutosh paane ka adhikari hai" ."

2. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

491 [ II— 3(ii)]

3. According to the workman side represented by workman union, the workman Harishankar retired on June-30-2011 after completing 35 years in service of Management Company. He applied for compassionate appointment of his dependent son on October-25-2010 and filed a second application in this respect on July-2-2011 in the light of NCWA-2 para 10.4.4 and NCWA-3 Para 9.4.4. but his prayer was not granted by the Management. The Union raised a dispute in this respect before the Labour commissioner after failure of conciliation, the appropriate Government made a reference to this Court for adjudication. The workman union prayed for implementation of Rule 10.4.4 of NCWA-3 and corresponding Rule 9.4.4 of NCWA-3 providing appointment to dependent son of retired employee who has completed 35 years of satisfactory service with the Management.

4. The case of the Management in their statement of defence is that the service condition of Coal Mines are governed by NCWA-2 being executed from time to time . NCWA-2 came inforce from January-1-1979 to December-31-1982 and NCWA-3 was inforce from January-1-1983 to December-31-1986. According to the Management when the workman retired in the year 2011 NCWA-8 was inforce from July-1-2006 to July-3-2011. It is not disputed by Management that the workman retired after completing 35 years of satisfactory service. According to the Management the provision of appointment of compassionate appointment to dependent son of a retired employee was done away in NCWA-4 and since then it is not inforce. The case of Management is further that since on the date of retirement of the workman NCWA-8 was inforce which do not provide for such an appointment, hence the claim of the workman in this respect is rightfully rejected. Accordingly the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

5. The workman has filed photocopy of documents/applications dated December-31-2010, October- 25-2010 and July-2-2011 filed by the workman which are Exhibit W-1, W-8and W-9 respectively. The workman further filed photocopy of Form P.S-3 and P.S-4, regarding family details of the workman admitted by Management marked as Exhibit W-2 and W-3. The workman also filed internal communications. The photocopy of representative or workman union dated September-24-2012, August-7-2013, January-7-2014, admitted by Management is marked as Exhibit W-4, W-10, W-11 and W-12 respectively. The workman also filed copy of application regarding RTI and information issued there under , admitted by Management, marked As Exhibit W-6 and W-7.

6. The Management filed photocopy of NCWA-1 to NCWA-9,letter issued by Management regarding superannuation of workman.

7. The workman union represented by Nasruddin Siddiqui has examined himself on oath and was cross- examined. The Management did not examine any witness.

8. At the stage of argument no one appeared from the side of the workman, hence arguments of learned counsel for Management Shri A. K. Shashi were heard. I have also perused the record.

9. On perusal of record, in the light of submissions made out , following issues arise for determination:-

1. The claim of workman for appointment of his dependent son on his superannuation would be

governed by which of NCWA?

10. It is not disputed that the workman superannuated on July-1-2011. He was given appointment in the year 1977 on 22nd June. It is also not disputed that NCWA-1 was inforce when the appointment of the workman was done and at the time of his retirement NCWA-8 was inforce which came inforce since July-1-2006 to July- 30-2011. This NCWA-8 does not provide for such an appointment. It only provides for compassionate appointment on death or permanent dis-ability, hence the said relief of appointment to the dependent son of the workman in the case in hand cannot be held unjustified in law and fact and accordingly the workman is held entitled to no relief/claim.

11. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management in refusing the claim of workman for appointment of his

dependent son on his superannuation is held justified in law and fact.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

Date:3.1.2020492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 66/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/28/2011-आईआर (सीएम-2)]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s W.C.L and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.01.2020.

[No. L-22012/28/2011-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/66/2011

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shir Bharat Singh General Secretary Sanuket Colya Mazdoor Sang (ATAC) EKKlhar, Chhindwara (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager WCL Pench Area Praceya District Chhindwara (M.P.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 10th day of JANUARY-2020)

As per letter dated 24-6-2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/28/2011-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Western Coal fields Limited, Pench Area in not giving

the SLU as Grade A and subsequent financial benefits to Shri Munshilal Rai, Operator is legal and

justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? ."

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties who filed their claim in defence. 2. Leading evidence , it was admitted by workman that the claim raised in the reference has been settled by Management and there is no dispute at present and it has been requested that no dispute award be passed.

3. This is reflected in the statement of Management witnesses and his cross-examination by workman hence keeping in view the fact that the dispute in reference no longer exists as it has been stated by the parties by accepting the claim of the workman by Management , there is no requirement of any award to be passed.

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 10.1.2020493 [ II— 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 155.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 66/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 04.02.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/6/2013-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04.02.2020.

[No. L-17012/6/2013-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/66/2013

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Koshlendra Kumar Pandey National President, Julm Evam Atyachar Niwaran Committee, Jeewan Prakash, City Centre, Jeewan Bema Marg Gwalior (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, City Centre,Jeevan Bima Marg, Gwalior (M.P.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 31st day of December, 2 019)

1. As per letter dated 22/4/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-17012/6/2013-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the demand of the Union for regularizing the services of Shri Manoj Kumar Banjare from

the date of termination is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

3. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was first appointed as Daily Wager Peon in the Dabra Branch of the Management office in 1992. Thereafter in the year 1994, his name was sent by employment exchange on requisition by Management and he was appointed as peon. He worked till the year 2008 in this capacity . There was no complaint regarding his work, conduct and integrity. He was entitled to be regularised but was disengaged without any notice/notice compensation and without assigning any reason. It is the case of the workman that he has been in continuous employment since 1992-2008 and has worked for more than 240 days in every year preceding the date of his dis-engagement. He was not served494 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] with any notice or compensation hence his termination is violative of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Acts,1947. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the workman be reinstated with all back wages and consequential benefits.

4. The Case of Management is that the workmen was never employed as a daily wager in the year 1992. The Management has further denied that the workmen has continuously worked from the year 1992 to 2008 and that he has worked for more than 240 days in any year preceding the date of his alleged termination, thus his dis-engagement is according to law. Accordingly the Management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.

5. In his rejoinder the workman has further rebutted his case denying the case of the Management. At the evidence stage the workman has himself examined on oath as witness. He has proved the reply given by the Management in RTI as (Exhibit W-1), copy of reply dated 18-8-2012 filed by Management when the case was at conciliation stage before Regional Labour Commissioner as (Exhibit W-2) , copy of letter dated 8-3-2012 as (Exhibit W-3) and the certificates issued by the then Manager on 22-12-1994 as (Exhibit W-4) . He has been cross-examined by Management.

6. The Management has examined on oath its witnesses Shri D.P.Singh, Administrative Officer. He has not proved any documents.

7. The Reference further reveals that while the order dated 9-3-2015 passed by my learned Predecessor, the Management was directed to produce the attendance register , payment vouchers of the year 1992 to 2008 which were never produced by Management inspite of his specific order. The reference further revealed that on 6-12-2016 the Management had produced some documents and learned counsel for workman was given opportunity to inspect but it could not be completed on that date. The Management was directed further to file the documents but this direction was never complied with by the Management.

8. At the stage of arguments, I have heard Shri R.K.Soni, learned counsel for workman and Shri Amitabh Bharti, learned counsel for Management. I have also perused the memorandum of argument submitted by workman which is on record. After perusal of the record in the light of the rival arguments, following issue arise for determination in this case:-

A." Whether the termination of services of workman is justified in law?

B." Whether the workman is entitled to any relief.?'

9. Issue No.1:- Before proceeding, some provisions of law is required to be mentioned here which are as follows:-

2[(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for

any any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary

action, but does not include— (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the

workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the

employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;

2 [(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the wokman concerned on its expiry or of such contract

being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]

Section 25-F, G, H and Rule 77,78 of the "Act' require to be referred here and are being

reproduced as follows:-

25F. 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: 1[***] (b) the

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

fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed year 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 3[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.]

495 [ II— 3(ii)]

25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a

citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this

behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be

employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other

workman.

25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and the

employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be

prescribed, give an opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer

themselves for reemployment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for

reemployment shall have preference over other persons.

77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen:-The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen

in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated to be arranged according to

the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice

board in conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days

before the actual date of retrenchment.

78. Re-employment of retrenched workmen:-(1) At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are to be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of those vacancies by registered post to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefor, to the address given by him at the time of retrenchment or at any time thereafter : Provided that where the number of such vacancies is less than the number of retrenched workmen, it shall be sufficient if intimation is given by the employer individually to the senior most retrenched workmen in the list referred to in rule 77 the number of such senior most workmen being double the number of such vacancies: Provided further that where the vacancy is of a duration of less than one month there shall be no obligation on the employer to send intimation of such vacancy to individual retrenched workmen: 1[Provided also that if a retrenched workman, without sufficient cause being shown in writing to the employer, does not offer himself for re-employment on the date or dates specified in the intimation sent to him by the employer under this sub-rule, the employer may not intimate to him the vacancies that may be filled on any subsequent occasion.] (2) Immediately after complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the employer shall also inform the trade unions connected with the industrial establishment, of the number of vacancies to be filled and names of the retrenched workmen to whom intimation has been sent under that sub-rule: Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule need not be complied with by the employer in any case where intimation is sent to every one of the workmen mentioned in the list prepared under rule 77.

10. In the light of these provisions, the point to be determined here is firstly whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for a period of 240 days and more in the year preceding his date of dis-engagement and secondly whether there is violation of any provision of law as mentioned in his disengagement.

11. The case of both the parties has been detailed earlier in this judgment. Settled principle of law is that the burden to prove continuous engagement for a period 240 days and more in the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement lies on the workman, hence the question further arises as to how far the workman has been successful in discharging this point.

12. Perusal of the record reveals that on an application of workman, the management was directed to produce attendance register and payment vouchers for the year 1992-2008 vide order dated 9-3-2015 passed by my learned predecessor. Record further reveals that after management sought various dates, incomplete documents were produced for inspection before Court which could not be completed on that date which was 16-12-2016 and management was directed further to produce these documents on next date 10-3-2016. The management was also directed to produce the verified copies of the documents which was never complied with by the management. Since the management has not complied with an order passed by this Court, hence adverse inference will be drawn against management and it will be presumed that these documents were withheld by management only because they were supportive of case of workman. It is undisputed that these documents are maintained in the office of management and workman has no control and nor he is in possession of these documents. He cannot be expected to produce the documents which are not within his control or possession.

496 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13. The workman has filed his affidavit as his-examination in chief wherein he has stated that he had worked with the management as a daily wager from 1992 to 2008. The efficiency Certificate were issued by respective Managers under whom he has worked. He has given details of Managers under whom he has worked in this period in para-4 of his affidavit. He further stated that in every year he continuously worked for more than 240 days, hence was entitled to be regularized but was dis-engaged without any notice or compensation. He further stated that after his dis-engagement he is dependent on others as an unemployed person, He has proved the efficiency certificates issued by different Managers showing his engagement and good conduct. These certificates have not been disputed by Management but it has been claimed by management that the Managers did not have any authority to issue these certificates. Since it is not the case of the Management that these certificates are forged and not genuine rather the management is contesting these certificates on the ground that the Officers issuing the certificates did not have authority to do so, these certificates can be read in corroboration to statement of workman on the point that he did work during the period for which these certificates were issued. The workman has further stated that he was not terminated by a written order . His name was recommended by Employment Exchange and thereafter he was given appointment as a daily wager.

14. On the other hand the Management witness , who happens to be the Administrative Officer in the Regional Office has denied the case of the workman that he was never employed in any capacity. He further states that no efficiency certificate is issued by any of the Managers regarding any of the workman and that since he was not in employment there was no question of pre-termination notice or compensation. In his cross- examination the witness admits that he was never posted in the branch where the workman was posted. He also admits in his statement that the workman was never engaged in the said branch is based on record which he has not produced before Court. He pleads ignorance on the fact whether the name of the workman was recommended by Employment Exchange or not. A comparative study of the evidence referred to above reveals that firstly the management did not produce documents inspite of court orders which leads to adverse inference against management that had these documents been produced by management, they would have supported the case of the workman. Secondly the management witness admits that his statement is on the basis of records which were not produced before Court nor were they brought before the Court. The witness further admits that he does not have any personal knowledge regarding the facts. Had the documents been produced on which the management witness relied in his statement, it would have corroborated and would have lead credence to the statement of management witness. In the light of these circumstances, the evidence of workman appears to be more reliable and probable on the point of his engagement as daily wager during 1992-2008 and on the point of continuous engagement during this period including the year preceding his disengagement. It is not disputed that no notice or compensation was given by management before dis-engaging the workman hence in the light of above discussion the dis-engagement of workman is held against law and fact. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

15. ISSUE NO.2:- In the light of the finding recorded in issue no.1 the workman may be held entitled to either reinstatement or damages. The point here arises is as to what relief the workman is entitled in the case in hand.

16. It has been held proved that the workman has been in continuous engagement as daily wager from 1992-2008. Since he was engaged as a daily wager he cannot be said to have been engaged against a regular vacancy hence his reinstatement may not be a relief justified in law. In this case ends of justice will be served if he is duly compensated for his wrongful retrenchment keeping in view the terms of his engagement and the relevant facts and circumstances referred above, the lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) will meet the ends of justice in my view instead of his reinstatement . Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, award is passed as under:-

A. The action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Manoj Kumar Banjare

is held ill-legal and un-justified.

B. The workman is held entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh

only) as relief.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 31.12.2019497 [ II— 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 156.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स अमर सिक्यूरिटी सर्विस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 14/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 04.02.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29011/28/2014-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Amar Security Service and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04.02.2020.

[No. L-29011/28/2014-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/2015

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU) Chhattisgarh State Committee, Mandhar, Tekri (Nayapara), PO Mandhar Colony District Raipur (C.G)

…Workman

Versus

The M/s. Amar Security Behind Nandishwar Mandir Shankar Nagar Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 15th day of JANUARY-2020)

1. As per letter dated 28-1-2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-29011/28/2014-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of M/s Amar Security Service, Contractor of CCI of Mandhar in removing

Shri Nakul Sahu, Security Guard w.e.f. 2.10.2013 from services while his contract was continuing

and not giving him any wages is justified? If so what relief workmen Shri Nakul Sahu is entitled to

?" ."

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that the workman appeared and filed its statement of claim wherein it was alleged that 38 workman were employed in the status of Security Guard at the Management Company. The applicant workman Nakul Sahu was employed initially in the year 2006 w.e.f 13-9-2006 and worked as Security Guard continuously for more than 240 days in each year till the date of his termination which is 2-10-2013. He was employed by the Security Agency M/s Amar Security Service and was deputed as a Security Guard with Cement Corporation of India Ltd.,Unit Mandhar. No notice or compensation498 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] was given by the Management which employed him, hence his termination is against the provision of Section 25-F, 25-G, 25-H and 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The work which the workman had been doing is still available with the Management and the same is being done by way of contract by the Security Agency. The workman is not gainfully employed since the date of his termination. Accordingly the workman has prayed for his reinstatement with all back wages and consequential benefits setting aside his termination.

4. Inspite of sufficient service no one appeared on behalf of Management-M/s Amar Security Service hence the reference proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22-7-2016. The workman filed his affidavit in evidence in which he proved his case. This affidavit is uncontroverted.

5. Ex-parte arguments of learned counsel for workman Shri Arun Patel were heard and record was perused by me.

6. Reference is the point for determination in the case in hand.

7. The following relevant provisions of law are being enumerated here:-

1.2[(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for

any any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary

action, but does not include— (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the

workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the

employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;

2.2 [(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract

of employment between the employer and the wokman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]

3.Section 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: 1[***] (b) the

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

fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed year 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 3[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.]

4.25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is

a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that

establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this

behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be

employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other

workman.

25M. Prohibition of lay-off.- (1) No workman (other than a badli workman or a casual workman) whose name is borne on the muster rolls of an industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies shall be laid-off by his employer except 3[with the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as the specified authority), obtained on an application made in this behalf, unless such lay-off is due to shortage of power or to natural calamity, and in the case of a mine, such lay-off is due also to fire, flood, excess of inflammable gas or explosion]. 4[(2) An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be made by the employer in the prescribed manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended lay-off and a copy of such application shall also be served simultaneously on the workmen concerned in the prescribed manner.

(3) Where the workmen (other than badli workmen or casual workmen) of an industrial

establishment, being a mine, have been laid-off under sub-section (1) for reasons of fire, flood or

excess of inflammable gas or explosion, the employer, in relation to such establishment, shall,

within a period of thirty days from the date of commencement, of such lay-off, apply, in the

prescribed manner, to the appropriate Government or the specified authority for permission to

continue the lay-off. (4) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) or subsection

(3) has been made, the appropriate Government or the specified authority, after making such

enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer,

499 [ II— 3(ii)]

the workmen concerned and the persons interested in such lay-off, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons for such lay-off, the interests of the workmen and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order shall be communicated to the employer and the workmen. (5) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) or subsection (3) has been made and the appropriate Government or the specified authority does not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of sixty days from the date on which such application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of sixty days. (6) An order of the appropriate Government or the specified authority granting or refusing to grant permission shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (7), be final and binding on all the parties concerned and shall remain in force for one year from the date of such order. (7) The appropriate Government or the specified authority may, either on its own motion or on the application made by the employer or any workman, review its order granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-section (4) or refer the matter or, as the case may be, cause it to be referred, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where a reference has been made to a Tribunal under this sub-section, it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days from the date of such reference. (8) Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where no application for permission under sub-section (3) is made within the period specified therein, or where the permission for any lay-off has been refused, such lay-off shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the workmen had been laid-off and the workmen shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if they had not been laid-off. (9) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the appropriate Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the establishment or death of the employer or the like, it is necessary so to do, by order, direct that the provisions of sub- section (1), or, as the case may be, sub-section (3) shall not apply in relation to such establishment for such period as may be specified in the order.]

5. [25N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—(1) No workman employed in any industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies, 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 three months' 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; and (b) the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as the specified authority) has been obtained on an application made in this behalf. (2) An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be made by the employer in the prescribed manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended retrenchment and a copy of such application shall also be served simultaneously on the workmen concerned in the prescribed manner. (3) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) has been made, the appropriate Government or the specified authority, after making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned and the persons interested in such retrenchment, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, the interests of the workmen and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order shall be communicated to the employer and the workmen. (4) Where an application for permission has been made under sub- section (1) and the appropriate Government or the specified authority does not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of sixty days from the date on which such application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of sixty days. (5) An order of the appropriate Government or the specified authority granting or refusing to grant permission shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), be final and binding on all the parties concerned and shall remain in force for one year from the date of such order. 1. Sub-section (6) re-numbered as sub- section (10) by Act 49 of 1984, s. 4 (w.e.f. 18-8-1984). 2. Subs. by s. 5, ibid., for section 25N (w.e.f. 18-8-1984). 33 (6) The appropriate Government or the specified authority may, either on its own motion or on the application made by the employer or any workman, review its order granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-section (3) or refer the matter or, as the case may be, cause it to be referred, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where a reference has been made to a Tribunal under this sub-section, it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days

500 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from the date of such reference. (7) Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where the permission for any retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the notice of retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the appropriate Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the establishment or death of the employer or the like, it is necessary so to do, by order, direct, that the provisions of sub- section (1) shall not apply in relation to such establishment for such period as may be specified in the order. (9) Where permission for retrenchment has been granted under sub-section (3) or where permission for retrenchment is deemed to be granted under sub-section (4), every workman who is employed in that establishment immediately before the date of application for permission under this section shall be entitled to receive, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months.]

Industrial Dispute Central Rules-1957

6-76-Notice of retrenchment.—If any employer desires to retrench any workman employed in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service 1 Subs. by S.O. 2485, dated 20th May, 1985. 2 Subs. by S.O. 2485, dated 20th May, 1985. 3 Subs. by G.S.R. 289, dated 2nd March, 1982 (w.e.f. 13-3-1982). 4 Subs. by S.O. 2485, dated 20th May, 1985. The Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for not less than one year under him (hereinafter referred to as 'workman' in this rule and in rules 77 and 78), he shall give notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Employment Exchange concerned and such notice shall be served on that Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned by registered post in the following manner:— (a) where notice is given to the workman, notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman; (b) where no notice is given to the workman and he is paid one month's wages in lieu thereof, notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which such wages are paid; and (c) where retrenchment is carried out under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service, notice of retrenchment shall be sent so as to reach the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned, at least one month before such date: Provided that if the date of termination of service agreed upon is within 30 days of the agreement, the notice of retrenchment shall be sent to the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned, within 3 days of the agreement.

8. From the uncontroverted affidavit , I am constrained to hold that the workman has successfully proved his continuous employment with the Management of M/s Amar Security Services. He has also proved successfully that no notice or compensation was given to him, hence his dis-engagement is held violative of Section 25(G) of the Act.

9. As regards the relief, the workman has also successfully proved on ex-parte basis that he is out of gainful employment and the position is continued, hence the workman is held entitled to be reinstated by setting aside his order of termination but he is not entitled to any back wages on the Principle of "No Work no Pay".

10. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management-M/s Amar Security Service, Contractor of CCI of Mandhar in

removing Shri Nakul Sahu, Security Guard w.e.f. 2.10.2013 from services while his contract

was continuing and not giving him any wages is held unjustified and illegal.

B. The workman is held entitled to be reinstated by setting aside his order of termination but

he is not entitled to any back wages on the Principle of "No Work no pay".

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 15.1.2020501 [ II— 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 157.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स टाटा आयरन एण्ड स्टील कं . लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 08/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/102/1994-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-29012/102/1994-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL: BHUBANESWAR

Industrial Dispute Case No. 08 of 2001 Date of passing of award 14.10.2019

Present: Sri B.C. Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

Between: The General Manager (OMC), Mines Division, Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd, P.O. Noamundi, District-Singhbhum (Bihar). …1st Party Management

-Versus-

Shri S. K. Samal, Pharmacist, C/o. Sri Sirish Mohanty, At/P.O. Banspani, Upland, District- Keonjhar (Odisha). …2nd Party Workman

Appearance:-

For the 1st Party Management : Sri P. K. Sahu & Associates

For the 2nd Party Workman : Sri S. Mishra, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour and Employment have referred an Industrial Dispute between the above named parties for its adjudication vide its Order No.L-29012/102/94-IR(Misc.) dated.2.3.1995 in exercising its authority conferred under Clause(d) of sub section(1) and sub section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(14 of 1947) and the schedule of the reference is as follows:-

"Whether the action of the Management of Mines Division Tata Iron and Steel Co.Ltd. P.O. Noamundi, District Singhbhum, in dismissing Shri S. K. Samal,Pharmacist, w.e.f.1.3.1994 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled."

2. Briefly stated the case of the 2nd Party Workman is that he was appointed as a Pharmacist on 23.12.1983 by the 1st Party Management. While he was continuing in such capacity in Bamebari Manganise Mines of the 1st Party Management TISCO, he received a charge sheet vide No. BMM/P/366/8 dated.30.7.1993502 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] wherein and whereby he was asked to submit his show cause within 96 hours and the charges were that he was not found on duty on 28.4.1993 but, he managed his attendance in the Attendance Register. The above omission and commission on the part of the workman was a misconduct and punishable under Clauses 34 and 35 of the Standing Order of the 1st Party Management. Pursuant to such charge sheet he submitted his explanation contending that he performed his duty as per the schedule hour i.e. 8 AM to 12.30 PM and 3.30 PM to 6 PM on 28.4.1993 for which he put his signature in the Attendance Register. There was no occasion on his part to manage his attendance in the Register without performing duty as alleged in the charge sheet. It is his claim that the then Medical Officer of the Dispensary at Bamebari usually came to the office in late hours and at times he arrived in the office when his duty was over. The show cause was issued at the instance of the Medical Officer. After submission of his show cause he was informed to attend a domestic enquiry on 27.8.1993 at 9.30 A.M. for the charges leveled against him. One Sri P.K.Sahu Dy.Maager Personnel was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He attended the enquiry on 27..8.1993 and the same was deferred at the instance of the Management. On 15.11.1993 he received a letter with a direction to attend the enquiry on 21.12.1993 at 9.30 A.M. in the office of Senior Officer Personnel Bamebari Manganise Mines. Accordingly he reported on the relevant date and time for the enquiry. Though, he waited there till 12.30 P.M. no Officer turned up for the enquiry.When he returned to the place at 2 P.M. after availing lunch, he learnt that some officers came to the place to hold the enquiry and they left the office before 2 P.M. without conducting any enquiry. According to the workman on 26.2.1994 he received a letter from the Management wherein he was informed about the alleged misconduct committed by him and he was found guilty of such misconduct by the Enquiry Officer. In the said letter he was also informed about his dismissal of service with effect from 1..3.1994. Consequently he raised a dispute before the Labor machinery which ultimately led the reference as mentioned earlier. It is his claim that he was not given opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceeding as no enquiry as claimed by the Management was ever held. Thus there was violation of principle of natural justice as well as provisions of standing order in regard to mode of conducting the enquiry. There was no enquiry at all and he was dismissed from service. Dismissal of service on alleged single instance of unauthorized absence is shockingly and highly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him.

3. In the written statement the Management has challenged the maintainability of the reference as well as the allegations raised by the disputant workman. It is the counter claim of the Management that the disputant workman was a habitual absentee from his duty as well as from the Head Quarter of Bamebari, wherein he was allotted with a Quarters of the Management He used to stay at Joda township. The working hours of the Medical Officer and Pharmacist were from 7.30 AM to 6 PM with a interval of a rest period from 12 noon to 2.30 PM. Due to his usual stay at Joda NAC the patients were not given proper attention by the Pharmacist for which the Medical Officer reported the matter. Accordingly a departmental enquiry was conducted after issue of charge sheet. The disputant workman was issued with charge sheet and he was given due opportunity to defend himself in the domestic enquiry. He was given option to take assistance of his co-worker in the departmental enquiry. He furnished with necessary documents. The departmental witnesses were examined in presence of the disputant and he cross examined them. Documents relied upon by the Management were produced before the enquiry officer in presence of the disputant. But the workman did not cooperate with the progress of the enquiry after 2.11.1993 as a result of which the enquiry was adjourned to 8.11.1993,11.11.1993,21.11.1993 and finally the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry exparte on 10. 1.1994 when he was satisfied that the disputant workman was avoiding the domestic enquiry on his own volition. He submitted his finding on 25.1.1994 holding that the charges leveled against the workman were proved. Taking the gravity of misconduct into consideration the Management dismissed the disputant workman after observing all formalities of dismissal. Since the departmental enquiry was held in proper manner as well as in accordance to the principle of natural justice and provisions of the standing order of the Management and the disputant being found guilty of misconduct of serious nature he was rightly dismissed from service. There is no scope for the Tribunal to interfere in the punishment. Hence prayer is made for dismissal of the claim statement.

4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for just and proper adjudication of the dispute .

ISSUES

1) Whether the action of the Management in dismissing Shri S. K. Samal, Pharmacist w.e.f. 1.3.1994 is justified?

2) If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?

3) Whether the reference is maintainable?

4) Whether the domestic enquiry is fair and proper?

503 [ II— 3(ii)]

FINDINGS

5. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence on other issues after finding of the Preliminary Issue.

6. As per the finding of the Preliminary issue i.e. Issue No.4 the domestic enquiry against the disputed workman was held fair and proper. The order dt.13.12.2000 of such preliminary issue is to be considered as part of this award. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that as per the finding of the preliminary issue the disputant workman was given due opportunity in the departmental enquiry and the same having been found to have been conducted fairly and in proper manner there is no scope for this Tribunal to examine the evidence presented before the enquiry officer to examine whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse or the same was not based on any evidence. Though, further evidence has been adduced to refute the charge it is futile exercise on the part of the workman to dispute the finding of the Enquiry Officer on any ground. Similarly the evidence of the workman that domestic enquiry was not conducted fairly has no force when the preliminary issue is answered against him. The only issue to be taken into consideration is whether the dismissal of the disputant workman on the ground of holding him guilty of misconduct for his unauthorized absence on 28.4.1993 was justified and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled.

7. In the case at hand the disputant was found guilty of misconduct for allegedly manipulating his attendance in the Attendance Register on 28.4.1993 tough, he was not on duty on that day. On a close reading of the pleadings and evidence advanced by the parties as well as the charge sheet and the order of dismissal it is found that the allegation of unautorised absence was related to a single day i.e. on 28.4.1993. There is nothing either in the charge sheet or in the dismissal order to establish that the disputant workman was a habitual absentee or he was remaining absent unauthorisedly frequently. Similarly, there is nothing to show that he was ever warned or cautioned for his frequent unauthorized absence from duty. In the above back drops the absent on the part of the workman can be treated as a single instance of unauthorized absence. The other allegation or misconduct is that the disputant manipulated his attendance in the Attendance Register. As per the settled principles the Disciplinary Authority and on appeal the Appellate Authority vested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation it may itself, in exception and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reason in separate thereof.

In the case between Central Power Research Institute –Versus- V.B.Naidu,(1997)-91 F.J.R 605 (Kar) it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in following terms:-

"We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or Competent Authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent officer either by an Act of Legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there had been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the inquiry officer or the Competent Authority is based on evidence."

8. Coming to the case at hand undoubtedly punishment of dismissal on a single instance of unauthorized absence and for manipulating the Attendance Register to show his attendance appears to be highly shocking and disproportionate to the magnitude of the misconduct allegedly committed by the workman. The punishment seems to be not only unduly harassed but grossly in excess to the allegation leveled against the disputant. At the same time it cannot be over looked that in the mean while more than thirty three years have been elapsed after dismissal of the disputant. In the mean while the applicant seems to have attained the age of superannuation and any order of reinstatement would be infructuous . Further, on a close examination of the record it is found that delay in disposal of the matter can be attributed to both the parties as they had taken several adjournments to adduce their evidence after the preliminary issue being answered as well as to the legal hazardness. The disputant had only worked for less than two years in the organization of the 1st Party Management before his dismissal. Hence, having regard to the totality of the facts504 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and circumstances of the case it is felt that compensation not the re-engagement/reinstatement would be appropriate relief in the case. In the above back drops the disputant workman instead of reinstatement shall be paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) towards his service benefit in place of his reinstatement and other service benefits.

The above amount shall be paid within a month of the award being notified failing which the disputant workman is entitled to 8% interest on the amount with effect from the date of the award.

Accordingly the reference is answered. Send copy of the award to the Ministry for its notification and necessary action.

Dictated & corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 158.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स नारायणी संस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 66/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2020-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Narayani Sons Private Limited and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. Z-16025/4/2020-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 66 OF 2017

Dated Bhubaneswar, the 11th June 2019

Present: Shri B. C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Between:

1. The Manager, M/s. Narayani Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Contractor), At/P.O. Kalarangiatta, P.S: Kaliapani, Sukinda, Dist.: Jajpur, Odisha.

2. The General Manager, M/s. Sukinda Chromite Mines (Tata Steel Ltd.), At/P.O: Kalarangiatta, P.S: Kaliapani, Sukinds, District – Jajpur, Odisha. …First party management

And

Shri Ananta Charan Mohanta At/P.O.: Chingudipal, Via: Kalarangiatta, P.S: Kaliapani, Sukinds, Dist: Jajpur. Odisha. …Second party workman505 [ II— 3(ii)]

Appearances:

Shri J. P. Mohapatra : For management

NONE : For applicant workman

Authorised representative of the management is present.

The second party workman is found absent on repeated calls though hazira is filed on his behalf. It is submitted by the authorized representative of the management that the second party workman is being directed time and again to adduce his evidence and file his sworn affidavit towards his examination in chief. But he is not taking any steps in this regard. He was absent on last date also. Perused the case records and the workman was found absent on the laest date and he was given several adjournments to adduce his evidence. The case is filed directed before this Tribunal resorting to the provisisions of Section 2-A sub-section (2) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Hence, the case is dismissed for default of the second party workman.

Dictated and corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 159.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 31/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/7/2009-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-30012/7/2009-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR

Industrial Dispute Case No. 31 of 2009

Date of passing of the award. 31.12.2019

Present:-

Sri B. C. Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

Between:-

1. The Sr. Regional Manager

M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Regional Office, 5th Floor, Alokbharati Complex, P.O. Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, PIN No.751007.

506 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. M/s. Parikhita Malla & Associates, Contractor,

At- 435, Baramunda, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda. …First Party- Managemen

-Versus-

Shri Sukanta Nayak, C/o. Gobardhan Nayak, Qrs. No. 362,Type-II, New A.G.Colony,Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar,(Orissa). …2nd.Party Workman

Appearances:-

For the First Party Management :- Sri A. Sahoo

For the 2nd Party Workman :- Sri R.C. Rath

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment have referred an Industrial Dispute between the above named parties for its adjudication vide its order No,L-30012/7/2009-IR(M) under Clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section(2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(14 of 1947) and the Schedule of the reference is as follows:-

(1) "Whether the action of M/s. Parikhita Malla Associates, a Contractor of M/s. HPCL in terminating the service of Sri Sukanta Nayak w.e.f.1/8/2008 is just and legal?

(2) What relief the workman is entitled from the contractor and/or from M/s. HCL (Principal Employer)?"

2. Briefly stated, the case of the 2nd Party Workman is that he was employed as a Sweeper on monthly wage basis for brooming the office premises of the Management No.1 and to clean its toilets and his employment was through the Contractor. Initially he was working directly as a Sweeper in the establishment of Management No.1 from the year 1995 and then through the Labour Contractor Ashok Kumar Ray and then the Contractor Management No.2. He was working continuously and uninterruptedly for 240 days in every calendar year till his service was terminated on 26.7.2008. His EPF, ESI contributions was deducted and deposited during the period of his job. Since he worked continuously and uninterruptedly for a substantial period and the nature of his job was perennial. As the labour contractor Management No.2 defaulted to pay him in prescribed rate of minimum wage and he defaulted in depositing the ESI and EPF Contribution , he made a representation to the Management No.1 for regularisation of his service. But, his service was terminated with effect from 26.7.2008 without compliance of the requirement as enumerated in Section 25(f) of the Act. When he raised a dispute before the labour machinery , a conciliation proceeding was initiated. But, the conciliation proceeding having been failed, the present reference is made for adjudication of the dispute.

3. On being noticed the Management No.1 (the Principal Employer) and the Management No. 2 (the Contractor) filed their written statements separately. The Management No.1 has denied its liability and contested the claim taking a plea that the 2nd Party workman was never employed or engaged directly or indirectly in its establishment. The Management being a Public Sector under taking has its own Recruitment Policy and Rules. The 2nd Party Workman was not issued with any appointment letter or he was paid wages by it. According to the said Management tender was invited either every year or in alternative year for the work of upkeepment of its office premises at Bhubaneswar and for supply of snacks and tea for its staff and guests. The contractor having the lowest bid is usually issued with work order for the above job. One Ashok Kumar Ray was initially issued with the work order in the year 2000 and in the relevant year the Management No.2 contractor was entrusted with the job being the lowest bidder. The said Management No.2 was paid as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. Thus, the Management No.1 the principal employer has denied its liability on the claim raised by the 2nd Party Workman.

4. In his written statement the Management No.2 Contractor has also refuted the allegation raised by the workman. According to him the workman was never employed by him either temporarily or on wage basis. He was engaged by the previous Contractor Ashok Kumar Ray for brooming and cleaning the office premises of Management No.1. Being the lowest bidder he was issued with work order with effect from 1.7.2007. He allowed the 2nd Party workman to take the job of cleaning the premises and its upkeepment since he was doing the said job under the previous Contractor. But, the 2nd Party defaulted in his work and he did not turn up to sweep the premises and to clean the toilets after 26.7.2008 onwards. He voluntarily abandoned the work entrusted to him as a result of which he was compelled to engage another person to carry out the work507 [ II— 3(ii)] entrusted to him under the agreement executed towards the work order. It is his specific stand that the 2 nd Party Workman was not given any appointment or employment either temporarily or on daily wage basis. He was paid remuneration as per the job contract in peace meal. He was not his paid employee. As he had never worked for 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly under his control and supervision , there was no necessity for compliance of the requirement as enumerated U/s.25(f) of the Act. Hence, prayer has been made for rejection of the statement of claim filed by the 2nd Party workman.

5. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for adjudication of the dispute.

ISSUES

(1) Whether the action of M/s. Parikhita Malla Associates of M/s. HPCL in terminating the

services of Shri Sukanta Nayak with effect from 1.8.2008 is just and legal?

(2) What relief the workman is entitled from the Contractor and/or from M/s. HPCL

(Principal Employer)?

6. The workman has examined himself as W.W.1 and filed the documents such as Xerox copy of the full and final settlement of P.F. Account dated. 23.9.2002, Xerox copy of representation of the workman regarding his harassment, Xerox copy of Legal Notice to the Management and the Contractor, Letter of ALC(Central) regarding failure of conciliation, Xerox copy of the office order of the Management showing regularisation of contractual employees, Xerox copy of letter dt. 21.5.2002 showing wages for temporary/casual workmen and Xerox copy of cheque by which he was paid wages which are marked as Ext.1 to 7 respectively. On the other hand the 1st Party Managements have examined M.W.1, the Deputy Manager of Regional Office of HPCL and M.W.2, the contractor of HPCL and relied upon the documents such as Xerox copy of the purchase orders dated 1.7.2008 and 8.9.2006 and Xerox copies of Cheques issued on different dates in favour of the disputant workman towards his wages, which are marked as Ext. A to C, to refute the claim of the 2nd Party workman.

FINDINGS

7. All the issues are taken up simultaneously for consideration for the sake of convenience since the issues are inter linked with each other.

Keeping in view the pleadings advanced by the parties the 1st point for consideration is whether the 2nd Party disputant was ever employed by the Management No.1 to work as a Sweeper or whether the job of upkeepment of the office premises of Management No.1 was given on contract basis to Management No. 2 the contractor. On a close reading and examination of the evidence of M.W.1 it is found that the job of cleaning if office premises and toilets was given on contract basis by floating tender. It is also admitted by the disputant workman that one Ashok Kumar Ray was the Contractor through whom he was engaged for brooming and cleaning the premises of the Management No.1. It is emerging from the purchase orders Exts. A & B and oral evidence of M.W.1 and M.W. 2 that tenders were invited every year or in alternative year for contract work of cleaning/upkeepment of the office /premises of Management No.1 and for supply of tea and snacks. Initially one Ashok Kumar Ray being the lowest bidder was entrusted with the work order for such upkeepment of the premises and supply of tea and snacks. It is further emerging from the evidence of the parties that the disputant was engaged by the said Contractor to sweep the premises and to clean the toilets of the office of the Management No.1. There is no evidence to establish that the disputant was ever engaged directly by the Management No.1 for such job or he was ever paid wages directly by the said Management for doing any sweeping job. Similarly, evidence of the workman is wanting to establish that his service was out sourced by the Management No.1 through Management No.2 Contractor. Copies of the Agreement Deeds/Purchase Orders Exts. A and B and the oral testimony of the witnesses of the Management Nos.1 and 2 clearly establish that tender is being floated for upkeepment of the office premises of the Management No.1 and accordingly work order was issued in favour of the Management No.2 the Contractor in the year 2006 and 2008 for such contract of upkeepment. The Contractor was never entrusted to supply contract labour to work as a Sweeper. Though, the 2nd Party Workman has pleaded that he was initially engaged by the Management No.1 directly to work as a Sweeper no evidence in this regard has been advanced. For the reasons mentioned above it can be safely inferred that the 2nd Party Workman was not an employee of Management No.1 and there is no relationship of employer and employee between them. On the other hand it is established that the work of upkeepment of the office premises of Management No.1 is given on contract basis by floating tender.

8. Now coming to the point if the 2nd Party disputant was ever employed or appointed by the Management No.2 the Contractor to work as Sweeper in the office premises of the Management No.1, it is found from the oral testimony of the 2nd Party Workman that he was engaged by the Contractor Ashok Kumar508 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ray for cleaning the premises of Management No.1. He also continued to work as a Sweeper under Management No.2 Contractor. It appears from his evidence that he did the cleaning work and paid by the contractor entrusted with the work of upkeepment. Except sweeping no other work seems to have been performed by him. He seems to have done the sweeping work in peace meal. Law is well settled that initial burden lies on the Workman to establish that he was employed or appointed by the Management/employer and he worked for 240 days continuously and uninterruptedly in order to establish his retrenchment as illegal without compliance of requirement of Section 25(f). Most of the documents filed by the 2nd Party are unilateral one and they do not disclose if the workman was employed as Sweeper or he was paid for the specific job of sweeping in a peace meal . That apart the Management No.2 is not an industry and work order seems to have been issued in his favour on being shown as a contractor. In the above facts and circumstance the dispute if any between the 2nd Party and the Management No.2 Contractor cannot be termed as an industrial dispute. Thus, the reference is also not maintainable.

For the reasons mentioned above, the statement of claim having no merit for consideration and the same stands rejected.

A copy of the award be sent to the Ministry as per procedure for its notification.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 160.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 17/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/37/2005-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.01.2020.

[No. L-29012/37/2005-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 17TH JANUARY 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 17/2006

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M.G. Road, Bangalore - 560 001.

Sh. Shivannagowda, S/o Late Beluragowda, President of Siddapura, Kiotanakeri Post, Hassan Taluk Distt. Hassan - 573 162.

509 [ II— 3(ii)]

Appearance

Advocate for I Party  :    Mr. S. B. Mukkannappa
Advocate for II Party :    Mr. L. Venkatsrama Reddy

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/37/2005-IR(M) dated 19.04.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd. in imposing the

punishment of termination from the services on the workman, Shri Shivanna Gowda, Mazdoor

at (Kumudvathi Manganese Mines, Shimoga District) in M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd., with effect

from 18.06.1996 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled and from which date?"

1. The claim of the 1st Party workman is, He joined the service of the 2nd Party on 01.10.1985 as Mazdoor; while working at Kumadvathi Mandura Mines he remained absent w.e.f 13.11.1995 on medical grounds. However, he has sent leave application since he had sufficient leave to his credit; he has taken treatment at K.C General Hospital, Malleswaram; he was suffering from Viral Hepatitis and Severe Back Pain;

he was under the impression that his leave application is accepted and leave is sanctioned on medical ground;

but he is illegally dismissed from service vide order 18.06.1996/22.06.1996 the order of dismissal is passed without holding enquiry and without affording opportunity to him. Due to financial difficulty he could not raise dispute immediately; he raised Industrial Dispute before Karnataka State Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer; on failure of the Conciliation proceeding the matter was referred to Labour Court at Bangalore. The 2nd Party since raised the question of maintainability of the reference, he withdrew the dispute and raised dispute before the Jurisdictional Conciliation Officer; his absence from duty is beyond his control.

The order of dismissal for alleged absence for a period of 17 months is severe and disproportionate; he is unemployed and is suffering from financial hardship with his family.

2. The claim is contested by the 2nd Party. It is contended in the counter statement that,

he remained absent unauthorisedly from 03.11.1995, call memos dated 09.11.1995, 26.01.1995 and 18.01.1996 were issued to him directing to report to duty along with due explanation for his unauthorised absence from duty. The notices were issued to his address on records, but the registered post acknowledgment due cover returned undelivered. The Manager of Kumudvathi Manganese Mines appointed Sh. H S Umapathy, Senior Mine Surveyor as Inquiry Officer and ordered Domestic Enquiry. The Inquiry Officer issued notification through local daily 'Chalagara' directing the workman to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 13.03.1996 but he did not appear nor sent any communication to the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry keeping the 1st Party Ex-parte and submitted his Report along with his findings; Inquiry Officer in his report stated that 1st Party had no interest in continuing in service of the 2nd Party; show cause notice dated 26.04.1996 directing him to explain within 7 days as to why Disciplinary Action should not be taken against him for his long unauthorised absence from duty, was issued, but he did not submit reply to the show cause notice; unauthorised absence from duty is a serious misconduct as per the Standing Order of the 2nd Party Company; considering the gravity of misconduct the Competent Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 18.06.1996 thereby terminating him from the service of the 2nd Party.

3. On the rival pleading of the parties touching the validity of the Domestic Enquiry conducted into the charges of unauthorised absence a Preliminary Issue was raised, tried and adjudicated, holding that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the workman as fair and proper.

4. The 1st Party thereafter adduced evidence regarding the dis-proportionality of the punishment and his unemployment. He produced a Medical Certificate issued by K C General Hospital, Malleswaram Bangalore certifying that he was suffering from Viral Hepatitis and APD from 13.11.1995 to 20.12.1996, perhaps to510 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] impress upon the Court that during the interregnum period from the date of his unauthorised absence w.e.f. 13.11.1995 to the date of his dismissal on 18.06.1996 he was under medical treatment. But his effort does not work out for him at this stage, for the simple reason that the validity of the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the Employer against him prior to imposing punishment is already upheld while adjudicating the Preliminary Issue.

It is not the stage to receive additional evidence. The only question now open for consideration is sufficiency of evidentiary material, on the basis of which the Inquiry Officer returned the finding of guilt and the proportionality of the punishment viz a viz the charges proved against the workman during the Inquiry.

5. The 1st Party himself admits that he remained absent w.e.f 13.11.1995 onwards. Two call notices and the Inquiry notice issued against him are not served on him; the paper publication dated 21.02.1996 calling upon him to appear before the Enquiry on 13.03.1996 has gone in vain. The Inquiry Officer has recorded that the notice issued to the 1st Party returned with an endorsement that 'he is not in station', his attendance was not satisfactory for the year 1995; he was not attending the duty subsequent to his transfer to the present place; the Manager was unable to give his opinion about his conduct or his work. On the above the Inquiry Officer has drawn inference that previously also he used to remain absent, since he undertook to rectify himself and attend the duties punctually, he was taken on duty. But without abiding to his own undertaking he resorted to remain absent; hence suitable action may be taken against him as per the Service Rules.

Since, he did not respond to the final show cause notice also vide order dated 22.06.1996, he is dismissed from service by the Competent Authority. It was an unauthorised absence for about 17/18 months; he had every opportunity to set right his lapses within this period which he did not avail. No material is available to presume that he had sufficient leave in his credit for sanction of leave for the above period; he himself does not dispute his absence w.e.f. 13.11.1995 hence the Inquiry finding cannot be found fault with; dismissal from service for the unauthorised absence of 17 long months cannot be attributed harshness / severity or dis- propotionality viz a viz the misconduct of unauthorised absence for a long period. For the said reason, I endorse the action of the 2nd Party in dismissing him from service is justified.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 17th January, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 161.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 33/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/36/2006-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.01.2020.

[No. L-29012/36/2006-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

511 [ II— 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH JANUARY 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 33/2007

I Party

II Party

Sh. N. Siddegowda, S/o Late Sh. Ningegowda, Since deceased by LR.

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M.G. Road, BANGALORE – 560001.

Sh. S. Rangaswamy, S/o Late. Sh. N. Siddegowda, Kalle Somanahalli Village, Oblapura Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan Distt. - 573 111. (Karnataka)

Appearance

Advocate for I Party  :   Mr. K.T. Govinde Gowda
Advocate for II Party :   Mr. L.Venkatarama Reddy

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/36/2006-IR(M) dated 02.03.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the

services/premature superannuating of the services ofSh. N. Siddegowda w.e.f. 27.06.1998? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. The dispute was raised by the 1st Party workman Sh. N. Siddegowda, who is now expired and represented by his sole survivor / Son Sh. S. Rangaswany / Class-I Legal heir.

The claim of the 1st Party is, he joined the service of the 2nd Party on 01.04.1976 at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channaraypatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining worker. His date of birth is 10.10.1946 as per the Horoscope maintained by his parents; same is accepted by the 2nd Party for the purpose of all the Statutory Records. Though he was entitled to continue in service up to 10.10.2004, on subjecting him to a medical examination, the 2nd Party refused employment on 27.06.1998 on the ground he has reached superannuation. The Medical Certificate is illegal, and Medical Examination is not held in accordance with the Mining Rules 1955-29(C) i.e., by a doctor of the rank of Assistant Surgeon. His signature is obtained by the 2nd Party Officials on several applications. Several of his co-workers are also terminated on the medical ground of unfitness or over age. One such co-employee namely Smt. K. Dundamma preferred a Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 (S-RES) before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, same was allowed on 29.03.2001. The Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 connected with 3459/2001 preferred against the said order in W.P. No. 5615/2001(S-RES) came to be rejected on 12.06.2002. The Employee / Writ Petitioner prematurely retired was reinstated with back wages and continuity of service. Writ Petitions filed by similarly placed employees in Writ Petition Nos. 26101/2001 C/W W.P No. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 against the very same Management were also allowed. The Medical Reports and orders of termination were quashed with a cost payable by the Employer / Mysore Minerals Limited.

2. It is further claimed that, the action of the 2nd Party in terminating the services of the workman prematurely amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of 'the Act', but without following mandatory provisions of Sec 25(F)(G)(H) and (N) of I.D Act of 1947. The 2nd Party has also violated its own Certified Standing Orders i.e. Mysore Minerals Limited Officers and Employees Conditions of Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules/Clause, 18 & 24. The workman's Date of birth is not changed by512 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the 2nd Party in the statutory records. The termination order is liable to be set aside with consequential monetary benefits.

3. The counter case of the 2nd Party is,

that the dispute raised is time barred. 1st Party was given 30 days' time to prefer the appeal before the Appellate Medical Board as per rules, but he did not avail the opportunity extended to him. Inspired by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 5615/2001 and 26101/2001, he has raised the dispute after a lapse of considerable length of time. The Medical Examination of all the employees and workers working at the Mines Unit was arranged in the year 1997-98 as per the Mines Rules 1955. A team of qualified and Senior Medical Officers from Hutti Gold Mines Limited carried out Medical Examination. He was found aged more than 58 years as per Medical Report. Hence, it was decided to terminate him from service. The 2 nd Party Management relieved him from service on the ground of superannuation by settling his terminal benefits. He has received the terminal benefits i.e. EPF, gratuity, leave pension and settled the matter with the 2nd Party without any protest and without any grievance of his rights, hence has no right to raise the dispute. As on the date of reference there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. Hence, the reference is bad in law. He is gainfully employed and earning salary.

Both parties have adduced their evidence and submitted their arguments in writing.

4. On behalf of the 2nd Party their Assistant Manager was examined as a witness. Through him attested copy of the 'B Register' pertaining to the 1st Party was marked as Ex M-1. Accordingly, his date of Birth is still maintained as 10.10.1946. During cross examination, the witness identified the Photostat copies of the documents confronted to him as Ex W-1 to Ex W-5. Ex W-1 the Application Form for Employees Welfare Trust of the 2nd Party. Ex W-2 is the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Smt. K. Dundamma vs MML (supra). Ex W-3 is the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in rejecting the appeal preferred by the Management challenging the order at Ex W-2. Ex W-4 is the common order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petitions filed by similarly placed employees of the 2nd Party whereby the order of termination which were under challenge were all quashed. Ex W-5 is the Office order dated 22.08.2008 extending the superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years.

It was brought out during the cross examination of the witness that no safety measures and welfare provisions as required by the Mines Rules are provided for the Mining workers; in the year 1995-1996 the 2nd Party entrusted the Mining work to a Private Company and suffered loss of 21 crores in Shimoga and Hassan Districts; having suffered loss they decided to reduce the number of workers and Medical Examination of the mining workers was resorted. The 2nd Party has its own Certified Standing Order i.e., Mysore Mineral Limited Officers and Employees' Conditions of Service Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules.

5. As per clause 18.3 of the Certified Standing Orders of the 2nd Party, the change in the date of birth as entered in the Company's Statutory Record can only be effected by a judgment of a Competent Court. Had if his service was not interrupted, he would have continued in service up to his superannuation i.e. upto October 2004. Admittedly it was an en-masse termination of employees on the ground of superannuation or physical unfitness. The Hon'ble High Court has already quashed similar Medical Certificates issued to the employees.

6. Except the self-serving statement of MW-1 no document is placed on record that the Medical Examination is conducted by the qualified Doctors in accordance with the Rule 29-B of the Mines Rules 1955. The disputed Medical Certificate is not made available by both parties. There is no documentary proof that the 1st Party was informed to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Medical Board if he was aggrieved by the Medical Report. The 2nd Party without addressing the question raised by the 1st Party workman against illegal Medical Examination would contend that having accepted the terminal benefits and having severed his relationship, his claim cannot be sustained.

7. MW-1 during cross examination though admitted that there are Statutory Reports like, Provident Fund Register (pertaining to the employees) no such document was produced and the witness was ignorant as to whether change of age as per the medical certificate was intimated to the EPF Authority; He further admitted that the termination order was not annexed with the medical certificate which is in dispute in this reference. There was no evidence from the 2nd Party regarding the age of the 1st Party as assessed by the Medical Officer or the opinion of the Medical Officer about his medical unfitness. The 1st Party due to ignorance, illiteracy or for want of information might not have challenged the Medical Report before the Appellate Medical Board, but that cannot legalise the action of premature superannuation / termination effected on the basis of Medical Report which was basically not in consonance with the procedure contemplated in rules (supra) applicable to them.

513 [ II— 3(ii)]

8. The action of the 2nd Party is not justified for another reason also that, they being the establishment having workforce exceeding thousands if were to retrench the workmen due to their financial crunch, they could not have done so, without complying the mandate of section 25-N of 'the Act', which they have omitted. If the refusal of employment to the workman is to be termed as retirement, it is a pre-retirement at the pleasure of the employer which is definitely illegal. If it is to be termed as retrenchment then also it is vitiated for not complying the mandatory provisions of section 25-F, G, H and N of 'the Act'. Wherefore the action of the 2nd Party in terminating his service /premature superannuating of the services of 1st Party workman w.e.f 27.06.1998 is neither justified nor legal.

9. Having held that the termination / premature superannuation is illegal, the next question is, the relief that could be moulded in favour of the Legal Heir of the deceased.

10. On one side there is the cause of the 1st Party workman who lost his avocation, in the mid-way of his career by curtailing his service by 6 years, on the other side there is evidentiary material that, he had accepted the terminal benefits and did not challenge his illegal removal for 9 years. There appears to be some merit in the contention of the 2nd Party that, inspired by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 5615/2001 and other cases he raised the present dispute. However, a balance is to be struck between the two. The 2 nd Party has to be reminded that an aggrieved workman cannot be non-suited from the reliefs available under the Welfare Legislature of the I.D Act 1947 for delay in raising Industrial Dispute. Moreover, the reference order on its legality was not challenged by the 2nd Party before the Appropriate Forum. In the opinion of this Tribunal, ends of justice would be met by awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to Sh. S. Rangaswamy Son of late Sh. N Siddegowda on production of proper documents for his identity.

AWARD

The reference is accepted.

The action of the 2nd Party Management MML in terminating the services / premature superannuating of the services of Sh. N Siddegowda w.e.f. 27.06.1998 is not justified.

The 2nd Party is directed to payRs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to Sh. S Rangaswamy son of deceased 1st Party workman Sh. N. Siddegowda within 2 months from the date of publication of the Award in the Official Gazette, failing which the amount shall carry future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20th January, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 162.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 44/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/55/2006-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.01.2020.

[No. L-29012/55/2006-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

514 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH JANUARY 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 44/2007

I Party

II Party

Sh. Mahalingegowda, Since deceased by LR's,

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, NO. 39, M.G. Road, BANGALORE – 560001.

1. Smt. Gowramma, W/o Late. Mahalingegowda,

1a) Sh. Masthi Gowda, S/o Late. Mahalingegowda,

1b) Sh. Bore Gowda, S/o Late. Mahalingegowda,

1c) Smt. Doddamma, D/o Late. Mahalingegowda, Residing at, Honnamarana Village, Jamboor post, Nugge Halli Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District - 573 131.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party  :   Mr. K.T. Govinde Gowda
Advocate for II Party :   Mr. L.Venkatarama Reddy

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/55/2006-IR(M) dated 07.03.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the

services/premature superannuating of the services of Sh. Mahalingegowda w.e.f. 22.05.1998? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. The dispute was raised by the 1st Party workman Sh. Mahalingegowda, who is now expired and represented by his Wife and three Children / Class-I Legal heirs.

The claim of the 1st Party is, he joined the service of the 2nd Party on 13.03.1982 at its Mining Unit viz., Jamboor Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining worker. His date of birth is 13.03.1950 as per the Horoscope maintained by his parents; same is accepted by the 2nd Party for the purpose of all the Statutory Records. Though he was entitled to continue in service up to 13.03.2008, on subjecting him to medical examination, the 2nd Party refused employment on 22.05.1998 on the ground he has reached superannuation. The Medical Certificate is illegal, and Medical Examination is not held in accordance with the Mining Rules 1955-29(C) i.e., by a doctor of the rank of Assistant Surgeon. His signature is obtained by the 2 nd Party Officials on several applications. Several of his co-workers are also terminated on the medical ground of unfitness or over age. One such co-employee namely Smt. K Dundamma preferred a Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 (S-RES) before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, same was allowed on 29.03.2001. The Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 connected with 3459/2001 preferred against the said order in W.P No. 5615/2001(S-RES) came to be rejected on 12.06.2002. The Employee/ Writ Petitioner prematurely retired was reinstated with back wages and continuity of service. Writ Petitions filed by similarly placed employees in Writ515 [ II— 3(ii)] Petition Nos. 26101/2001 C/W W.P No. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 against the very same Management were also allowed. The Medical Reports and orders of termination were quashed with a cost payable by the Employer / Mysore Minerals Limited.

2. It is further claimed that, the action of the 2nd Party in terminating the services of the workman prematurely amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of 'the Act', but without following mandatory provisions of Sec 25(F)(G)(H) and (N) of I.D Act of 1947. The 2nd Party has also violated its own Certified Standing Orders i.e. Mysore Minerals Limited Officers and Employees Conditions of Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules/Clause, 18 & 24. The workman's Date of birth is not changed by the 2 nd Party in the statutory records. The termination order is liable to be set aside with consequential monetary benefits.

3. The counter case of the 2nd Party is,

that the dispute raised is time barred. 1st Party was given 30 days' time to prefer the appeal before the Appellate Medical Board as per rules, but he did not avail the opportunity extended to him. Inspired by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 5615/2001 and 26101/2001, he has raised the dispute after a lapse of considerable length of time. The Medical Examination of all the employees and workers working at the Mines Unit was arranged in the year 1997-98 as per the Mines Rules 1955. A team of qualified and Senior Medical Officers from Hutti Gold Mines Limited carried out Medical Examination. He was found aged more than 58 years as per Medical Report. Hence, it was decided to terminate him from service. The 2nd Party Management relieved him from service on the ground of superannuation by settling his terminal benefits. He has received the terminal benefits i.e. EPF, gratuity, leave pension and settled the matter with the 2nd Party without any protest and without any grievance of his rights, hence has no right to raise the dispute. As on the date of reference there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. Hence, the reference is bad in law. He is gainfully employed and earning salary.

Both parties have adduced evidence and submitted their arguments in writing.

4. On behalf of the 2nd Party their Assistant Manager was examined as a witness. Through him attested copy of the 'B Register' pertaining to the 1st Party was marked as Ex M-1. Accordingly, his age is mentioned as 32 years. During cross examination, the witness identified the Photostat copies of the documents confronted to him as Ex W-1 to Ex W-5. Ex W-1 the Application Form for Employees Welfare Trust of the 2nd Party. Ex W- 2 is the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Smt. K. Dundamma vs MML (supra). Ex W-3 is the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in rejecting the appeal preferred by the Management challenging the order at Ex W-2. Ex W-4 is the common order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petitions filed by similarly placed employees of the 2nd Party whereby the order of termination which were under challenge were all quashed. Ex W-5 is the Office order dated 22.08.2008 extending the superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years.

It was brought out during the cross examination of the witness that no safety measures and welfare provisions as required by the Mines Rules are provided for the Mining workers; in the year 1995-1996 the 2nd Party entrusted the Mining work to a Private Company and suffered loss of 21 crores in Shimoga and Hassan Districts; having suffered loss they decided to reduce the number of workers and Medical Examination of the mining workers was resorted. The 2nd Party has its own Certified Standing Order i.e., Mysore Mineral Limited Officers and Employees' Conditions of Service Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules.

5. As per clause 18.3 of the Certified Standing Orders of the 2nd Party, the change in the date of birth as entered in the Company's Statutory Record can only be effected by a judgment of a Competent Court. Had if his service was not interrupted, he would have continued in service up to his superannuation i.e. upto March 2008. Admittedly it was an en-masse termination of employees on the ground of superannuation or physical unfitness. The Hon'ble High Court has already quashed similar Medical Certificates issued to the employees.

6. Except the self-serving statement of MW-1 no document is placed on record that the Medical Examination is conducted by the qualified Doctors in accordance with the Rule 29-B of the Mines Rules 1955. The disputed Medical Certificate is not made available by both parties. There is no documentary proof that the 1st Party was informed to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Medical Board if he was aggrieved by the Medical Report. The 2nd Party without addressing the question raised by the 1st Party workman against illegal Medical Examination would contend that having accepted the terminal benefits and having severed his relationship, his claim cannot be sustained.

516 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. MW-1 during cross examination though admitted that there are Statutory Reports like, Provident Fund Register (pertaining to the employees) no such document was produced and the witness was ignorant as to whether change of age as per the medical certificate was intimated to the EPF Authority; he further admitted that the termination order was not annexed with the medical certificate which is in dispute in this reference. There was no evidence from the 2nd Party regarding the age of the 1st Party as assessed by the Medical Officer or the opinion of the Medical Officer about his medical unfitness. The 1st Party due to ignorance, illiteracy or for want of information might not have challenged the Medical Report before the Appellate Medical Board, but that cannot legalise the action of premature superannuation / termination effected on the basis of Medical Report which was basically not in consonance with the procedure contemplated in rules (supra) applicable to them.

8. The action of the 2nd Party is not justified for another reason also that, they being the establishment having workforce exceeding thousands if were to retrench the workmen due to their financial crunch, they could not have done so, without complying the mandate of section 25-N of 'the Act', which they have omitted. If the refusal of employment to the workman is to be termed as retirement, it is a pre-retirement at the pleasure of the employer which is definitely illegal. If it is to be termed as retrenchment then also it is vitiated for not complying the mandatory provisions of section 25-F, G, H and N of 'the Act'. Wherefore the action of the 2nd Party in terminating his services / premature superannuating of the services of 1st Party w.e.f 22.05.1998 is neither justified nor legal.

9. Having held that the termination / premature superannuation is illegal, the next question is, the relief that could be moulded in favour of the Legal Heirs of the deceased.

AWARD

The reference is accepted.

The action of the 2nd Party Management / MML in terminating the services / premature superannuating of the services of Sh. Mahalingegowda w.e.f. 22.05.1998 is not justified.

The 2nd Party is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to Smt. Gowramma wife of deceased 1st Party workman Sh. Mahalingegowda within 2 months from the date of publication of the Award in the Official Gazette, failing which the amount shall carry future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20th January, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 163.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 106/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/44/2006-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव517 [ II— 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 106/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.01.2020.

[No. L-29012/44/2006-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH JANUARY 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 106/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director,

Mysore Minerals Limited, NO. 39, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560001.

Sh. K.R. Shivanna, S/o Late Raangaiah, Kembalu Village & Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan Distt. (Karnataka)

Appearance

Advocate for I Party  :   Mr. K.T. Govinde Gowda
Advocate for II Party :    Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/44/2006-IR(M) dated 23.08.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Mysore Minerals Limited in terminating the services

of Sh. K. R. Shivanna w.e.f. 15.03.1990 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

1. The case of the 1st Party is, he joined the service of the 2nd Party on 01.03.1982 at its Mining unit viz., Bhakathara Halli Chromite Mines and later transferred to Kollegala Granite Mines, Mysore District as a Mining Worker. During March 1990 he availed few days of sick leave since he suffered Jaundice. He took treatment in local medicine. He requested official of the 2nd Party to sanction leave. He reported to duty but without sanctioning sick leave the 2nd Party refused employment and informed him that his service is terminated w.e.f 15.03.1990. They have not issued termination order. The action of the 2nd Party is illegal and against the provisions of 'the Act'.

2. The 2nd Party filed their counter statement to the effect that his claim is belated. He was very much irregular in attending the duty and remained continuously absent without leave or permission; in view of the irregularity committed by him 2nd Party after conducting enquiry issued termination order dated 15.03.1990; at no point of time he requested for recalling the order of termination till the date of filing the claim petition.

3. The 2nd Party adduced evidence of their Law Officer who reiterated the case of the 2nd Party, though tendered for cross examination 1st Party did not come forward to cross examine him.

1st Party has adduced evidence reiterating his claim allegations and produced 2 documents Ex W-1 and Ex W-2. Ex W-1 is the representation of the Management before the Conciliation Officer wherein they had stated that considering his long unauthorised absence to duty from 07.09.1989 and his failure to attend the518 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] enquiry fixed on 16.02.1990 and 15.03.1990, his service was terminated w.e.f 15.03.1990. Ex W-2 is the Office order dated 22.08.2008 extending the age of superannuation in the 2nd Party from 58 years to 60 years.

4. It was the termination of 1990 and the dispute is raised after a much delay of 17 long years. The 2 nd Party adduced evidence through their witness MW-1 on 05.11.2014 after a time gap of 7 years. That speaks by itself the reason for the 2nd Party for not producing documentary proofs in support of their case. In the absence of cross examination to the witness controverting his examination in chief evidence, I am impressed to hold that the punishment of termination imposed on Sh. K R Shivanna w.e.f. 15.03.1990 by the 2nd Party is justified.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20th January, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 164.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 108/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/49/2006-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 164.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.01.2020.

[No. L-29012/49/2006-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH JANUARY 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 108/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director,

Mysore Minerals Limited, NO. 39, M.G. Road, BANGALORE – 560001.

Sh. K.N. Nanjundegowda, S/o Ninge Gowda, Kembal Village & Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan Distt. - 573 111 (Karnataka) Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. K.T. Govinde Gowda

Advocate for II Party : Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy519 [ II— 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/49/2006-IR(M) dated 23.08.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Mysore Minerals Limited in terminating the services

Sh. K. N. Nanjundegowda w.e.f. 02.03.1994 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

1. The claim of the 1st Party is, he joined the service of the 2nd Party on 26.06.1980 at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines as a Mining worker and subsequently promoted as Blaster. In the year 1993 along with his co-workers he requested the Officials of the 2nd Party to provide uniform, since for the past 2 years they had failed to provide uniform. But the 2nd Party twisted the situation and filed a Complaint before Nuggehalli Police Station against him and the co-workers. The accused were Charge Sheeted in C.C No. 1079/1993, 2nd Party refused employment to him and his co-workers on 02.03.1994. The Criminal Case was compromised on 19.08.1996, still they did not reinstate the 1st Party into service. He is the only bread earner of the Family. The action of the 2nd Party is highly illegal and irregular.

2. The counter case of the 2nd Party is, He was made to undergo Medical Examination conducted by the 2nd Party Management as per the request made by Employees Union, as per the Medical Report a wound was found on his left hand; he was terminated on the ground of medical unfitness. At no point of time he requested the 2nd Party Management to recall the termination till the time of filing claim petition.

Both parties have adduced their evidence.

3. MW-1 in his affidavit stated that due to the acute ill health of the 1st Party his service had to be terminated; he was absolutely physically unfit and not in a position to discharge his duty; 2nd Party has settled all terminal benefits, having accepted the terminal benefits he has tried the petition after inordinate delay. Since 1st Party did not come forward to cross examine the witness, he was discharged.

During the rebuttal evidence the 1st Party reiterated his claim allegations; he has produced two documents Ex W-1 and Ex W-2. Ex W-1 is the final order passed in the Criminal Case whereby the joint compromise petition filed by the complainant and the accused person under sec 320(1) of Cr.P.C was accepted and the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sec 320(8) of Cr.P.C. Ex W-2 is the office order dated 22.08.2008 passed by the 2nd Party extending the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. His cross examination did not bring any benefit to the 2nd Party.

4. Of course, there is no documentary proof about the Medical Examination conducted by the 2nd Party and the Medical Report which found him unfit to serve the 2nd Party anymore. It was the termination of 1994 and the dispute is raised after a much delay of 13 long years. MW-1 adduced evidence on 08.11.2016 there was a time gap of 9 years. That speaks by itself the reason for the 2nd Party for not producing documentary proofs in support of their case. In the absence of cross examination to the witness controverting his examination in chief evidence, I am impressed to hold that the punishment of termination of the 1st Party Sh. K N Nanjundegowda w.e.f. 02.03.1994 by the 2nd Party is justified.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20th January, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer520 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 165.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या

160/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/51/2007-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 160/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.01.2020.

[No. L-29012/51/2007-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH JANUARY 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 160 /2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director,

Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M.G. Road, BANGALORE – 560001.

Sh. H. N Siddaraju, S/o Late Nanjegowda, Hullekere Village & Post, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan Distt. - 573 119. (Karnataka)

Appearance

Advocate for I Party  :    Mr. K. T. Govinde Gowda
Advocate for II Party :    Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/51/2007-IR(M) dated 17.12.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed on Sh. H.N. Siddaraju with retrospective effect

from 10.05.1999 by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. The case of the 1st Party is, he joined the service of the 2nd Party on 01.07.1988 at its Mining unit viz., Haladahalli Chromite Mines, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District as a Mining Worker. During the year 1998 he availed few days of sick leave. His sickness turned into jaundice. He took treatment in local medicine. He requested official of the 2nd Party to sanction leave from 1998 till his recovery. He reported to duty on 10.05.1999; without sanctioning sick leave the 2nd Party refused employment. Though he used to appear for521 [ II— 3(ii)] Mine Work he was not provided work. He was orally informed on 10.05.1999 that they have terminated his service. The action of the 2nd Party is illegal and against the provisions of 'the Act'.

2. The 2nd Party filed their counter statement to the effect that his claim is belated, he was very much irregular in attending the duty and remained continuously absent without leave or permission; he was made to undergo Medical Examination conducted by the 2nd Party Management upon request made by Employees Union as per Medical Report he was physically unfit to discharge his duties. In view of his unfitness, as per Doctor's Report he was issued termination order dated 10.05.1999, at no point of time he requested for recalling the order of dismissal till the date of filing the claim petition.

3. The 2nd Party adduced evidence of their Law Officer who reiterated the case of the 2nd Party, though tendered for cross examination 1st Party did not come forward to cross examine him.

There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the 1st Party workman.

4. Of course, there is no documentary proof about the Medical Examination conducted by the 2nd Party and the Medical Report which found him unfit to serve the 2nd Party anymore. It was the termination of 1999 and the dispute is raised after a much delay of 8 long years. The witness adduced evidence on 08.11.2016 there was a time gap of 9 years. That speaks by itself the reason for the 2nd Party for not producing documentary proofs in support of their case. In the absence of cross examination to the witness controverting his examination in chief evidence and also the 1st Party since did not prosecute his claim diligently by placing evidentiary material, I am impressed to hold that the punishment of dismissal imposed on Sh. H N Siddaraju with retrospective effect from 10.05.1999 by the 2nd Party is justified.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20th January, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 166.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या

30/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/7/2008-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 166.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.01.2020.

[No. L-29012/7/2008-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

522 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH JANUARY 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 30/2008

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director,

Mysore Minerals Limited, NO. 39, M.G. Road, BANGALORE – 560001.

Sh. P. Kumar, S/o Sh. Putta Bhovi, Kurubara Road, Shantigrama Village & Post Hobli, Hassan Taluk & Distt - 573 220. (Karnataka) Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. K. T. Govinde Gowda

Advocate for II Party : Mr. T. K. Vedamurthy

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/7/2008-IR(M) dated 02.04.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the termination of Sh. P. Kumar by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited

w.e.f. 20.10.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. The case of the 1st Party is, he joined the service of the 2nd Party on 23.10.1987 at its Mining unit viz., Bettadapura Multi Colour Granite Mines thereafter he was transferred to Dodda Mudavadi Granite Mines from there to G.C.P Unit, Hassan Town. During 1998 he availed few days of sick leave since he suffered Typhoid and other types of diseases w.e.f 20.10.1998 to 20.05.1999. From 1998 till this date 2 nd Party G.C.P Unit is under lay-off. Inspite of this he had promptly informed about his sickness to the 2nd Party Superior Officers. When he reported to duty along with Medical fitness Certificate he was not permitted to work, instead the officials of the 2nd Party obtained his signatures on various papers on the pretext of making payment of Bonus for the accounting year 1995, but they have not paid the Bonus. Before the Conciliation Officer the officials told that his service is terminated w.e.f 12.05.1999; they have not issued show cause notice / charge sheet and have not held Domestic Enquiry into charges. They have served the termination order dated 12.05.1999 on him, on 08.06.1999 stating that his service is terminated with retrospective effect from 20.10.1998. The action of the 2nd Party is highly illegal and irregular.

2. The 2nd Party filed their counter statement to the effect that his claim is belated, he was very much irregular in attending the duty and remained continuously absent without leave or permission. If at all Mines Manager obtained the signature on blank paper, he should have taken necessary against the Manager. In view of the irregularity committed by him 2nd Party after conducting Medical Examination issued termination order dated 12.05.1999, at no point of time he requested for recalling the order of termination till the date of filing the claim petition.

3. Both parties have adduced evidence.

The 2nd Party adduced evidence of their Law Officer / MW-1 who reiterated the case of the 2nd Party, though tendered for cross examination 1st Party did not come forward to cross examine him.

1st Party has adduced evidence reiterating his claim allegations and produced 2 documents Ex W-1 and Ex W-2. Ex W-1 is the Termination order dated 12.05.1999. Ex W-2 is the Office order dated 22.08.2008 extending the age of superannuation in the 2nd Party from 58 years to 60 years.

4. As per Ex W-1 the workman remained unauthorisedly absent w.e.f 20.10.1998; several memos were issued to him directing him to report to duty immediately, failing which Disciplinary Action would be initiated under the Certified Standing Order of the Company, but the workman neither reported to duty nor submitted his explanation. Enquiry was ordered by appointing Enquiry Officer though several opportunities were extended he did not attend the enquiry nor submit explanation for his inability to attend the enquiry. He had523 [ II— 3(ii)] acknowledged the receipt of enquiry notices; the Enquiry Officer concluded enquiry on 14.01.1999 placing him ex-partie; Enquiry Report was submitted holding the workman guilty of unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f 20.10.1998 which is construed as serious misconduct as per clause 11(2)(e) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company.

5. It was the termination of 1998 and the dispute is raised after a much delay of 10 long years. The 2 nd Party adduced evidence through their witness MW-1 on 08.11.2016 after a time gap of 8 years. That speaks by itself the reason for the 2nd Party in not producing the Enquiry Records in support of their case. In the absence of cross examination to the witness controverting his examination in chief evidence, I am impressed to hold that the punishment of termination imposed on Sh. P. Kumar with effect from 20.10.1998 by the 2nd Party is justified.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20th January, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 167.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या

31/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/31/2008-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.01.2020.

[No. L-29012/31/2008-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH JANUARY 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 31 /2008

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director,

Mysore Minerals Limited, NO. 39, M.G. Road, BANGALORE – 560001.

Sh. Manjegowda, S/o Late Sh. Doddegowda, Bageshpura Village & Post, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District - 573 119 (KARNATAKA)524 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance

Advocate for I Party  :   Mr. K.T. Govinde Gowda
Advocate for II Party :    Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/31/2008-IR(M) dated 02.04.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the order of dismissal imposed on Sh. Manjegowda by the management of Mysore

Minerals Limited w.e.f. 01.01.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. The case of the 1st Party is,

he joined the service of the 2nd Party on 01.01.1998 at its Mining unit viz., Bageshpura Mines, Arasikere Taluk, as a Mining Worker. On 01.01.1998 he availed 7 months of sick leave. His sickness turned into jaundice. When he reported to duty he was not permitted to work, they handed over the dismissal order dated 06.07.1998 on 20.07.1998 without sanctioning the sick leave 2nd Party terminated his service; the order is passed from retrospective date, the 2nd Party by their action have violated various provisions of Industrial Dispute Act and their own Certified Standing Order. The order of dismissal is illegal, malafide and not justifiable in law.

2. The 2nd Party filed their counter statement to the effect that his claim is belated. He was sleeping in the office regularly hence was suspended and thereafter terminated after due enquiry. All other allegations levelled against the 2nd Party in the claim statement are denied. At no point of time he requested for recalling the order of dismissal till the date of filing the claim petition.

3. Both parties have adduced evidence.

The 2nd Party adduced evidence of their Law Officer / MW-1 who reiterated the case of the 2nd Party, though tendered for cross examination 1st Party did not come forward to cross examine him.

1st Party has adduced evidence reiterating his claim allegations and produced 2 documents Ex W-1 and Ex W-2. Ex W-1 is the Dismissal order dated 06.07.1998. Ex W-2 is the Office order dated 22.08.2008 extending the age of superannuation in the 2nd Party from 58 years to 60 years.

4. As per Ex W-1 the workman remained unauthorisedly absent w.e.f 01.01.1998; several memos were issued to him directing him to report to duty immediately, failing which Disciplinary Action would be initiated under the Certified Standing Order of the Company, but the workman neither reported to duty nor submitted his explanation. Enquiry was ordered by appointing Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer fixed the enquiry to 28.04.1998, during the course of the enquiry he pleaded guilty of the charge of having remained absent from duty unauthorisedly; the Enquiry Officer accordingly, submitted the report holding the workman guilty of the charge of long unauthorised absence which is construed as serious misconduct as per clause 11(2) (e) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. The Disciplinary Authority of the Company / Managing Director endorsing the Enquiry Report dismissed the workman for his unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f 01.01.1998.

5. The punishment order since produced by the workman he was fully aware of its contents, still there is not even a spell in his claim statement or evidence controverting the contents of the said punishment order. It was the termination of 1998 and the dispute is raised after a much delay of 10 long years. The 2nd Party adduced evidence through their witness MW-1 on 08.11.2016 after a time gap of 8 years. That speaks by itself the reason for the 2nd Party for not producing the Enquiry Records in support of their case. In the absence of cross examination to the witness controverting his examination in chief evidence I am impressed to hold that the punishment of dismissal imposed on Sh. Manjegowda w.e.f. 01.01.1998 by the 2nd Party is justified.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20th January, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer525 [ II— 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 168.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध

में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुम्बई पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 88/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 17.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/2/2009-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 168.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 88/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17.01.2020.

[No. L-11012/2/2009-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/88 of 2009

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Sr. Manager (Pers) SG, Airport Authority of India Personnel Department, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Vile Parle [E], Mumbai – 400 099.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Ms. Subhadra Sopan Shete, Bldg. No. 7, R. No. 5, New F Line Colony, Airport Colony, Berman Wada, Mumbai – 400 099.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER             :     Ms. Geeta Raju, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN              :     Mr. A. M. Maurya, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 31st December, 2019

AWARD

1. This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-11012/2/2009 – IR (M) dated 15.12.2009. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of Airport Authority of India, Mumbai retiring the workman Smt. Subhadra Sopan

Shete, w.e.f. 31.12.2008 amounts to pre-mature retirement ? If So, what relief the workman is entitled

to ?

2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

526 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The concerned workman has filed application Ex.45. She wants to withdraw the reference

4. In view of order on Ex. 45, reference is withdrawn and hence disposed of. Hence order.

ORDER

Reference is withdrawn and hence disposed of.

Date: 31.12.2019

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 169.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 48/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 16.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/4/2002-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 169.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16.01.2020.

[No. L-30012/4/2002-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

अनुबंध

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर सी.जी.आई.टी. प्रकरण सं. 48 /2017

L-30012/4/2002–IR(M) 12/12/2017

पीठासीन अधिकारी : राधामोहन चतुर्वेदी, गणपत लाल मीणा पुत्र श्री रामनारायण निवासी जुनेवाल की ढ़ाणी, सीतापुरा रेलवे क्रॉसिंग के पास, सागांनेर, जिला - जयपुर।

बनाम

1. डिपो मैनेजर, हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लि., सीतापुरा, सांगानेर, जयपुर।

2. प्रबन्धक, हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लि., क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, तेल भवन, सहकार मार्ग, ज्योति नगर, जयपुर।

527 [ II— 3(ii)]

प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री राजेन्द्र वैश्य - अभिभाषक अप्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री डी.एन. शर्मा, - अभिभाषक

दिनांक : 27.12.2019

1. श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 12.12.2017 को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 की धारा 10 (1) (क) व (2A) (जिसे आगामी चरणों में अधिनियम कहा जायेगा) के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों के प्रयोग में निम्नांकित औद्योगिक विवाद इस अधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित किया गया :-

''क्या श्री गणपत लाल मीणा पुत्र श्री राम नारायण मीणा की सेवा समाप्ति दिनांक 01.03.2001 से प्रबंधन द्वारा किये जाना न्यायसंगत एवं वैध है? अगर नहीं तो कर्मकार किस लाभ का हकदार है और किस तिथि से ?''

2. उपर्युक्त संदर्भित विवाद इस अधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर उभयपक्ष को आहूत किया गया। प्रार्थी को दावे का अभिकथन प्रस्तुत करने का निर्देश दिया गया।

3. दिनांक 29.12.2017 को प्रार्थी ने दावे का अभिकथन प्रस्तुत किया जिसके संक्षिप्त तथ्य इस प्रकार हैं। प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के अधीन दिनांक 5.7.97 से 1.3.2001 तक 3 वर्ष 8 माह कार्य किया। विपक्षीगण ने मौखिक रूप से अधिनियम के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन करते हुए उसे नौकरी से हटा दिया। प्रार्थी ने समझौता अधिकारी जयपुर के समक्ष दिनांक 16.5.2001 को वाद प्रस्तुत किया, किन्तु केन्द्र सरकार ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 11.6.2002 द्वारा प्रार्थी के विवाद को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित नहीं किया। तत्पश्चात माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 24.10.2017 के अनुपालन में 12.12.2017 को यह विवाद अधिकरण को प्रेषित किया गया। प्रार्थी को 5.7.97 को विपक्षी संख्या 1 ने भर्ती प्रक्रिया अपनाते हुए नियुक्ति दी थी। प्रार्थी को माह अगस्त 98 से उसके कार्य के अतिरिक्त ड्राईवर का कार्य भी दिया गया। प्रार्थी लाईसेन्स धारक चालक है। प्रार्थी से 10-12 घण्टे ड्राईवर का कार्य बिना किसी साप्ताहिक अवकाश के लिया जा रहा है। प्रार्थी को निश्चित वेतन 2300 रूपये मिलता था। प्रार्थी को वेतन कभी वाउचर द्वारा, कभी नकद तो कभी डिमाण्ड ड्राफ्ट द्वारा भुगतान किया गया। प्रार्थी को 2500 रूपये का भुगतान एकबार गाडी सफाई के नाम पर किया गया। दिनांक 1.3.2001 को प्रार्थी को विपक्षी ने कार्य पर लेने से मना कर दिया। प्रार्थी के स्थान पर एक अन्य ड्राईवर को रख लिया गया। दिनांक 1.3.2001 को सेवासमाप्त करने पर प्रार्थी को कोई नोटिस, नोटिस वेतन एवं छंटनी मुआवजा नहीं दिया गया। प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ व्यक्ति को वाहन पर नियोजित कर लिया गया। इस प्रकार विपक्षी ने अधिनियम की 25 (एफ), (जी), (एच) तथा नियम 77 व 78 के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन किया है। अतः सेवासमाप्ति दिनांक 1.3.2001 को अपास्त करते हुए प्रार्थी को सेवा में निरन्तरता एवं समस्त वेतन परिलाभों सहित सेवा में बहाल किया जावें।

4. विपक्षीगण ने दि. 27.8.19 को वादोत्तर प्रस्तुत करते हुए दावे के कथनों को अस्वीकार किया। उनका कथन है कि प्रार्थी को अगस्त 98 से जनवरी 1999 तक आवश्यकतानुरूप ड्राईवर पद पर मैसर्स एफ.आई.आर.एन. नामक ठेकेदार द्वारा नियुक्त किया गया था और उसी के द्वारा प्रार्थी को वेतन भुगतान किया जाता था। प्रार्थी और विपक्षी के मध्य कर्मकार और नियोजक के सम्बन्ध नहीं है इसलिये विपक्षी के पास प्रार्थी को वेतन भुगतान किये जाने का कोई अभिलेख भी अस्तित्व में नहीं है। विपक्षीगण के आधिपत्य में प्रार्थी द्वारा वान्छित प्रलेख नहीं है। विपक्षीगण का ठेकेदार पर कोई प्रशासनिक एवं अनुशासनिक नियन्त्रण नहीं है। विपक्षीगण की नियोजन हेतु निर्धारित प्रक्रिया है। प्रार्थी को किसी प्रकार विपक्षीगण द्वारा नियोजित नहीं किया गया। विपक्षीगण ने यदा कदा आवश्यकता होने पर एफ.आई.आर.एन. कम्पनी के कर्मचारी (प्रार्थी) से उनके वाहन को चलवाने का कार्य किया जिसका भुगतान रसीद के माध्यम से किया गया। इस प्रकार भुगतान के हो जाने से प्रार्थी विपक्षीगण का कर्मचारी होना नहीं माना जा सकता। विपक्षीगण ने अधिनियम के किसी प्रावधान का कोई उल्ल्ांघन नहींं किया है। अतः वाद निरस्त किया जावें।

5. तत्पश्चात प्रार्थी ने अपने साक्ष्य में स्वंय प्रार्थी गणपत लाल मीणा को परीक्षित किया। प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श-एम 1 से 5 तक प्रलेखों को प्रदर्शित किया तथा दिनांंक 25.9.2019 को स्वंय के समर्थन में प्रदर्ष-डब्ल्यू 6 से प्रदर्ष-डब्ल्यू 12 तक अतिरिक्त प्रलेख भी प्रस्तुत किये।

6. विपक्षीगण ने अपनी साक्ष्य में श्री हरसहाय चान्दोलिया मुख्य प्रबन्धक को परीक्षित किया और कोई प्रलेख स्वंय की और से न प्रदर्शित करते हुए, प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रलेखों को ही साक्ष्य में प्रदर्शित किया।

7. दिनांक 27.11.2019 को मैंने उभयपक्ष के परस्पर विरोधी तर्काें पर साक्ष्य एवं प्रस्तुत किये गये न्यायिक दृष्टान्तों के प्रकाश में मनन किया।

8. प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि का यह तर्क है कि माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने दिनांक 24.10.2017 को एस.बी. सिविल रिट पिटिशन संख्या 4442/2002 में पारित आदेश में यह उल्लेख किया है कि विपक्षीगण ने समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत उत्तर में यह स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी उनकी कम्पनी की जीप पर चालक के रूप में कार्यरत था। कथित ठेकेदार कम्पनी मैसर्स एफ.आई.आर.एन. का विपक्षी का ठेकेदार होना किसी साक्ष्य से प्रमाणित नहीं है। प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथपूर्वक कथन में कहा है कि दिनांक 5.7.1997 से 01.03.2001 तक- 3 वर्ष 8 माह तक उसने कार्य किया। फिर उसे मौखिक रूप से नौकरी से हटा दिया गया। इसलिये प्रार्थी ने इस अवधि में किये गये वेतन भुगतान, मैसर्स एफ.आई.आर.एन. नामक ठेकेदार कम्पनी से किया गया अनुबन्ध और उपस्थिति सम्बन्धी दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत करवाने का निवेदन अधिकरण से किया था, लेकिन विपक्षीगण द्वारा इन प्रलेखों को जानबूझकर प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया। इसलिये528 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध प्रतिकूल उपधारणा की जानी चहिये और प्रार्थी द्वारा साक्ष्य में किया गया कथन प्रमाणित मान लिया जाना चाहिये। विपक्षी साक्षी हरसहाय चान्दोलिया का शपथ-पत्र वस्तुतः स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य ही नहीं है, क्योंकि इस साक्षी ने कहा है कि उसने जो भी कथन किये है वे बाद पत्रावली में उपलब्ध अभिलेख के आधार पर किये गये है। जबकि विपक्षीगण ने तो कोई अभिलेख/प्रलेख प्रस्तुत ही नहीं किये। उन्होनें अपने तर्क के समर्थन में निम्नांकित न्यायिक दृष्टान्त प्रस्तुत कियेः-

(1) 2005 (4) एस.सी.टी. (सुप्रीम कोर्ट) 695 आर.एम.येल्लाटी बनाम असिस्टेन्ट एक्जीक्यूटिव इन्जीनियर

(2) 2010 (1) एस.सी.टी. (सुप्रीम कोर्ट) 820 डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मिनल डिवीजन बनाम भीखुभाई मेघाजी भाई चावड़ा

9. विपक्षीगण के प्रतिनिधि ने प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि के तर्कों का विरोध करते हुए यह कहा है कि प्रार्थी स्वंय ने अपने साक्ष्य में जो प्रलेख प्रस्तुत किये हैं, उनसे ही यह तथ्य प्रमाणित होता है कि प्रार्थी की आवश्यकता होने पर वाहन चालन तथा डीजी सेट और पम्प हाउस की देखभाल आदि के कार्य हेतु यदाकदा कार्य लेकर पारिश्रमिक का भुगतान किया गया हैं, जैसा कि प्रदर्श 4 ए, 4 बी के अवलोकन से प्रमाणित होता है। प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रतिपरीक्षण में यह स्वीकार किया है कि प्रदर्श 4 ए और 4 बी वाउचर उसने स्वंय पेश किये हैं और इनमें किये गये भुगतान उसे स्वीकार है। इन प्रलेखों के अतिरिक्त प्रार्थी के पास वेतन भुगतान किये जाने की कोई रसीद नहीं है। इसलिये, यदाकदा आवश्यकता होने पर प्रार्थी से लिये गये कार्य की मजदूरी स्वरूप प्रार्थी को यदि विपक्षीगण द्वारा भुगतान कर दिया गया है तो मात्र इस आधार पर वह विपक्षी का कर्मचारी नहीं बन जाता है। प्रदर्ष-3 विपुल गांधी नामक ठेकेदार के कर्मचारी का पत्र है जिसे प्रार्थी स्वयँ ने ही प्रस्तुत किया है। इस पत्र में प्रार्थी का मैसर्स एफ.आई.आर.एन. नामक फर्म में कार्यरत होना उल्लेखित है। इसी प्रकार प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत किसे गये अन्य प्रलेख भी यह प्रमाणित नहीं करते है कि प्रार्थी को विपक्षीगण द्वारा नियोजित किया गया हो। इसलिये प्रार्थी विपक्षीगण की सेवा में निरन्तरता और वेतन परिलाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी ही नहीं है। उसकी सेवा को किसी प्रकार विनियमित नहीं किया जा सकता। उन्होनें अपने तर्क के समर्थन में निम्नांकित विधिक दृष्टान्त प्रस्तुत किये हैं :-

(1) 2007 एल.एल.आर. 338 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट) अकाउन्टस ऑफिसर ए.एन्ड.आई/ए.पी.आर.टी. सी.बनाम के.वी.

रामाना

(2) 2006 एल.एल.आर. 381 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट) स्टेट ऑफ मध्य प्रदेश व अन्य बनाम अर्जुन लाल रजक

(3) 2007 एल.एल.आर. 561 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट) पंजाब वाटर सप्लाई एण्ड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम रणजोध सिंह व अन्य

(4) (2002) 10 सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज असिस्टेन्ट एक्जीक्यूटिव इन्जीनियर कर्नाटक बनाम शिवलिंगा

10. इस प्रकरण में निम्नलिखित विचारणीय बिन्दु उत्पन्न हुऐ हैः-

बिन्दु संख्या 1 :- क्या प्रार्थी उसकी सेवासमाप्ति तिथि 1.3.2001 से पूर्ववर्ती एक कैलेण्डर वर्ष की अवधि में विपक्षी के अधीन 240 दिन से अधिक कार्यरत रहा तथा विपक्षीगण ने अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) का अनुपालन किये बिना प्रार्थी को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया ?

बिन्दु संख्या 2 :- क्या विपक्षीगण ने प्रार्थी को सेवा से मुक्त करने के बाद प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ अन्य व्यक्ति को उसी वाहन पर ड्राईवर के पद पर नियुक्त कर लिया?

बिन्दु संख्या 3 :- अनुतोष ?

बिन्दु संख्या 1 :- इस बिन्दु के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी का सर्वप्रथम तर्क यह है कि दिनांक 24.10.2017 को माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने एस.बी.सी.डब्ल्यु.पी. संख्या 4442/2002 गणपत लाल बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया व अन्य में जो निर्णय पारित किया है उसमें विपक्षी द्वारा समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किये गये प्रतिउत्तर का उल्लेख करते हुए यह लिखा गया है कि कर्मकार विपक्षी कम्पनी का जीप पर ड्राईवर के रूप में कार्य कर रहा था। इसलिये प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति विपक्षी कम्पनी में होना एक स्वीकृत तथ्य है। इस तर्क के विरोध में विपक्षी ने कहा है कि प्रार्थी विपक्षी कम्पनी के लिये कार्य कर रहे मैसर्स एफ.आई.आर.एन. नामक ठेकेदार के अधीन कार्य करता था। यदाकदा विपक्षी द्वारा प्रार्थी से विपक्षी की जीप चलवाई गई थी तथा उस कार्य का भुगतान उसे विपक्षी द्वारा किया गया था। इस प्रकार प्रार्थी को विपक्षी द्वारा नियोजित किया जाना स्वीकृत तथ्य नहीं है। मैनें उभयपक्ष के इन तर्कोें पर मनन किया। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय में वर्णित उपर्युक्त तथ्य से यह निष्कर्षित नहीं किया जा सकता है कि प्रार्थी को विपक्षी ने नियोजित कर जीप पर चालक नियुक्त किया हो। मात्र प्रार्थी का विपक्षी की जीप पर कुछ दिन चालक का कार्य करना ही प्रमाणित माना जा सकता है। अतः अब यह दृृष्टव्य है कि प्रार्थी ने किस प्रकार विपक्षी की जीप को चलाया। विपक्षी साक्षी ने अपने साक्ष्य में यह स्पष्ट कहा है कि प्रार्थी को सांगानेर डिपो पर नियुक्त नहींं किया गया तथा नोनकोर कार्याें के लिये मैसर्स एफ.आई.आर.एन. को ठेका दिया गया था। इस ठेकेदार द्वारा ही प्रार्थी को कार्य पर रखा गया था। जब कम्पनी ( विपक्षी ) को अपनी जीप के लिये ड्राईवर की आवश्यकता होती तो ठेकेदार से ड्राईवर की मांग की जाती थी। चूंकि प्रार्थी के पास वाहन चलाने का लाईसेन्स था इसलिये ठेकेदार प्रार्थी को ड्राईवर का कार्य करने हेतु भेज देता था। जिसका अलग से भुगतान विपक्षी द्वारा किया जाता था। प्रार्थी गणपत लाल स्वंय ने इस प्रकार प्राप्त किये गये भुगतानों की रसीदें प्रदर्श-4 बी व 4 सी साक्ष्य में प्रदर्शित की हैं।

529 [ II— 3(ii)]

11. विपक्षी साक्षी हरसहाय चान्दोलिया के इन सशपथ कथनों को प्रार्थी द्वारा की गई प्रतिपरीक्षा में कोई चुनौती नहीं दी गई है। यहीं नहीं प्रार्थी गणपत लाल ने अपने प्रतिपरीक्षण में यह स्वीकार कर लिया है कि प्रदर्श-4 बी रसीद द्वारा उसे टाटा सुमो की ड्राईविंग का 600 रूपये का भुगतान किया जाना सही है। प्रदर्श-4 बी में किये गये सभी भुगतान उसे स्वीकार हैं। यहीं नहीं प्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श-4 ए वाउचर स्वंय प्रस्तुत करना स्वीकार करते हुए यह कहा है कि इस वाउचर के माध्यम से किये गये भुगतान डीजी सेट व पम्प हाउस की देखभाल हेतु न होकर उसके द्वारा की गई ड्राईविंग का भुगतान है। किन्तु इस विरोधाभासी प्रविष्टी पर उसने कभी कोई आपत्ति नहीं करना कहा है।

12. इस स्थिति में प्रदर्श-4 ''ए, बी और 4 सी'' जो की उभयपक्ष द्वारा स्वीकृत प्रलेख हैं के पठन से यह भलीभांति प्रमाणित होता है कि प्रार्थी ने मात्र सितम्बर 2000 से दिसम्बर 2000 तक विभिन्न अवसरों पर 15 दिन विपक्षी का कार्य कियां, जिसके पारिश्रमिक स्वरूप विपक्षी द्वारा उसे भुगतान किया गया। इस तथ्यात्मक परिदृश्य में यह प्रश्न स्वभाविक रूप से उत्पन्न होता है कि प्रार्थी के अनुसार यदि प्रार्थी इस अवधि में विपक्षी के अधीन नियोजित कर्मचारी रहा होता तो उससे लिये गये कार्य की मजदूरी प्रतिदिन की दर से कभी 3, कभी 4 और कभी 5 दिन के भुगतान करने के स्थति कैसे उत्पन्न होती? इस प्रश्न का सम्भाव्य उत्तर यहीं हो सकता है कि चूंकि प्रार्थी विपक्षी का नियोजित कर्मकार न होकर ठेकेदार मैसर्स एफ.आई.आर.एन. का कर्मचारी था, से आवश्यकता होने पर विपक्षी ने स्वंय के वाहन पर चालक का कार्य करवाया तथा किये गये कार्य का भुगतान प्रार्थी को किया। जिसे प्रार्थी ने भी स्वीकार किया है। इस स्थिति में प्रार्थी को विपक्षी द्वारा नियोजित किये जाने का तर्क अपना आधार खो देता है।

13. प्रार्थी का आगामी तर्क है कि विपक्षी द्वारा वेतन भुगतान सम्बन्धी रजिस्टर, गेट एन्ट्री रजिस्टर तथा ठेकेदार एफ.आई.आर.एन. से किये गये अनुबन्ध पत्र को प्रस्तुत करने के अधिकरण के आदेश पर भी विपक्षी ने यह प्रलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं किये। यदि ये प्रलेख विपक्षी प्रस्तुत कर देता तो प्रार्थी का 240 दिन से अधिक कार्यरत होने का तथ्य भी प्रमाणित हो सकता था। इसलिये विपक्षी के विरूद्ध प्रतिकूल उपधारणाा की जावें। प्रार्थी ने इस तर्क के समर्थन में आर.एम. येल्लाटी बनाम असिस्टेन्ट एक्जीक्यूटिव इन्जीनियर तथा डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मिनल डिवीजन बनाम भीखुभाई मेघाजी भाई चावड़ा के निर्णयों में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित अधिमत का अवलम्ब लिया है। इन निर्णयों में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह प्रतिपादित किया है कि 240 दिन सेवा पूर्ण करने के तथ्य को प्रमाणित करने का प्रारम्भिक सिद्धिभार कर्मकार स्वंय पर है - एकबार यदि कर्मकार सशपथ कथन करें अथवा प्रथम दृष्टया कुछ साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करें तत्पश्चात विपक्षी से उसके सेवा सम्बन्धित अभिलेख प्रस्तुत करवाने का निवेदन किया जावें तो ऐसी स्थिति में यह सिद्धिभार नियोजक पर अन्तरित हो जाता है कि वह प्रमाणित करें कि कर्मकार लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक की सेवा में नहीं था।

14. विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी द्वारा चाहे गये प्रलेखों की सुसंगता पर आक्षेप करते हुए यह भी कहा है कि वान्छित प्रलेख 18 वर्ष से अधिक पुराने है तथा सम्बन्धित संस्थापन के बन्द हो जाने से उन्हें प्रस्तुत करना भी सम्भव नहीं रहा है। अपने तर्क के समर्थन में उन्होनें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित निर्णय असिस्टेन्ट एक्जीक्यूटिव इन्जीनियर कर्नाटक बनाम शिवलिंगा में पारित अधिमत का अवलम्ब लिया है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने इस निर्णय में यह कहा है कि जब न्यायालय से अनुतोष चाहने हेतु 9 वर्ष से अधिक विलम्ब से पहुंचा जावें तो अभिलेखों को इतनी दीर्घ अवधि तक संधाारित करना सम्भव नहीं होता है। इस प्रकरण में यद्वपि सेवासमाप्ति के लगभग 16 वर्ष उपरान्त केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा यह विवाद प्रेषित किया गया है, किन्तु अभिलेख यह भी दर्शाता है कि प्रार्थी ने समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष विवाद वर्ष 2001 में ही प्रस्तुत किया था, किन्तु समुचित सरकार ने अधिनिर्णयन हेतु उसे प्रेषित नहीं किया। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश के उपरान्त ही वर्ष 2017 में विवाद को अधिकरण को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित किया गया। परिस्थिति जो कुछ भी हो यह अधिमत अवश्य है कि कथित सेवासमाप्ति के 16 वर्ष उपरान्त अभिलेखों को संधारित किया जाना एवं प्रस्तुत करना विपक्षी के लिये सम्भव नहीं था।

15. इस विवाद में तो प्रार्थी ने जो कुछ साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत किया है उससे यहीं तथ्य उद्‌घाटित होता है कि प्रार्थी को कुछ दिनों के लिये विपक्षी के वाहन पर चालक का कार्य करने के लिये आवश्यकतानुरूप रखा गया। जिसकी मजदूरी का भुगतान विपक्षी द्वारा कर दिया गया। प्रार्थी ने भी यह स्वीकार किया है कि प्रदर्श 2 से 4 सी के अलावा उसके पास वेतन भुगतान की और कोई रसीद नहीं है। इस स्थ्तिि में विपक्षी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह प्रार्थी के कथित सेवा संबंधी वांछित अभिलेख प्रस्तुत करें न्यायोचित एवं विधि पूर्ण नहीं है। अभिलेखों के सम्बन्ध में विपक्षी द्वारा सशपथ यह कहा गया है कि प्रार्थी विपक्षी के अधीन नियुक्त ही नहीं किया गया, इसलिये उसका कोई अभिलेख अस्तित्व में न होने से प्रस्तुत नहीं किया जा सकता हैं। प्रार्थी के प्रार्थना पत्र पर इस अधिकरण द्वारा दिनांक 11.9.19 को यह आदेश दिया गया था कि ''विपक्षी को अब प्रलेखों के प्रस्तुतीकरण से विबन्धित किया जाता है तथा प्रार्थी विधि अनुरूप इन अभिलेखों के अस्तित्व एवं तथ्यों के समबन्ध में द्वितीयक साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने को उन्मुक्त है''। किन्तु प्रार्थी द्वारा इस आदेश के अनुसरण में कोई द्वितीयक साक्ष्य प्रलेखोें के अस्तित्व तथा उनमें वर्णित तथ्यों के सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है। प्रार्थी अपने प्रतिपरीक्षण में स्वीकार करता है कि उसे नौकरी में रखते समय नियुक्ति पत्र दिया गया था, किन्तु वह पेश नहीं कर सकता। प्रार्थी कहता है कि विपक्षी ने ड्राईवर के अतिरिक्त और कोई काम नही लिया। किन्तु प्रार्थी ने अपने दावे के अभिकथन में यह वर्णित किया है कि उसे भर्ती प्रक्रिया अपनाते हुए नियुक्ति दी गई थी .......तथा उससे उसके कार्य के अतिरिक्त ड्राईवर का कार्य भी लिया गया था''। इस कथन से यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी को मूल रूप से तो किसी अन्य कार्य के लिये नियोजित किया गया था, किन्तु ड्राईवर का कार्य उससे अतिरिक्त रूप में करवाया जाता था। जबकि प्रार्थी शपथ पर कहता है कि उससे ड्राईवर के अतिरिक्त और कोई कार्य नहीं लिया गया। इस प्रकार अभिवचनों एवं530 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] साक्ष्य में जो विरोधाभास उत्पन्न हुआ है उससे प्रार्थी का साक्ष्य संदिग्ध एवं खण्डित हो जाता है। विपक्षी द्वारा भर्ती प्रक्रिया अपनाते हुए प्रार्थी को सेवा मेें नियोजित करना प्रमाणित नहीं हुआ है।

16. इस परिदृश्य में जबकि प्रार्थी प्रथम-दृष्टया साक्ष्य से ही विपक्षी द्वारा उसे सेवा में नियोतिजत किये जाने का तथ्य स्थापित नहीं होता है, प्रार्थी का विपक्षी से कथित सेवा अवधि के वेतन भुगतान एवं उपस्थिति समब्न्धित अभिलेखों को प्रस्तुत करवाने का प्रयास करना प्रार्थी पर आरेापित सिद्धीभार को विपक्षी पर अन्तरित करने का असफल प्रयास मात्र प्रमाणित होता है। इसलिये प्रार्थी द्वारा अवलम्बित निर्णयों में प्रतिपादित विधि प्रार्थी के पक्ष में, तथ्यातमक भिन्नता के कारण सहायक नहीं है। प्रार्थी, साक्ष्य से यह प्रमाणित नहीं कर सका है कि विपक्षी द्वारा सेवा में नियोजित किये जाने के पश्चात उसने कथित सेवासमाप्ति के पूर्ववर्ती एक कैलेण्डर वर्ष की अवधि में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया हो।

17. विपक्षी ने अपने तर्कों में यह स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी को कोई नोटिस, नोटिस वेतन एवं छंटनी मुआवजा नहीं दिया गया क्योंकि प्रार्थी को उन्होने न तो नियोजित किया और न ही उसकी सेवासमाप्ति। विपक्षी का यह कथन साक्ष्य के उपर्युक्त विवेचन के उपरान्त पुष्ट होता है। इसलिये विपक्षी द्वारा अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों के अन्तगर्त किसी भी प्रक्रिया का अनुपालन किया जाना आवश्यक नहीं था। अतः यह बिन्दु प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध निर्णीत किया जाता है।

बिन्दु संख्या 2 :- इस बिन्दु के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी से यह अपेक्षा है कि वह उसकी सेवासमाप्ति के उपरान्त उससे कनिष्ठ अन्य व्यक्ति को विपक्षी द्वारा चालक के रूप में नियुक्त किया जाना प्रमाणित करें। प्रार्थी गणपत लाल ने अपने दावे के अभिकथन में यह तो कहा है कि वरिष्ठता का ध्यान रखे बिना विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी को हटाया और उसकी जगह कनिष्ठ व्यक्ति को नियोजित रखा। किन्तु प्रार्थी ने बिन्दु संख्या 1 के निर्णय के अनुसार विपक्षी के अधीन नियोजन और सेवासमाप्ति का तथ्य प्रमाणित नहीं किया है। प्रार्थी ने उससे कनिष्ठ व्यक्ति का नाम जिसे विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी की सेवासमाप्ति के उपरान्त नियोजित किया, दावे में वर्णित नहीं किया। यहीं नहीं अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा के शपथपत्र में भी प्रार्थी ने उस व्यक्ति का नामोल्लेख नहीं किया। किन्तु प्रतिपरीक्षा में प्रार्थी ने उस व्यक्ति का नाम गोपाल बताया है। प्रतिपरीक्षा में वर्णित यह तथ्य निराधार प्रकट होता है क्योंकि प्रार्थी ने इस समबन्ध में कोई अन्य प्रलेखीय या अनुसमर्थक साक्ष्य भी प्रस्तुत नहीं की है। प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी से तत्समबन्धी प्रलेख प्र्रस्तुत करवाने का आवेदन भी अधिकरण से नहीं किया है। अपने अभिवचनों और मुख्य परीक्षा में किसी तथ्य का उल्लेख न करना स्पष्टतः प्रार्थी के कथन को अविश्वसनीय प्रमाणित करता है। इस प्रकार प्रार्थी यह प्रमाणित नहीं कर सका है कि विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी की सेवासमाप्ति के पश्चात उससे कनिष्ठ किसी व्यक्त्ति को नियोजन में लिया हो और अधिनियम की धारा 25 (जी) व (एच) के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन किया हो। अतः यह बिन्दु भी प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध निर्णीत किया जाता है।

बिन्दु संख्या 3 : अनुतोष :-विचारणीय बिन्दु संख्या 1 व 2 प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध निर्णीत किये गये है। प्रार्थी स्वंय को विपक्षी के अधीन नियोजित किया जाना तथा अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ), (जी) व (एच) के प्रावधानों के विपरीत सेवापृथक किये जाने का तथ्य भी प्रमाणित नहीं कर सका है। इसलिये प्रार्थी विपक्षी से कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है।

18. उपयुक्र्त निष्कर्ष के उपरान्त विपक्षी की और से प्रस्तुत निर्णय अकाउन्टस ऑफिसर (ए.एंडआई.) ए.पी.एस.आर. टी.सी. बनाम के.वी. रामाना, स्टेट ऑफ मध्य प्रदेश व अन्य बनाम अर्जुन लाल रजक तथा पंजाब वाटर सप्लाई एण्ड सीवरेज बोर्ड बनाम रणजोध सिंह व अन्य में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित यह अधिमत कि संविदा पर या आकस्मिक श्रमिक चाहे 240 दिन से अधिक लगातार सेवा कर चुके हाें, सेवा/चयन नियमों के विरूद्ध पुनः नियोजन एवं विनियमन के अधिकारी नहीं है, इस विवाद के सन्दर्भ में तथ्यात्मक भिन्नता के कारण सहायक नहीं हैं। क्योंकि, प्रार्थी विपक्षी के अधीन 240 दिन से अधिक सेवा पूर्ण किये जाने का तथ्य ही प्रमाणित नहीं कर सका है। इस प्रकार प्रार्थी को विपक्षी की सेवा में पुनः स्थापित करने या विनियमित करने का केाई अवसर ही उत्पन्न नहीं हुआ है। प्रार्थी विपक्षीगण से कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। विवाद का अधिनिर्णयन इसी प्रकार किया जाता है।

19. श्रम मन्त्रालय भारत सरकार द्वारा इस अधिकरण को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित रेफरेन्स का उत्तर उपर्युक्तानुसार दिया जाता है।

20. अधिनिर्णय की प्रतिलिपि केन्द्रीय सरकार को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 की धारा 17 (1) के अन्तर्गत प्रकाषनार्थ प्रेषित की जावे।

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी, पीठासीन अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 170.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स हैवी इंजीनियरिंग कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, धनबाद के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 53/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-26011/17/2015-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव531 [ II— 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 170.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2020.

[No. L-26011/17/2015-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Dr. S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 53 OF 2015

PARTIES: : Sri Lal Deo Singh , Vice President, Hatia Kamgar Union, CD-542/II, PO: Dhurwa, Distt: Ranchi, (Jharkhand).

Vs.

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Heavy Engineering Corporation, PO: Dhurwa, Dist Ranchi. Jharkhand. Order No. L-26011/17/2015-IR(M ) dt.13.07.2015

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union  :        None
On behalf of the Management     :        None

State : Jharkhand Industry : Energy Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th November 2019

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-26011/17/2015-IR (M) dt.13.07.2015.

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the Management of M/s HEC Ltd., Dhurwa, Ranchi by deducting 06

days salary, holding back one increment and non-giving promotion to Sri Lal Deo Singh, Jr.

Manager, HTI/HEC Ltd, Ranchi due to his involvement in Trade Union activities is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workman Sri Lal Deo Singh, Ex- Jr. Manager is entitled to?"

On receipt of the Order No. L-26011/17/2015-IR(M) dt.13.07.2015 as reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was registered as Reference case No. 53 of 2015 on 22.07.2015 before this Tribunal and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Post to the parties concerned directing them to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order notices by the Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.

2. The Instant case matter was finally heard on date 26.11.2019 with none appearance from either side. The case was fixed over the matter for the step of long awaited filing Written Statement of Claim, an onus resting on the part of the Sponsoring Union/petitioner, for years together since inception of the case in 22.07.2015. The workmen/petitioner side had absented himself during the entire hearings right from 22.09.2015532 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] to 26.11.2019, spread over more than four years despite having served notices dtt. 14.08.2015, 30.08.2019 and 05.11.2019 at the address of the workman mentioned over leaf of the Government of India Order of the Reference. In spite of the fact that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant on several dates ,the matters continued to be adjourned due to non-filing of claim by the Appellant. Contrary to it, the Written Statement of Claim from the party who has raised the dispute should have been filed within 15 days of the receipt of the order as stated in the Order of Reference from Government of India, which reads as follows :

"The Parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete with relent documents,

list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of

reference and also forward a copy of such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved

in this dispute under rule 10(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules,1957. ''

The case matter refers to the issues with regard to deducting 06 days salary, holding back one increment and non-giving promotion to Shri Lal Deo Singh, Jr. Manager by the Management of HEC, Ranchi due to workman's involvement in Trade Union activities, thereby seeking relief by challenging the alleged action raising the dispute in Reference.

3. It is pertinent to say that legal proceedings could not take place to determine the issue by the Tribunal before which it keeps pending without filing of Written Statement of Claim, the admission of the facts, although the case adjourned to various dates over filing of WS spanning over years together right from 27.11.2015, 05.02.2016, 08.04.2016, 01.06.2016, 21.07.2016, 20.09.2016, 16.11.16, 11.01.2017, 01.03.2017, 24.04.2017, 16.06.2017, 17.08.2017, 10.10.2017, 21.11.2017, 26.08.2017, 18.09.2019, 04.11.2019 and finally on 26.11.2019 the day the case stands reserved for award due to none appearance and non filing of Written Statement by the workman. Though the proceedings was uninterruptedly going on to provide full opportunity to the workman concerned for the end of the natural justice with formal notices also because without notice to the parties under Reference is just like nothing but a nullity. Though none for the Management appeared during the Trial so long the scope for Management starts the movement, when the workman files the Written Statement of claim, to counter it.

4. In the light of the facts and materials on record, it has been absolutely clear that the workman concerned/ petitioner during the trial spanning over the years never showed seriousness/willingness to proceed with the instant case since 27.11.2015, the date of inception. The total facts move to indicate that the workman is not at all interested to proceed with the case despite several opportunities provided by the Tribunal, even on this day i.e., on 26.11.2019. The case deserves to be disposed off for want of merits on the footing the Industrial Dispute ceases to exist. Under such circumstances the case is closed on presumption that no relief needs to be granted to the concerned workman by the Management Opposite Party and is awarded accordingly.

Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 171.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय

सरकार मैसर्स श्री सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अजमेर पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 2/2019) को

प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 17.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29011/20/2018-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 171.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/2019) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Shree Cement Limited and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17.01.2020.

[No. L-29011/20/2018-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

533 [ II— 3(ii)]

पीठासीन अधिकारी : श्री रमाकांत शर्मा, आर.एच.जे.एस

प्रकरण संख्या सीआईटीर 2/2019

सीआईएस नम्बर 9/2019

भारत सरकार का रेफरेंस नं. एल-29011/20/2018-आईआर(एम) दिनांक 10.01.2019

The President, Pali Jilla Cement Karamchari Sangh, Bangur Cement Ras, Post Ras, tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan) …प्रार्थी यूनियन

1. The General Manager (P & A), M/s. Shree Cement Ltd.

Ras Distric Pali (Rajasthan)-306302,

2. The Manager, M/s. Maa Bala Sati Engineering, 2 Krishna Colony,

Beawar, Rajasthan-305901

...अप्रार्थीगण

उपस्थिति

प्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से : कोई उपस्थित नहीं।

-ः अवार्ड :-

दिनांकः 02.12.2019

1. केन्द्र सरकार की ओर से इस न्यायालय के अधिनिर्णयार्थ निम्न रेफरेंस प्रेषित किया गया हैः-

'Whether the submission of Pali Jilla Cement Karamchari Sangh that the management of M/s. Maa Bala Sati Engineering & others terminated the Service of Shri Trilok Singh, Shri Laxman Singh, Shri Puran Singh and Shri Arjun singh w.e.f. 23-1-2018 is correct and legally justified? If yes, then what relief the concerned workers are entitled to and from which date?'

2. उक्त रेफरेंस इस न्यायालय को प्राप्त होने पर इसे दर्ज किया गया। प्रार्थी पक्ष को साधारण व रजिस्टर्ड डाक से नोटिस जारी किया गया। प्रार्थी पक्ष को रजि0 डाक से नोटिस तामील नहीं होकर जारी लिफाफा ''इस नाम से कोई नहीं मिला'' के नोट से लौटकर प्राप्त हुआ किन्तु दिनांक 8.4.2019 को श्री बाबूलाल शर्मा एडवोकेट ने उपस्थित होकर वकालतनामा पेश करने की अण्डरटेकिंग दी और उसके पश्चात दिनांक 1.5.2019 को श्री ललित सिंह राठौड एडवोकेट ने उपस्थित होकर अपनी वकालतनामा पेश करने की अण्डरटेकिंग प्रस्तुत की तथा उसके पश्चात तीन पेशियों तक उनके अधिवक्ता ने स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश करने के अवसर लिए और दिनांक 9.9.2019 के पश्चात निरंतर अनुपस्थित रहे है।

गत चार पेशियों से प्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से ना तो कोई उपस्थित आ रहा है और ना ही उनकी ओर से उपस्थित होकर स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम ही पेश किया गया है। ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि प्रार्थी पक्ष अपने प्रकरण के प्रति गंभीर नहीं है। ऐसे में प्रकरण में इस प्रकरण में ''कोई विवाद शेष नहीं'' अवार्ड पारित किया जाना उपयुक्त एवं न्यायसंगत है।

-ःआदेशः-

अतः उक्त विवेचनानुसार उक्त निर्देशित विवाद में कोई विवाद शेष नहीं अवार्ड (No Dispute Award) पारित किया जाता है।

रमाकांत शर्मा, न्यायाधीश534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020

का.आ. 172.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स न्यू अप्पन कै टरर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 06/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 04.02.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/10/2012-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2020

S.O. 172.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. New Appayan Caterers and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04.02.2020.

[No. L-17012/10/2012-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 06 of 2012

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. New Appayan Caterers, contractor of ESIC

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management : Mr. Suvodip Bhattacherjee, learned counsel

On behalf of the Workmen : None

State: West Bengal. Industry: ESIC.

AWARD

By Order No. L-17012/10/2012-IR(M) dated 20.03.2012 and addendum of even number dated 10.07.2012 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s New Appayan Caterers in dismissing the contract

worker Shri Gopal Das from canteen duty vide letter dated 18.05.2011 is legal and justified? What

relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman, Shri Gopal Das has stated in his statement of claim that he is a member of the union. He was employed by Ms. New Appayan Caterers as a canteen worker at Joka ESI Hospital in 2003. He always discharged his duties as a canteen worker to the satisfaction of the management, but on 18th May, 2011 he was forcibly denied entry into the canteen as well as in Joka ESI Hospital. M/s. New Appayan Caterers is a proprietary establishment of Shri Sandip Haldar who considered it as his personal fiefdom, violating various labour laws. He deprived the workers from their lawful benefits and also at the slightest opportunity he used offensive and abusive language against the workmen, even to the extent of slapping and beating them. Shri Gopal Das used to protest against such inhuman acts of Shri Sandip Haldar attracting Shri Haldar's wrath. On535 [ II— 3(ii)] 15th April, 2011 at about 12 in the noon Shri Gopal Das was returning from toilet when he was confronted by Shri Haldar with verbal abuse. Even after disclosing that he was absent from his duty post for about five minutes to attend nature's call, Shri Sandip Haldar became very furious and on protest he slapped and hit with fists and blows and with the help of his henchmen drove away Shri Gopal Das from the canteen as well as from the hospital premises. He was also not paid his salary. The union sometimes thereafter received two letters, one dated 18.04.2011 and the other dated 18th May, 2011 addressed to Shri Gopal Das with copy to the union. Letter dated 18.04.2011 appeared to be a letter of suspension while letter dated 18th May, 2011 was a termination letter of Shri Gopal Das. No chargesheet was ever issued to him, nor any domestic enquiry was initiated. Due to such illegal termination the workman concerned suffered irreparable loss and injuries to his livelihood.

3. In reply to the statement of claim of the workman concerned, M/s. New Appayan Caterers filed its written statement denying the allegations of the workman concerned and pleaded inter alia that the reference is not maintainable as the union has no authority to espouse the cause of the concerned workman. The concerned workman frequently misbehaved with the proprietor of the establishment and willfully neglected his duties causing damages to his proprietor. Number of times opportunity was extended to him to mend his conduct, but he failed to rectify himself. The workman always disliked personal supervision of the proprietor. Therefore, the concerned workman along with other co-workers started non-cooperation movement from various angles and initiated harassment with intention to damage the assignment of the proprietor and adopting tactics to delay supply of food to the patients. Time and again the proprietor requested the union officials, but no fruitful result came out. Thus, under compelling circumstances, the proprietor initiated disciplinary proceeding by issuing show cause notice, but the workman concerned with the aid of the union refused. On 15th April, 2011 the concerned workman was absent from duty and when he was asked by the proprietor on his return the reasons for his absence, he became violent and physically assaulted the proprietor. Finding no other alternative the proprietor issued one suspension order for a month but inspite of such suspension, the workman is regularly and forcefully entering canteen premises for his personal gain, apprehended major loss and injury to the proprietor and his property. Therefore, the proprietor finally terminated the service of the concerned workman on 18 th May, 2011. The concerned workman did not submit any reply in respect of any allegation mentioned in the suspension order where he was asked to explain within the stipulated period. Since the charges were not denied by giving any reply, it was taken on record that the workman concerned, in fact, admitted the charges by his conduct. In view of all these, there was no need to hold any formal enquiry for the purpose of proving the charges.

4. The workman concerned has also filed his rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim and has pleaded that the purported suspension and termination were manufactured and a cover up exercise. No chargesheet was ever issued to him nor any domestic enquiry was initiated. He was also not allowed to take any defence.

5. The workman concerned has filed his affidavit in evidence, but he did not turn up for cross- examination. On behalf of the management of New Appayan Caterers Shri Sandip Haldar has filed his affidavit, but as nobody was appearing for the workman or the union, his examination-in-chief remained uncontroverted.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for M/s. New Appayan Caterers, but argument of the union or the workman could not be heard as nobody appeared.

7. At the very outset the management has challenged the union's competency to espouse the cause of the workman concerned. However, this dispute relates to termination of the workman which is itself is an industrial dispute without espousal by the union. Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is clear in this regard which may be reproduced as below -

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 or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union or workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) ……………..

(3) ………………

Thus the reference cannot be said to be bad for the reasons contended by the management.

8. It is admitted case of the parties that Shri Gopal Das was an employee of M/s. New Appayan Caterers who was suspended and terminated for his misbehavior with the proprietor of M/s. New Appayan Caterers.

536 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Where the allegation of misbehavior and insubordination is made against any workman, it amounts to misconduct, therefore, departmental enquiry is essential. In the present case, though the workman did not adduce any evidence but admittedly no enquiry was ever held by the management. It is admitted case of the management that Shri Gopal Das did not reply the allegations made in the show cause notice or in the suspension order within the stipulated time. Therefore, non-reply of allegations amounted to admission of charges against him. This contention of the management appears to be unsustainable. Even if the workman does not reply to the show cause notice, it is necessary to issue chargesheet against him specifying the charges made against him in clear language. Where chargesheet itself was never given to him, how a workman can be presumed to have admitted his misconduct. Therefore, non-reply of the allegations incorporated in suspension order does not amount to admission of misconduct. It is possible, as it is set up in the written statement that the workman concerned did not cooperate for the enquiry, but issue of chargesheet and service of same on the workman concerned was obligatory. Thereafter the enquiry may proceed ex parte in case of non-cooperation, but necessity of initiating domestic enquiry by issuing chargesheet cannot be dispensed with in the given set of circumstances. Hence termination of the workman concerned cannot be sustained in eye of law.

9. At this stage question arises as to whether in such circumstances the employer is entitled to get an opportunity to issue chargesheet to the workman concerned and thereafter lead evidence before this Tribunal to establish the charges against the workman concerned? If yes, under what circumstances? This issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shankar Chakraborty v. Britania Biscuit Co. Ltd., AIR 1979 SC1652 : 1979-II-LLJ 194 SC wherein it has been held –

"Having given our most anxious consideration to the question raised before us, and minutely examining the decision in Cooper Engineering Ltd. case (supra) to ascertain the ratio as well as the question raised both on precedent and on principle, it is undeniable that there is no duty cast on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court while adjudicating upon a penal termination of service of workman either under S. 10 or under S. 33 to call upon the employer to adduce additional evidence to substantiate the charge of misconduct by giving some specific opportunity after decision on the preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry was at all held, or if held, was defective, in favour of the workman, Cooper Engineering Ltd. case (supra) merely specifies the stage at which such opportunity is to be given, if sought. It is both the right and obligation of the employer, if it so chooses, to adduce additional evidence to substantiate the charges of misconduct. It is for the employer to avail of such opportunity by a specific pleading or by specific request. If such an opportunity is sought in the course of the proceeding the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be, should grant the opportunity to lead additional evidence to substantiate the charges. But if no such opportunity is sought nor there is any pleading to that effect no duty is cast on the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal suo motu to call upon the employer to adduce additional evidence to substantiate the charges.

(Emphasis supplied)

10. Referring the principles laid down in Shankar Chakraborty case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.L.Singh v. Punjab National Bank, 2018 LAB I.C. 4321 observed –

"44. This Court while answering the aforesaid question held that it is for the employer to ask for

such opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct and once such prayer is made in

any form, i.e., orally or by application or in the pleading, the same cannot be denied to the employer. It

has to be granted to enable him to prove the misconduct. This Court further held that no duty is cast

upon the Court to offer such opportunity to the employer suo motu, if he does not ask for it. In other

words, he has to ask for from the Court by any of the three modes mentioned above."

11. In the instant case, the management of New Appayan Caterers has not made any prayer in any form, either oral or by moving an application or even in its written statement asking for opportunity to issue chargesheet and lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct against the workman concerned. Hence no question of affording any opportunity to M/s. New Appayan Caterers to issue chargesheet and to lead evidence arises. Consequently the termination order issued by the employer without conducting any enquiry against the workman concerned cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.

12. Where the termination order is quashed, the workman concerned is obviously entitled for reinstatement.

13. So far as back wages are concerned, no basis or formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In U.P. Brushware Corporation v Uday Narayan Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that payment of back wages is not automatic where the action of the management is set aside. It537 [ II— 3(ii)] should not be granted mechanically only because on technical ground or otherwise when an order of termination was found to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act.

14. Further in General Manager, Hariyana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591 it has been held that

"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 provisions of Section 25F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection andappointment viz. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely whether ad-hoc, short-term, daily wages, 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 rendered with the employer. If the workman had rendered a considerable period of service and his services were wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at his age and 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, award of back wages for complete period viz. from the date of termination till the date of award, which our experience shows is often quite large would be wholly inappropriate."

15. At the same time the workman is required to prove that he remained unemployed during the period in question. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Navartis Limited v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 124 has held that

"19. There can, however, be no doubt whatsoever that there has been a in the approach of this

Court with regard to payment of back wages. Back wages cannot be granted almost automatically

upon setting aside an order of termination inter alia on the premises that the burden to show that the

orkman was gainfully employed during interregnum period was on the employer. This Court in a

number of decisions opined that the grant of back wages is not automatic. Burden of proof that he

remained unemployed would be on the workman keeping in view the provisions of Section 106 of

Evidence Act, 1872."

15. Learned counsel for the workman relying on Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 has contended that it is for the employer to prove that the workman was not gainfully employed during interregnum period. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu case (supra) relying on Rudhan Singh and Uday Narayan Pandey case (supra) has held that payment of back wages either fully or partially depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further inRudhan Singh case (supra) the Hon'ble Court has held -

''Therefore, it is necessary for the employee to plead that he was not gainfully employed from the date

of his termination. While an employee cannot be asked to prove the negative, he has to at least assert

on oath that he was neither employed nor engaged in gainful business or fortune and that he did not

have any income, then the burden will shift to the employer."

16. Now coming to the facts of the instant case, the workman concerned has nowhere pleaded, nor stated on oath that he was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. Hence, there is no question of shifting of burden on the employer to prove that the workman concerned was gainfully employed and that of awarding back wages to him.

17. In view of above, it is established that the termination order passed by the employer against the workman concerned is illegal and the workmen is entitled for reinstatement in service, however, without any back wages.

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 22nd January, 2020

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

Cite this issue. Weekly Gazette of India, Government of India, 07 February 2020. Indian Gazettes, https://egazette.servantsofknowledge.in/details/in.gazette.central.w.2020-02-07.216302/. Archive identifier in.gazette.central.w.2020-02-07.216302.