498 GI/2020
(319)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2004—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
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)
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds
vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e
dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e
vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1479 fnukad 06 vxLr] 2019 tks Hkkjr
ds lkIrkfgd jkti= 11&17 vxLr] 2019 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa e/; izns'k jkT; esa chuk laLFkkiu ls iudh ¼dkuiqj½ mRrj izns'k rd
isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, chuk& iudh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls Hkkjr
isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh(
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks fnukad 12 vDVwcj] 2019 rd miyC/k djk nh
xbZ Fkha(
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-21022020-216302
CG-DL-W-21022020-216302
320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd
mDr Hkwfe ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy;s visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk
fofuf'p; fd;k gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu
fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh
fnukad ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds
fy, Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mRRkjnk;h gksxk vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr
fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ okn] nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks
ldsxhA
अनुसूची
तहसील- मऊरानीपुर
जिला- झााँसी
राज् य– उत् तर ्रदेश
गॉव का नाम
सवे न./गाटा न.
क्षशत्रफल
हैक्टशयर
एयर
वगगमीटर
(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
[
II—
3(ii)]
321
(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
ेशवरी ससंहपुरा
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
322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
323
(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
324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
325
(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
326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
327
(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
328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
329
(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
330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
331
(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
332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
स्ट्यावरी
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
333
(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
334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
जचमेवारा
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
335
(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
336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
रशवन
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
337
(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
338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
339
(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
कक ोरपुरा
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
340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
बशरवई
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
[फा. सं. आर-11025/(15)3/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29921]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
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;
[
II—
3(ii)]
341
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 : Mau Ranipur District: Jhansi State:Uttar Pradesh
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
342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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
[
II—
3(ii)]
343
(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
344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
345
(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
346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
347
(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
348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
Chimadwara
680
00
01
73
681
00
00
14
682
00
10
90
685
00
00
30
683
00
10
31
[
II—
3(ii)]
349
(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
350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
351
(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
352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
—dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj
dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½
dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh x;h] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj çk—frd xSl
esa ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1472 fnukad 6 vxLr 2019 tks Hkkjr ds lkIrkfgd jkti=
11&17 vxLr 2019 esa çdkf'kr dh x;h Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V
Hkwfe esa e/; izns'k jkT; esa chuk laLFkkiu ls iudh ¼dkuiqj½ mÙkj çns'k rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds
ifjogu ds fy, chuk&iudh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM
}kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh
?kks"k.kk dh Fkh;
vkSj mä jkt i= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks fnukad 16 flracj 2019 rd miyC/k
djk nh x;h Fkh(
vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsaæh;
ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gSa(
vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij
dh mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mles mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk
fofuf'ap; fd;k gS(
vr% vc] dsUnh; ljdkj esa mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk 1 }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;kas
dk ç;ksx djrs gq, ;k ?kks"k.kk djrh gS dh bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx
djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku dh fnukad
ls dsaæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj Hkkjr isVªksy dkiksZjs'ku
fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
[
II—
3(ii)]
353
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh NfriwfrZ
ds fy, Hkkjr isVªksy dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxk vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcaf/kr fdlh
Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn] nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
अनुसूची
तहसील – टहरौली
जिला-झांसी
राज् य- उत्तर ्रदेश
गॉव का नाम
सवे नं.\गाटा नं.
क्षशत्रफल
हैक्टशयर
एयर
वगगमीटर
egsck
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
354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
127
00
00
58
96
00
00
50
133
00
02
38
egsck
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
nqxkjk
1008
00
00
70
995
00
26
99
997
00
56
95
998
00
09
78
973
00
00
49
[
II—
3(ii)]
355
956
00
05
77
955
00
10
00
nqxkjk
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
i.Mokgk
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
356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
899
00
01
82
921
00
19
86
Total
02
84
87
fNjkSjk cqtqxZ
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
tkSfu;ka
121
00
00
76
115
00
32
00
116
00
17
07
119
00
21
79
Total
00
71
62
x<+k
349
00
47
11
350
00
00
60
353
00
13
43
354
00
12
32
357
00
30
30
[
II—
3(ii)]
357
x<+k
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
358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
x<+k
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
rqdZ ygpqjk
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
359
rqdZ ygpqjk
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
fcBkSjk
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. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
361
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
362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
899
00
01
82
Chhiraura Buzurg
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
363
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
364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds
vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e
dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e
vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1470 fnukad 06 vxLr] 2019 tks Hkkjr
ds lkIrkfgd jkti= 11&17 vxLr] 2019 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa e/;izns'k jkT; esa chuk laLFkkiu ls iudh ¼dkuiqj½ mRrj izns'k rd
isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, chuk& iudh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls Hkkjr
isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh(
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks fnukad 12 vDVwcj] 2019 rd miyC/k djk nh
xbZ Fkh(
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd
mDr Hkwfe ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy;s visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk
fofuf'p; fd;k gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu
fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
[
II—
3(ii)]
365
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh
fnukad ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds
fy, Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mRRkjnk;h gksxk vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr
fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ okn] nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks
ldsxhA
अनुसूची
तहसील- महरौनी
जिला- लजलतपुर
राज् य– उत् तर ्रदेश
गॉव का नाम
सवे नं./गाटा न.
क्षशत्रफल
हैक्टशयर
एयर
वगगमीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
बारशयों
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
366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
367
(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
368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
25
00
04
87
605
00
03
31
606
00
22
99
Total
02
49
37
ेरौनी
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
369
(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
370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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 जगरन्ट
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
371
(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
372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
अिनौरा
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
373
(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
374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
कुआगॉव
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
375
(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
376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
377
(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
378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
379
(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
ेौलतपुरा
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
380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
381
(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
382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
383
(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
384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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 खशडा
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
385
(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. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
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
386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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
[
II—
3(ii)]
387
(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
388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
389
(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
390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
391
(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
392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
393
(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
394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
395
(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
396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
397
(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
398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
399
(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
400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
401
(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.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
—dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu tkjh dh x;h] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj çk—frd xSl esa ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1474
fnukad 6 vxLr 2019 tks Hkkjr ds lkIrkfgd jkti= 11&17 vxLr 2019 esa çdkf'kr dh x;h Fkh }kjk ml
vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa e/; izns'k jkT; esa chuk laLFkkiu ls iudh ¼dkuiqj½ mÙkj çns'k
rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, chuk&iudh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls Hkkjr isVªksfy;e
dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh
?kks"k.kk dh Fkh(
vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks fnukad 16 flracj 2019 rd miyC/k djk nh x;h Fkha(
vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsaæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh
gS(
vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu
fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mles mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS(
vr% vc] dsUnh; ljdkj esa mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk 1 }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ks dk ç;ksx djrs gq, ;k
?kks"k.kk djrh gS dh bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds
vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k
nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku dh fnukad ls dsaæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh
ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj Hkkjr isVªksy dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh NfriwfrZ ds fy, Hkkjr isVªksy
dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxk vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcaf/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
fo#) dksbZ okn] nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
गॉव का नाम
सवे नं./ गाटा नं.
क्षशत्रफल
हैक्टशयर
एयर
वगगमीटर
jkukiqjk
356
00
01
11
395
00
18
50
402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
jkukiqjk
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
fctkSjk
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
403
fctkSjk
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
VksMh
71
00
00
54
73
00
13
92
74
00
16
50
404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
VksMh
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
floksZ
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
405
floksZ
23/519
00
00
54
03
00
00
75
02
00
00
76
01
00
00
70
Total
04
23
60
pkSdjh
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
406 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
pkSdjh
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
clk
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
407
clk
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
fcjkjh
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
408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fcjkjh
224
00
00
48
225
00
22
00
206
00
00
60
117
00
00
57
Total
02
68
50
eMkasjh
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
409
vLrk
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
410 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vLrk
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
411
vLrk
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
lqV~Vk
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
412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
lqV~Vk
1969
00
05
07
1968
00
31
71
Total
01
56
08
flaxkj
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
413
flaxkj
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
n[kus'oj
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
414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
n[kus'oj
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
dqjSBk
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
MwaMh
130
00
59
80
129
00
01
69
115
00
48
34
[
II—
3(ii)]
415
MwaMh
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
dqMjh
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
416 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dqMjh
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
417
dqMjh
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
418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dqMjh
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
[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/3/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29921]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
419
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
420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
421
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
422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
423
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
424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
425
Sutta
1971
00
35
26
1969
00
05
07
1968
00
31
71
Total
01
56
08
Singar
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
426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
427
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
428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk
[
II—
3(ii)]
429
la[;k dk-vk- 1478 fnukad 06 vxLr] 2019 tks Hkkjr ds lkIrkfgd jkti= 11&17 vxLr] 2019 esa izdkf'kr
dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa e/; izns'k jkT; esa chuk laLFkkiu ls iudh
¼dkuiqj½ mRrj izns'k rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, chuk& iudh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls
Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds
vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh(
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks fnukad 12 vDVwcj] 2019 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh(
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns
nh gS(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy;s visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofuf'p; fd;k gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g
?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds
vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh fnukad ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh
ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, Hkkjr
isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mRRkjnk;h gksxk vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh;
ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ okn] nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
अनुसूची
तहसील- लजलतपुर
जिला- लजलतपुर
राज् य– उत् तर ्रदेश
गॉव का नाम
सवे न./गाटा न.
क्षशत्रफल
हैक्टशयर
एयर
वगगमीटर
(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
खिुररया
176
00
17
08
430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
जिल्ला
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
431
(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
बिराग
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
432 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
भडरऊ
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
[फा. सं. आर-11025/15/3/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29921]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
[
II—
3(ii)]
433
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
434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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
[
II—
3(ii)]
435
(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.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2020
—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh
mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk
la[;k dk-vk- 1475 fnukad 06 vxLr] 2019 tks Hkkjr ds lkIrkfgd jkti= 11&17 vxLr] 2019 esa izdkf'kr
dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa e/; izns'k jkT; esa chuk laLFkkiu ls iudh
¼dkuiqj½ mRrj izns'k rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, chuk& iudh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls
Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds
vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh(
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks fnukad 22 vDVwcj] 2019 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh(
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns
nh gS(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy;s visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofuf'p; fd;k gS(
436 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g
?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds
vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh fnukad ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh
ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, Hkkjr
isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mRRkjnk;h gksxk vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh;
ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ okn] nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
अनुसूची
तहसील- पाली
जिला- लजलतपुर
राज् य– उत् तर ्रदेश
गॉव का नाम
सवे न./गाटा न.
क्षशत्रफल
हैक्टशयर
एयर
वगगमीटर
(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
जगल्टोरा
2
00
96
10
1
00
01
04
18
00
31
61
19
00
01
07
Total
01
29
82
सशमरा
148
00
00
63
153
00
15
95
[
II—
3(ii)]
437
(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
बालाबशहट
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
438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
439
(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
बरखशडा
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 ससंेवाहा
161
00
90
40
Total
00
90
40
डोरना
427
00
01
83
424
00
04
00
440 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
उमररया 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
[
II—
3(ii)]
441
(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
बशटना
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
442 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
जपपररया 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
[
II—
3(ii)]
443
(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
444 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
ससंगैपुर
57
00
00
43
55
00
23
86
56
00
07
83
54
00
12
23
49
00
31
25
42
00
13
90
[
II—
3(ii)]
445
(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. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
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
446 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(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
[
II—
3(ii)]
447
(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
448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
449
(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
450 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
[
II—
3(ii)]
451
(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.
जवद्युत मंत्रालय
नई केल्ली, 30 िनवरी, 2020
का.आ. 134.—केंद्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ कश ासकीय ्रदयोिनों कश जलए ्रदयोग) जनयम, 1976 कश
जनयम 10 कश उप जनयम (4) कश अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्रालय कश ्रद ासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन पावरजिड कारपोरश न ऑफ
इंजडया जलजमटशड कश अंतगगत पूवी क्षशत्र पारशषण ्रदणाली-1 कश 765/400 कश.वी. उप केंद्र, गांव व पोस्ट् ट गडगांव, थाना-
ईटकी, जिला रांची तथा गया उप केंद्र, गांव बारा, ्रदखंड-बोधगया, जिला गया, जिनकश 80 ्रदजत त कमगचारीव ंे नश
सहंेी का कायगसाधक ज्ञान ्रदाप्त कर जलया है, को एतेद्वारा अजधसूजचत करती है।
[सं. 11011/9/2017-सहंेी]
राि पाल, आर्थगक 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
पयगटन मंत्रालय
नई केल्ली, 3 िनवरी, 2020
का.आ. 135.—सरकारी स्ट् थान (अ्रदाजधक त अजधभोजगयों की बशेखली) अजधजनयम 1971 (1971 का 40)
की धारा 3 द्वारा ्रदेत्त जियों का ्रदयोग करतश हुए और पयगटन मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अजधसूचना, भारत कश
रािपत्र केनांक 22 अिूबर, 2011 में ्रदकाज त केनांक 11 अिूबर, 2011 का.आ. संख्या 2950; भारत कश रािपत्र
452 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
केनांक 5 केसंबर, 2009 में ्रदकाज त केनांक 24 नवंबर, 2009 का.आ. संख्या 3259; भारत कश रािपत्र केनांक 17
िनवरी, 2009 में ्रदकाज त केनांक 2 िनवरी, 2009 का.आ. संख्या 87 का अजधक्रमण करतश हुए और ऐसश
अजधक्रमण सश पूवग, ककए गए अथवा ककए िानश वालश कायों सश चूकनश सश संबंजधत को िोडकर, भारत सरकार एतद्वारा
नीचश ेी गई ताजलका कश कॉलम (1) में उजल्लजखत अजधकारी को इस अजधजनयम कश ्रदयोिनों कश जलए सम् पेा
अजधकारी होनश कश जलए सरकार कश रािपजत्रत अजधकारी कश पे कश समतुल् य होनश कश कारण अजधकारी जनयुक् त करती है
और उि ताजलका कश कॉलम (2) में तेनुरूपी ्रदजवजि में यथा जनर्ेगि, सरकारी स्ट् थानों की स्ट् थानीय सीमा क को भी
पररभाजषत करती है, जिसकश संबंध में उि सम् पेा अजधकारी, सम् पेा अजधकारी द्वारा अथवा उक् त अजधजनयम कश
अंतगगत ्रदेत्त जियों का ्रदयोग करशगा, और अजधरोजपत कतगव्यों का जनष् पाेन करशगा।
ताजलका
अजधकारी का पेनाम
(1)
सरकारी स्ट् थान की श्रशजणयां और अजधकार क्षशत्र की स्ट्थानीय
सीमाएं।
(2)
उपाध्यक्ष, मैससग भारत पयगटन जवकास जनगम
जलजमटशड, मुख्यालय, स्ट्कोप कॉम््लशक्स, कोर 8, 7
लोेी रोड, नई केल्ली – 110003
केल्ली, मध्य ्रदेश , उत्तर ्रदेश , ओजड ा और केंद्र
ाजसत ्रदेश िम्मू एवं कश्मीर में जस्ट्थत मैससग भारत पयगटन
जवकास जनगम जलजमटशड की अथवा उसकश द्वारा पट्टश पर जलए गए
सभी स्ट् थान या पररसंपजत्तयां।
[फा. सं. ई.ओ.एन.पी.एस.यू.-6/15/2018-पी.एस.यू.]
मीनाक्षी मशहता, उप महाजनेश क (सावगिजनक क्षशत्र 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.
[
II—
3(ii)]
453
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)
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 07@2005½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@117@2004-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 26.12.2019
454 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
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2005½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@153@2004-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 30.12.2019
[
II—
3(ii)]
455
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
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ VkVk LVhy fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
20@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@38@2011-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 30.12.2019
456 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 date
[
II—
3(ii)]
457
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-
[
II—
3(ii)]
459
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
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼14 dk 1947½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2005½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@191@2004-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
[
II—
3(ii)]
461
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 Officer
462 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ fVLdks fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
138@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@510@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
[
II—
3(ii)]
463
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ bLdks fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
151@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@511@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
464 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 202@2000½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@17@1997-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
[
II—
3(ii)]
465
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 206@2000½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@20@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
466 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 212@2000½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@07@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
[
II—
3(ii)]
467
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 331@2000½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@306@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
468 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
iatkc ,oa flU/k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 90@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@49@2015-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II)]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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.
[
II—
3(ii)]
469
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
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
;wfu;u cSad vkQ bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 4@2015½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12011@85@2014-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II)]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 dated
470 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?
[
II—
3(ii)]
471
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
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
cSad vkQ bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 23@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@213@2004-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II)]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
472 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
Mrs. Yasmeen Fathima,
No. 111, 1st Floor,
Ranka Garden Apartments,
4th Cross, 2nd Main,
Wilson Garden,
Bangalore - 560 027.
The Zonal Manager,
Bank of India,
Karnataka Zone,
No. 11, K.G. Road,
Bangalore - 560 009.
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.
[
II—
3(ii)]
473
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 amount
474 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 to
[
II—
3(ii)]
475
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 offence
[
II—
3(ii)]
477
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
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2020
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
cSad vkQ bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 3@1998½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-12012@225@1997-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II)]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
…Workman
478 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 the
[
II—
3(ii)]
479
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 Khubuk
480 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
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2017] 11@2017] 12@2017 & 13@2017½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
30-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@85@2016-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
la- ,y-22012@77@2016-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
la- ,y-22012@69@2016-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
la- ,y-22012@76@2016-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
[
II—
3(ii)]
481
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
…Workman
482 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.
[
II—
3(ii)]
483
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
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ MCY;w- lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
24@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@93@2014-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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.)
…Management
484 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.
[
II—
3(ii)]
485
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.”
[
II—
3(ii)]
487
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
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 30@2012½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@174@2011-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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 Officer
488 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 service
[
II—
3(ii)]
489
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
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40/2015½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@13@2014-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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.
[
II—
3(ii)]
491
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:3.1.2020
492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2020
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@2011½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-01-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@28@2011-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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: 10.1.2020
[
II—
3(ii)]
493
नई केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 155.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग भारतीय िीवन बीमा जनगम कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर कश पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 66/2013) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.02.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-17012/6/2013-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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 served
494 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.]
[
II—
3(ii)]
495
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: 31.12.2019
[
II—
3(ii)]
497
नई केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 156.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग अमर जसक् यूररटी सर्वगस कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ेगि
औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 14/2015) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.02.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29011/28/2014-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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 compensation
498 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,
[
II—
3(ii)]
499
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: 15.1.2020
[
II—
3(ii)]
501
नई केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 157.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग टाटा आयरन एण् ड स्ट् टील कं. जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनश् वर पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 08/2001) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/102/1994-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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.30.7.1993
502 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?
[
II—
3(ii)]
503
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 facts
504 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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 158.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग नारायणी संस ्रदाइवशट जलजमटशड एवं अन् य कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनश् वर पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 66/2017) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. िशड-16025/4/2020-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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 workman
[
II—
3(ii)]
505
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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 159.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग जहन् ेुस्ट् तान पशरोजलयम कारपोरश न जलजमटशड एवं अन् य कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश
कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
भुवनश् वर पंचाट (संेभग संख्या 31/2009) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ
था।
[सं. एल-30012/7/2009-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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 work
[
II—
3(ii)]
507
entrusted to him under the agreement executed towards the work order. It is his specific stand that the 2nd
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 Kumar
508 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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 160.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग मैसूर जमनरल् स जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 17/2006) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/37/2005-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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
Sh. Shivannagowda,
S/o Late Beluragowda,
President of Siddapura,
Kiotanakeri Post,
Hassan Taluk Distt.
Hassan - 573 162.
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
[
II—
3(ii)]
509
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 to
510 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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 161.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग मैसूर जमनरल् स जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 33/2007) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/36/2006-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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.
[
II—
3(ii)]
511
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.
Sh. S. Rangaswamy,
S/o Late. Sh. N. Siddegowda,
Kalle Somanahalli Village,
Oblapura Post, Bagur Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan Distt. - 573 111.
(Karnataka)
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
BANGALORE – 560001.
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 by
512 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 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 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.
[
II—
3(ii)]
513
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 2nd
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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 162.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग मैसूर जमनरल् स जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 44/2007) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/55/2006-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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,
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.
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
NO. 39, M.G. Road,
BANGALORE – 560001.
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 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
[
II—
3(ii)]
515
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 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 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.
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 10 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 2nd Party has
to be reminded that an aggrieved workman cannot be non-suited from the reliefs available under the Welfare
Legislature of ‘the Act’ 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. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to
Smt. Gowramma wife of deceased workman Sh. Mahalingegowda.
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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 163.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग मैसूर जमनरल् स जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 106/2007) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/44/2006-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
[
II—
3(ii)]
517
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
Sh. K.R. Shivanna,
S/o Late Raangaiah,
Kembalu Village & Post,
Bagur Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan Distt.
(Karnataka)
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
NO. 39, M.G. Road,
Bangalore – 560001.
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 the
518 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 2nd
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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 164.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग मैसूर जमनरल् स जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 108/2007) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/49/2006-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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
Sh. K.N. Nanjundegowda,
S/o Ninge Gowda,
Kembal Village & Post,
Bagur Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan Distt. - 573 111
(Karnataka)
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
NO. 39, M.G. Road,
BANGALORE – 560001.
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. K.T. Govinde Gowda
Advocate for II Party : Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy
[
II—
3(ii)]
519
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 Officer
520 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 165.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग मैसूर जमनरल् स जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट (संेभग संख्या
160/2007) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/51/2007-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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
Sh. H. N Siddaraju,
S/o Late Nanjegowda,
Hullekere Village & Post,
Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan Distt. - 573 119.
(Karnataka)
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
No. 39, M.G. Road,
BANGALORE – 560001.
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 for
[
II—
3(ii)]
521
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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 166.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग मैसूर जमनरल् स जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट (संेभग संख्या
30/2008) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/7/2008-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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
Sh. P. Kumar,
S/o Sh. Putta Bhovi,
Kurubara Road,
Shantigrama Village & Post Hobli,
Hassan Taluk & Distt - 573 220.
(Karnataka)
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
NO. 39, M.G. Road,
BANGALORE – 560001.
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 2nd 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 had
[
II—
3(ii)]
523
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 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 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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 167.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग मैसूर जमनरल् स जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर पंचाट (संेभग संख्या
31/2008) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 28.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/31/2008-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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
Sh. Manjegowda,
S/o Late Sh. Doddegowda,
Bageshpura Village & Post,
Gandasi Hobli,
Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan District - 573 119
(KARNATAKA)
The Managing Director,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
NO. 39, M.G. Road,
BANGALORE – 560001.
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 Officer
[
II—
3(ii)]
525
नई केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 168.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग एयरपोटग अथॉररटी ऑफ इजण्डया कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध
में जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुम् बई पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 88/2009) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 17.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-11012/2/2009-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 169.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग जहन् ेुस्ट् तान पशरोजलयम कापेरश न जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ियपुर पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 48/2017) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-30012/4/2002-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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.
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-
izdj.k la- 48 /2017
L-30012/4/2002–IR(M)
12/12/2017
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] x.kir yky eh.kk iq= Jh jkeukjk;.k
fuoklh tqusoky dh <+k.kh]
lhrkiqjk jsyos ØkWflax ds ikl]
lkxkausj] ftyk & t;iqjA
cuke
1-
fMiks eSustj]
fgUnqLrku iSVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fy-]
lhrkiqjk] lkaxkusj] t;iqjA
2-
izcU/kd] fgUnqLrku iSVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fy-]
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] rsy Hkou]
lgdkj ekxZ] T;ksfr uxj]
t;iqjA
[
II—
3(ii)]
527
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh jktsUnz oS'; & vfHkHkk"kd
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh Mh-,u- 'kekZ] & vfHkHkk"kd
fnukad % 27.12.2019
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 12-12-2017 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh
/kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼d½ o ¼2A½ ¼ftls vkxkeh pj.kksa esa vf/kfu;e dgk tk;sxk½ ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa
fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fd;k x;k %&
**D;k Jh x.kir yky eh.kk iq= Jh jke ukjk;.k eh.kk dh lsok lekfIr fnukad 01-03-2001 ls izca/ku }kjk
fd;s tkuk U;k;laxr ,oa oS/k gS\ vxj ugha rks deZdkj fdl ykHk dk gdnkj gS vkSj fdl frfFk ls \**
2-
mi;ZqDr lanfHkZr fookn bl vf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks nkos dk
vfHkdFku izLrqr djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;kA
3-
fnukad 29-12-2017 dks izkFkhZ us nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k ftlds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gSaA izkFkhZ us
foi{kh ds v/khu fnukad 5-7-97 ls 1-3-2001 rd 3 o"kZ 8 ekg dk;Z fd;kA foi{khx.k us ekSf[kd :i ls vf/kfu;e ds
izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, mls ukSdjh ls gVk fn;kA izkFkhZ us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh t;iqj ds le{k fnukad
16-5-2001 dks okn izLrqr fd;k] fdUrq dsUnz ljdkj us vius vkns'k fnukad 11-6-2002 }kjk izkFkhZ ds fookn dks
U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr ugha fd;kA rRi'pkr ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnuakd 24-10-2017
ds vuqikyu esa 12-12-2017 dks ;g fookn vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks 5-7-97 dks foi{kh la[;k 1 us
HkrhZ izfdz;k viukrs gq, fu;qfDr nh FkhA izkFkhZ dks ekg vxLr 98 ls mlds dk;Z ds vfrfjDr MªkbZoj dk dk;Z Hkh
fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ ykbZlsUl /kkjd pkyd gSA izkFkhZ ls 10&12 ?k.Vs MªkbZoj dk dk;Z fcuk fdlh lkIrkfgd vodk'k
ds fy;k tk jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks fuf'pr osru 2300 :i;s feyrk FkkA izkFkhZ dks osru dHkh okmpj }kjk] dHkh udn
rks dHkh fMek.M Mªk¶V }kjk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks 2500 :i;s dk Hkqxrku ,dckj xkMh lQkbZ ds uke ij
fd;k x;kA fnukad 1-3-2001 dks izkFkhZ dks foi{kh us dk;Z ij ysus ls euk dj fn;kA izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij ,d vU;
MªkbZoj dks j[k fy;k x;kA fnukad 1-3-2001 dks lsoklekIr djus ij izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh
eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr dks okgu ij fu;ksftr dj fy;k x;kA bl izdkj foi{kh us
vf/kfu;e dh 25 ¼,Q½] ¼th½] ¼,p½ rFkk fu;e 77 o 78 ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA vr% lsoklekfIr fnukad
1-3-2001 dks vikLr djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fujUrjrk ,oa leLr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;k tkosaA
4-
foi{khx.k us fn- 27-8-19 dks oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq, nkos ds dFkuksa dks vLohdkj fd;kA mudk dFku gS
fd izkFkhZ dks vxLr 98 ls tuojh 1999 rd vko';drkuq:i MªkbZoj in ij eSllZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-,u- uked Bsdsnkj
}kjk fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mlh ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks osru Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds e/;
deZdkj vkSj fu;kstd ds lEcU/k ugha gS blfy;s foi{kh ds ikl izkFkhZ dks osru Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vfHkys[k
Hkh vfLrRo esa ugha gSA foi{khx.k ds vkf/kiR; esa izkFkhZ }kjk okfUNr izys[k ugha gSA foi{khx.k dk Bsdsnkj ij dksbZ
iz'kklfud ,oa vuq'kklfud fu;U=.k ugha gSA foi{khx.k dh fu;kstu gsrq fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k gSA izkFkhZ dks fdlh izdkj
foi{khx.k }kjk fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;kA foi{khx.k us ;nk dnk vko';drk gksus ij ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-,u- dEiuh ds
deZpkjh ¼izkFkhZ½ ls muds okgu dks pyokus dk dk;Z fd;k ftldk Hkqxrku jlhn ds ek/;e ls fd;k x;kA bl
izdkj Hkqxrku ds gks tkus ls izkFkhZ foi{khx.k dk deZpkjh gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA foi{khx.k us vf/kfu;e ds
fdlh izko/kku dk dksbZ mYYak?ku ugaha fd;k gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosaA
5-
rRi'pkr izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Loa; izkFkhZ x.kir yky eh.kk dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izys[kh; lk{; esa
izn'kZ&,e 1 ls 5 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;k rFkk fnukad 25-9-2019 dks Loa; ds leFkZu esa izn’kZ&MCY;w 6 ls
izn’kZ&MCY;w 12 rd vfrfjDr izys[k Hkh izLrqr fd;sA
6-
foi{khx.k us viuh lk{; esa Jh gjlgk; pkUnksfy;k eq[; izcU/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj dksbZ izys[k Loa;
dh vkSj ls u iznf'kZr djrs gq,] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izys[kksa dks gh lk{; esa iznf'kZr fd;kA
7-
fnukad 27-11-2019 dks eSaus mHk;i{k ds ijLij fojks/kh rdkZsa ij lk{; ,oa izLrqr fd;s x;s U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa
ds izdk'k esa euu fd;kA
8-
izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k dk ;g rdZ gS fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 24-10-2017 dks ,l-ch-
flfoy fjV fifV'ku la[;k 4442@2002 esa ikfjr vkns'k esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd foi{khx.k us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh
ds le{k izLrqr mRrj esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ mudh dEiuh dh thi ij pkyd ds :i esa dk;Zjr FkkA
dfFkr Bsdsnkj dEiuh eSllZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-,u- dk foi{kh dk Bsdsnkj gksuk fdlh lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gSA izkFkhZ us
vius 'kiFkiwoZd dFku esa dgk gS fd fnukad 5-7-1997 ls 01-03-2001 rd& 3 o"kZ 8 ekg rd mlus dk;Z fd;kA
fQj mls ekSf[kd :i ls ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k x;kA blfy;s izkFkhZ us bl vof/k esa fd;s x;s osru Hkqxrku] eSllZ
,Q-vkbZ-vkj-,u- uked Bsdsnkj dEiuh ls fd;k x;k vuqcU/k vkSj mifLFkfr lEcU/kh nLrkost izLrqr djokus dk
fuosnu vf/kdj.k ls fd;k Fkk] ysfdu foi{khx.k }kjk bu izys[kksa dks tkucw>dj izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA blfy;s
528 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
foi{khx.k ds fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk dh tkuh pfg;s vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk lk{; esa fd;k x;k dFku izekf.kr eku fy;k
tkuk pkfg;sA foi{kh lk{kh gjlgk; pkUnksfy;k dk 'kiFk&i= oLrqr% Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gh ugha gS] D;ksafd bl
lk{kh us dgk gS fd mlus tks Hkh dFku fd;s gS os ckn i=koyh esa miyC/k vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij fd;s x;s gSA
tcfd foi{khx.k us rks dksbZ vfHkys[k@izys[k izLrqr gh ugha fd;sA mUgksusa vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukafdr
U;kf;d n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s%&
¼1½ 2005 ¼4½ ,l-lh-Vh- ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 695 vkj-,e-;sYykVh cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j
¼2½ 2010 ¼1½ ,l-lh-Vh- ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 820 Mk;jsDVj fQ'kjht VfeZuy fMohtu cuke Hkh[kqHkkbZ es?kkth
HkkbZ pkoM+k
9-
foi{khx.k ds izfrfuf/k us izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k ds rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ Loa; us vius
lk{; esa tks izys[k izLrqr fd;s gSa] muls gh ;g rF; izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dh vko';drk gksus ij okgu pkyu
rFkk Mhth lsV vkSj iEi gkml dh ns[kHkky vkfn ds dk;Z gsrq ;nkdnk dk;Z ysdj ikfjJfed dk Hkqxrku fd;k
x;k gSa] tSlk fd izn'kZ 4 ,] 4 ch ds voyksdu ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k
gS fd izn'kZ 4 , vkSj 4 ch okmpj mlus Loa; is'k fd;s gSa vkSj buesa fd;s x;s Hkqxrku mls Lohdkj gSA bu izys[kksa
ds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ ds ikl osru Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dh dksbZ jlhn ugha gSA blfy;s] ;nkdnk vko';drk gksus ij
izkFkhZ ls fy;s x;s dk;Z dh etnwjh Lo:i izkFkhZ dks ;fn foi{khx.k }kjk Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gS rks ek= bl
vk/kkj ij og foi{kh dk deZpkjh ugha cu tkrk gSA izn’kZ&3 foiqy xka/kh uked Bsdsnkj ds deZpkjh dk i= gS ftls
izkFkhZ Lo;¡ us gh izLrqr fd;k gSA bl i= esa izkFkhZ dk eSllZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-,u- uked QeZ esa dk;Zjr gksuk mYysf[kr
gSA blh izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fdls x;s vU; izys[k Hkh ;g izekf.kr ugha djrs gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{khx.k }kjk
fu;ksftr fd;k x;k gksA blfy;s izkFkhZ foi{khx.k dh lsok esa fujUrjrk vkSj osru ifjykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh
gh ugha gSA mldh lsok dks fdlh izdkj fofu;fer ugha fd;k tk ldrkA mUgksusa vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukafdr
fof/kd n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s gSa %&
¼1½ 2007 ,y-,y-vkj- 338 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ vdkmUVl vkWfQlj ,-,UM-vkbZ@,-ih-vkj-Vh- lh-cuke ds-oh-
jkekuk
¼2½ 2006 ,y-,y-vkj- 381 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ LVsV vkWQ e/; izns'k o vU; cuke vtqZu yky jtd
¼3½ 2007 ,y-,y-vkj- 561 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ iatkc okVj lIykbZ ,.M lhojst cksMZ cuke j.ktks/k flag o
vU;
¼4½ ¼2002½ 10 lqizhe dksVZ dslst vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j dukZVd cuke f'kofyaxk
10- bl izdj.k esa fuEufyf[kr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq,s gS%&
fcUnq la[;k 1 %& D;k izkFkhZ mldh lsoklekfIr frfFk 1-3-2001 ls iwoZorhZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa foi{kh ds
v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Zjr jgk rFkk foi{khx.k us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ dk vuqikyu fd;s fcuk izkFkhZ
dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k \
fcUnq la[;k 2 %& D;k foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dks lsok ls eqDr djus ds ckn izkFkhZ ls dfu"B vU; O;fDr dks mlh
okgu ij MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qDr dj fy;k\
fcUnq la[;k 3 %& vuqrks"k \
fcUnq la[;k 1 %& bl fcUnq ds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dk loZizFke rdZ ;g gS fd fnukad 24-10-2017 dks ekuuh;
jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ,l-ch-lh-MCY;q-ih- la[;k 4442@2002 x.kir yky cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU;
esa tks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS mlesa foi{kh }kjk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;s x;s izfrmRrj dk mYys[k
djrs gq, ;g fy[kk x;k gS fd deZdkj foi{kh dEiuh dk thi ij MªkbZoj ds :i esa dk;Z dj jgk FkkA blfy;s
izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh dEiuh esa gksuk ,d Lohd`r rF; gSA bl rdZ ds fojks/k esa foi{kh us dgk gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh
dEiuh ds fy;s dk;Z dj jgs eSllZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-,u- uked Bsdsnkj ds v/khu dk;Z djrk FkkA ;nkdnk foi{kh }kjk
izkFkhZ ls foi{kh dh thi pyokbZ xbZ Fkh rFkk ml dk;Z dk Hkqxrku mls foi{kh }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ
dks foi{kh }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k tkuk Lohd`r rF; ugha gSA eSuas mHk;i{k ds bu rdksZsa ij euu fd;kA ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; esa of.kZr mi;qZDr rF; ls ;g fu"df"kZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh us fu;ksftr
dj thi ij pkyd fu;qDr fd;k gksA ek= izkFkhZ dk foi{kh dh thi ij dqN fnu pkyd dk dk;Z djuk gh
izekf.kr ekuk tk ldrk gSA vr% vc ;g n`"VO; gS fd izkFkhZ us fdl izdkj foi{kh dh thi dks pyk;kA foi{kh
lk{kh us vius lk{; esa ;g Li"V dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks lkaxkusj fMiks ij fu;qDr ugaha fd;k x;k rFkk uksudksj dk;kZas
ds fy;s eSllZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-,u- dks Bsdk fn;k x;k FkkA bl Bsdsnkj }kjk gh izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij j[kk x;k FkkA tc
dEiuh ¼ foi{kh ½ dks viuh thi ds fy;s MªkbZoj dh vko';drk gksrh rks Bsdsnkj ls MªkbZoj dh ekax dh tkrh FkhA
pwafd izkFkhZ ds ikl okgu pykus dk ykbZlsUl Fkk blfy;s Bsdsnkj izkFkhZ dks MªkbZoj dk dk;Z djus gsrq Hkst nsrk FkkA
ftldk vyx ls Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ x.kir yky Loa; us bl izdkj izkIr fd;s x;s Hkqxrkuksa
dh jlhnsa izn'kZ&4 ch o 4 lh lk{; esa iznf'kZr dh gSaA
[
II—
3(ii)]
529
11-
foi{kh lk{kh gjlgk; pkUnksfy;k ds bu l'kiFk dFkuksa dks izkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ izfrijh{kk esa dksbZ pqukSrh
ugha nh xbZ gSA ;gha ugha izkFkhZ x.kir yky us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj dj fy;k gS fd izn'kZ&4 ch jlhn
}kjk mls VkVk lqeks dh MªkbZfoax dk 600 :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk lgh gSA izn'kZ&4 ch esa fd;s x;s lHkh
Hkqxrku mls Lohdkj gSaA ;gha ugha izkFkhZ us izn'kZ&4 , okmpj Loa; izLrqr djuk Lohdkj djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd
bl okmpj ds ek/;e ls fd;s x;s Hkqxrku Mhth lsV o iEi gkml dh ns[kHkky gsrq u gksdj mlds }kjk dh xbZ
MªkbZfoax dk Hkqxrku gSA fdUrq bl fojks/kkHkklh izfo"Vh ij mlus dHkh dksbZ vkifRr ugha djuk dgk gSA
12-
bl fLFkfr esa izn'kZ&4 **,] ch vkSj 4 lh** tks dh mHk;i{k }kjk Lohd`r izys[k gSa ds iBu ls ;g HkyhHkkafr
izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us ek= flrEcj 2000 ls fnlEcj 2000 rd fofHkUu voljksa ij 15 fnu foi{kh dk dk;Z
fd;ka] ftlds ikfjJfed Lo:i foi{kh }kjk mls Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA bl rF;kRed ifjn`'; esa ;g iz'u LoHkkfod
:i ls mRiUu gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj ;fn izkFkhZ bl vof/k esa foi{kh ds v/khu fu;ksftr deZpkjh jgk gksrk rks
mlls fy;s x;s dk;Z dh etnwjh izfrfnu dh nj ls dHkh 3] dHkh 4 vkSj dHkh 5 fnu ds Hkqxrku djus ds LFkfr dSls
mRiUu gksrh\ bl iz'u dk lEHkkO; mRrj ;gha gks ldrk gS fd pwafd izkFkhZ foi{kh dk fu;ksftr deZdkj u gksdj
Bsdsnkj eSllZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-,u- dk deZpkjh Fkk] ls vko';drk gksus ij foi{kh us Loa; ds okgu ij pkyd dk dk;Z
djok;k rFkk fd;s x;s dk;Z dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dks fd;kA ftls izkFkhZ us Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks
foi{kh }kjk fu;ksftr fd;s tkus dk rdZ viuk vk/kkj [kks nsrk gSA
13-
izkFkhZ dk vkxkeh rdZ gS fd foi{kh }kjk osru Hkqxrku lEcU/kh jftLVj] xsV ,UVªh jftLVj rFkk Bsdsnkj
,Q-vkbZ-vkj-,u- ls fd;s x;s vuqcU/k i= dks izLrqr djus ds vf/kdj.k ds vkns'k ij Hkh foi{kh us ;g izys[k izLrqr
ugha fd;sA ;fn ;s izys[k foi{kh izLrqr dj nsrk rks izkFkhZ dk 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Zjr gksus dk rF; Hkh izekf.kr
gks ldrk FkkA blfy;s foi{kh ds fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kkk dh tkosaA izkFkhZ us bl rdZ ds leFkZu esa vkj-,e-
;sYykVh cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j rFkk Mk;jsDVj fQ'kjht VfeZuy fMohtu cuke Hkh[kqHkkbZ es?kkth
HkkbZ pkoM+k ds fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vf/ker dk voyEc fy;k gSA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd 240 fnu lsok iw.kZ djus ds rF; dks izekf.kr djus dk izkjfEHkd
flf)Hkkj deZdkj Loa; ij gS & ,dckj ;fn deZdkj l'kiFk dFku djsa vFkok izFke n`"V;k dqN lk{; izLrqr djsa
rRi'pkr foi{kh ls mlds lsok lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k izLrqr djokus dk fuosnu fd;k tkosa rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g
flf)Hkkj fu;kstd ij vUrfjr gks tkrk gS fd og izekf.kr djsa fd deZdkj yxkrkj 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok esa
ugha FkkA
14-
foi{kh us izkFkhZ }kjk pkgs x;s izys[kksa dh lqlaxrk ij vk{ksi djrs gq, ;g Hkh dgk gS fd okfUNr izys[k 18
o"kZ ls vf/kd iqjkus gS rFkk lEcfU/kr laLFkkiu ds cUn gks tkus ls mUgsa izLrqr djuk Hkh lEHko ugha jgk gSA vius
rdZ ds leFkZu esa mUgksusa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bUthfu;j dukZVd
cuke f'kofyaxk esa ikfjr vf/ker dk voyEc fy;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us bl fu.kZ; esa ;g dgk gS fd
tc U;k;ky; ls vuqrks"k pkgus gsrq 9 o"kZ ls vf/kd foyEc ls igqapk tkosa rks vfHkys[kksa dks bruh nh?kZ vof/k rd
la/kkkfjr djuk lEHko ugha gksrk gSA bl izdj.k esa ;}fi lsoklekfIr ds yxHkx 16 o"kZ mijkUr dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk
;g fookn izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq vfHkys[k ;g Hkh n'kkZrk gS fd izkFkhZ us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k fookn o"kZ
2001 esa gh izLrqr fd;k Fkk] fdUrq leqfpr ljdkj us vf/kfu.kZ;u gsrq mls izsf"kr ugha fd;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
ds vkns'k ds mijkUr gh o"kZ 2017 esa fookn dks vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fd;k x;kA ifjfLFkfr tks dqN
Hkh gks ;g vf/ker vo'; gS fd dfFkr lsoklekfIr ds 16 o"kZ mijkUr vfHkys[kksa dks la/kkfjr fd;k tkuk ,oa izLrqr
djuk foi{kh ds fy;s lEHko ugha FkkA
15-
bl fookn esa rks izkFkhZ us tks dqN lk{; izLrqr fd;k gS mlls ;gha rF; mn~?kkfVr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks
dqN fnuksa ds fy;s foi{kh ds okgu ij pkyd dk dk;Z djus ds fy;s vko';drkuq:i j[kk x;kA ftldh etnwjh
dk Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ us Hkh ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn'kZ 2 ls 4 lh ds vykok mlds ikl
osru Hkqxrku dh vkSj dksbZ jlhn ugha gSA bl fLFfr esa foi{kh ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og izkFkhZ ds dfFkr lsok
laca/kh okafNr vfHkys[k izLrqr djsa U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k iw.kZ ugha gSA vfHkys[kksa ds lEcU/k esa foi{kh }kjk l'kiFk ;g
dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu fu;qDr gh ugha fd;k x;k] blfy;s mldk dksbZ vfHkys[k vfLrRo esa u gksus
ls izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSaA izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= ij bl vf/kdj.k }kjk fnuakd 11-9-19 dks ;g vkns'k fn;k
x;k Fkk fd **foi{kh dks vc izys[kksa ds izLrqrhdj.k ls focfU/kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ fof/k vuq:i bu vfHkys[kksa
ds vfLrRo ,oa rF;ksa ds lecU/k esa f}rh;d lk{; izLrqr djus dks mUeqDr gS**A fdUrq izkFkhZ }kjk bl vkns'k ds
vuqlj.k esa dksbZ f}rh;d lk{; izys[kksa ds vfLrRo rFkk muesa of.kZr rF;ksa ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ
vius izfrijh{k.k esa Lohdkj djrk gS fd mls ukSdjh esa j[krs le; fu;qfDr i= fn;k x;k Fkk] fdUrq og is'k ugha
dj ldrkA izkFkhZ dgrk gS fd foi{kh us MªkbZoj ds vfrfjDr vkSj dksbZ dke ugh fy;kA fdUrq izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds
vfHkdFku esa ;g of.kZr fd;k gS fd mls HkrhZ izfdz;k viukrs gq, fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh -------rFkk mlls mlds dk;Z ds
vfrfjDr MªkbZoj dk dk;Z Hkh fy;k x;k Fkk**A bl dFku ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks ewy :i ls rks fdlh
vU; dk;Z ds fy;s fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk] fdUrq MªkbZoj dk dk;Z mlls vfrfjDr :i esa djok;k tkrk FkkA tcfd
izkFkhZ 'kiFk ij dgrk gS fd mlls MªkbZoj ds vfrfjDr vkSj dksbZ dk;Z ugha fy;k x;kA bl izdkj vfHkopuksa ,oa
530 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
lk{; esa tks fojks/kkHkkl mRiUu gqvk gS mlls izkFkhZ dk lk{; lafnX/k ,oa [kf.Mr gks tkrk gSA foi{kh }kjk HkrhZ
izfdz;k viukrs gq, izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fu;ksftr djuk izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA
16-
bl ifjn`'; esa tcfd izkFkhZ izFke&n`"V;k lk{; ls gh foi{kh }kjk mls lsok esa fu;ksfrtr fd;s tkus dk
rF; LFkkfir ugha gksrk gS] izkFkhZ dk foi{kh ls dfFkr lsok vof/k ds osru Hkqxrku ,oa mifLFkfr leCfU/kr vfHkys[kksa
dks izLrqr djokus dk iz;kl djuk izkFkhZ ij vkjskfir fl)hHkkj dks foi{kh ij vUrfjr djus dk vlQy iz;kl ek=
izekf.kr gksrk gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ }kjk voyfEcr fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fof/k izkFkhZ ds i{k esa] rF;kred fHkUurk ds
dkj.k lgk;d ugha gSA izkFkhZ] lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd foi{kh }kjk lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;s tkus ds
i'pkr mlus dfFkr lsoklekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gksA
17-
foi{kh us vius rdksZa esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh eqvkotk
ugha fn;k x;k D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks mUgksus u rks fu;ksftr fd;k vkSj u gh mldh lsoklekfIrA foi{kh dk ;g dFku
lk{; ds mi;qZDr foospu ds mijkUr iq"V gksrk gSA blfy;s foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa ds
vUrxrZ fdlh Hkh izfdz;k dk vuqikyu fd;k tkuk vko';d ugha FkkA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k
tkrk gSA
fcUnq la[;k 2 %& bl fcUnq ds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ ls ;g vis{kk gS fd og mldh lsoklekfIr ds mijkUr mlls
dfu"B vU; O;fDr dks foi{kh }kjk pkyd ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr djsaA izkFkhZ x.kir yky us vius
nkos ds vfHkdFku esa ;g rks dgk gS fd ofj"Brk dk /;ku j[ks fcuk foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks gVk;k vkSj mldh txg
dfu"B O;fDr dks fu;ksftr j[kkA fdUrq izkFkhZ us fcUnq la[;k 1 ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj foi{kh ds v/khu fu;kstu vkSj
lsoklekfIr dk rF; izekf.kr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us mlls dfu"B O;fDr dk uke ftls foi{kh us izkFkhZ dh
lsoklekfIr ds mijkUr fu;ksftr fd;k] nkos eas of.kZr ugha fd;kA ;gha ugha viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFki= esa Hkh
izkFkhZ us ml O;fDr dk ukeksYys[k ugha fd;kA fdUrq izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ us ml O;fDr dk uke xksiky crk;k gSA
izfrijh{kk esa of.kZr ;g rF; fujk/kkj izdV gksrk gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ us bl lecU/k esa dksbZ vU; izys[kh; ;k vuqleFkZd
lk{; Hkh izLrqr ugha dh gSA izkFkhZ us foi{kh ls rRlecU/kh izys[k izLrqr djokus dk vkosnu Hkh vf/kdj.k ls ugha
fd;k gSA vius vfHkopuksa vkSj eq[; ijh{kk esa fdlh rF; dk mYys[k u djuk Li"Vr% izkFkhZ ds dFku dks
vfo'oluh; izekf.kr djrk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd foi{kh us izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr ds
i'pkr mlls dfu"B fdlh O;fDRr dks fu;kstu esa fy;k gks vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼th½ o ¼,p½ ds izko/kkuksa
dk mYya?ku fd;k gksA vr% ;g fcUnq Hkh izkFkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
fcUnq la[;k 3 % vuqrks"k %&fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1 o 2 izkFkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;s x;s gSA izkFkhZ Loa; dks foi{kh
ds v/khu fu;ksftr fd;k tkuk rFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½] ¼th½ o ¼,p½ ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr lsoki`Fkd
fd;s tkus dk rF; Hkh izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
18-
mi;qDrZ fu"d"kZ ds mijkUr foi{kh dh vkSj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; vdkmUVl vkWfQlj ¼,-,aMvkbZ-½ ,-ih-,l-vkj-
Vh-lh- cuke ds-oh- jkekuk] LVsV vkWQ e/; izns'k o vU; cuke vtqZu yky jtd rFkk iatkc okVj lIykbZ ,.M
lhojst cksMZ cuke j.ktks/k flag o vU; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr ;g vf/ker fd lafonk ij ;k
vkdfLed Jfed pkgs 240 fnu ls vf/kd yxkrkj lsok dj pqds gkas] lsok@p;u fu;eksa ds fo:) iqu% fu;kstu ,oa
fofu;eu ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS] bl fookn ds lUnHkZ esa rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k lgk;d ugha gSaA D;ksafd] izkFkhZ
foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd lsok iw.kZ fd;s tkus dk rF; gh izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks
foi{kh dh lsok esa iqu% LFkkfir djus ;k fofu;fer djus dk dskbZ volj gh mRiUu ugha gqvk gSA izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ls
dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA
19-
Je eU=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr jsQjsUl dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj
fn;k tkrk gSA
20-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr
izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 170.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग हैवी इंिीजनयररंग कारपोरश न जलजमटशड कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, धनबाे कश पंचाट
(संेभग संख्या 53/2015) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-26011/17/2015-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
[
II—
3(ii)]
531
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 22.09.2015
532 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 केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 171.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग श्री सीमशन् ट जलजमटशड एवं अन् य कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ेगि औद्योजगक जववाे में औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमशर पंचाट (संेभग संख्या 2/2019) को
्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 17.01.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29011/20/2018-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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.
[
II—
3(ii)]
533
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % Jh jekdkar 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l
izdj.k la[;k lhvkbZVhj 2@2019
lhvkbZ,l uEcj 9@2019
Hkkjr ljdkj dk jsQjsal ua- ,y&29011@20@2018&vkbZvkj¼,e½ fnukad 10-01-2019
The President, Pali Jilla Cement Karamchari Sangh, Bangur Cement Ras,
Post Ras, tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan)
…izkFkhZ ;wfu;u
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
---vizkFkhZx.k
mifLFkfr
izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
&% vokMZ %&
fnukad% 02-12-2019
1- dsUnz ljdkj dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; ds vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ fuEu jsQjsal izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&
‘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- mDr jsQjsal bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gksus ij bls ntZ fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ i{k dks lk/kkj.k o jftLVMZ Mkd ls
uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ i{k dks jft0 Mkd ls uksfVl rkehy ugha gksdj tkjh fyQkQk **bl uke ls dksbZ ugha
feyk** ds uksV ls ykSVdj izkIr gqvk fdUrq fnukad 8-4-2019 dks Jh ckcwyky 'kekZ ,MoksdsV us mifLFkr gksdj
odkyrukek is'k djus dh v.MjVsfdax nh vkSj mlds i'pkr fnukad 1-5-2019 dks Jh yfyr flag jkBkSM ,MoksdsV
us mifLFkr gksdj viuh odkyrukek is'k djus dh v.MjVsfdax izLrqr dh rFkk mlds i'pkr rhu isf'k;ksa rd muds
vf/koDrk us LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is'k djus ds volj fy, vkSj fnukad 9-9-2019 ds i'pkr fujarj vuqifLFkr jgs gSA
xr pkj isf'k;ksa ls izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls uk rks dksbZ mifLFkr vk jgk gS vkSj uk gh mudh vksj ls mifLFkr gksdj
LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse gh is'k fd;k x;k gSA ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ i{k vius izdj.k ds izfr xaHkhj ugha gSA ,sls
esa izdj.k esa bl izdj.k esa ^^dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha** vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkuk mi;qDr ,oa U;k;laxr gSA
&%vkns'k%&
vr% mDr foospukuqlkj mDr funsZf'kr fookn esa dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha vokMZ ¼No Dispute Award) ikfjr
fd;k tkrk gSA
jekdkar 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 8, 2020/MAGHA 19, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई केल् ली, 5 फरवरी, 2020
का.आ. 172.—औद्योजगक जववाे अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 कश अनुसरण में कशन्द्रीय
सरकार मैससग न्यू अ्पन कैटरसग कश ्रदबंधतंत्र कश संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनकश कमगकारों कश बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ेगि
औद्योजगक जववाे में कशन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता कश पंचाट (संेभग संख्या
06/2012) को ्रदकाज त करती है िो कशन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.02.2020 को ्रदाप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-17012/10/2012-आईआर (एम)]
डी. कश. जहमां ु, अवर सजचव
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.
Dated: 22nd January, 2020
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. On
[
II—
3(ii)]
535
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 18th 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. It
[
II—
3(ii)]
537
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.
ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2020.02.21 15:24:43 +05'30'