3999 GI/2020

(2319)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 33]

नई दिल् ली, जसतम् बर 6—जसतम् बर 12, 2020, िजनवार/ भाद्र 15—भाद्र 21, 1942

No. 33]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 6—SEPTEMBER 12, 2020, SATURDAY/BHADRA 15—BHADRA 21, 1942

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष्‍ सं्‍ ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्राल

(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 20 िून, 2020

का.आ. 750.-—भारती ररिवव बैंक अजिजन म, 1934 (1934 का 2) की िारा 8 की उृ-िारा (1) के

ंड (ग) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्द्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री नटरािन चन्द्रसेकरन

(िन्म जतज : 2.6.1963) को दिनांक 3.3.2020 से िो वर्व की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी

ृिले िो, भारती ररिवव बैंक के केन्द्री बोडव में अंिकाजलक गजर-सरकारी जनिेिक के ृि ृर ृुन: नाजमत करती िज।

[फा. सं. 1/1/2020–बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेिर, उृ सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14092020-221711

CG-DL-W-14092020-221711

2320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2020

S.O. 750.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby re-nominates Shri Natarajan

Chandrasekaran (DOB: 2.6.1963) as part-time non-official Director on the Central Board of Reserve Bank of

India for a further period of two years beyond 3.3.2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 1/1/2020-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 30 िून, 2020

का.आ. 751.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अिवन और अंतरण) अजिजन म, 1970 की िारा 9 की

उृ-िारा (3) के ंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्द्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ूजन न बैंक आफ

इंजड ा के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु्‍ का वकारी अजिकारी श्री रािदकरन रा िी. का का वकाल उनके वतवमान

अजिसूजचत का वकाल, िो दिनांक 30.6.2020 को समाप्त िोता िज, से उनकी अजिवर्र्वता की तारी , अ ावत

31.5.2022 तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िज।

[फा. सं. 4/4/2017–बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेिर, उृ सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2020

S.O. 751.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9

of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby

extends the term of Shri Rajkiran Rai G., Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Union Bank of India

for a period beyond his currently notified term which expires on 30.6.2020, till the date of his superannuation,

i.e., 31.5.2022, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/4/2017-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 13 िुलाई, 2020

का.आ. 752.—जनक्षेृ बीमा और प्रत् गारंटी जनगम अजिजन म, 1961 (1961 का 47) की िारा 6 की

उृ-िारा (2) के ंड (ii) के सा ृर त िारा 6 की उृिारा (1) के ण्ड (घ) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते

हुए, केन्द्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री िर्व कुमार भानवाला के स्ट् ान ृर श्री गोववंि रािुलू वचंताला, अध् क्ष, राष्ट्री

कषजर् और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक को उनके नामांकन की अजिसूचना की तारी से दिनांक 31.7.2022 तक की अवजि

के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जनक्षेृ बीमा और प्रत् गारंटी जनगम के जनिेिक मंडल में

जनिेिक नाजमत करती िज।

[फा. सं. 6/13/2012–बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेिर, उृ सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2321

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2020

S.O. 752.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 read with

clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961

(47 of 1961), Central Government hereby nominates Shri Govinda Rajulu Chintala, Chairman, National Bank

for Agriculture and Rural Development as a Director on the Board of Directors of Deposit Insurance and Credit

Guarantee Corporation for a period up to 31.7.2022, from the date of notification of his nomination or until

further orders, whichever is earlier, vice Shri Harsh Kumar Bhanwala.

[F. No. 6/13/2012-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 23 िुलाई, 2020

का.आ. 753.—रा्‍ री कषत बैंक (प्रबंि और प्रकीणव उृबंि) स्ट् कीम, 1970 के ृजरा 8 के उृ-ृजरा (1) के सा

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अिवन और अंतरण) अजिजन म, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा (3) के ंड (क)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्द्री सरकार, एतिद्वारा, भारती स्ट्टेट बैंक के उृ-प्रबंि जनिेिक

श्री ृा व प्रजतम सेनगुप्ता (िन् म जतज 7.12.1962) को ृिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से उनकी अजिवर्र्वता की आ ु

प्राप्त करने की तारी (अ ावत् 31.12.2022) तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, इजण्ड न ओवरसीि

बैंक में प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु्‍ का वकारी अजिकारी के ृि ृर जन ुक् त करती िज।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2020–बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेिर, उृ सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2020

S.O. 753.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9

of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1)

of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central

Government hereby appoints Shri Partha Pratim Sengupta (date of birth: 7.12.1962), Deputy Managing

Director, State Bank of India as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer in Indian Overseas Bank with

effect from the date of assumption of office and up to the date of his attaining the age of superannuation

(i.e., 31.12.2022), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2020-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 27 िुलाई, 2020

का.आ. 754.—बैंककारी जवजन मन अजिजन म, 1949 (1949 का 10) की िारा 53(1) द्वारा प्रित्त

िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ि घोर्णा करती िज दक उि अजिजन म की िारा 10 की

उृ-िारा (1) के ण्ड (ग) के उृ- ण्ड (i) के उृबंि केनरा बैंक ृर लागू निीं िोंगे, ििां तक इसका संबंि केनरा

बैंक के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु्‍ का वकारी अजिकारी, श्री वलंगम वेंकट प्रभाकर को दिनांक 31.12.2022 तक की

अवजि के जलए अ ावत उनकी अजिवर्र्वता की आ ु तक ा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, मजससव केन दफन िोम्स

जलजमटेड के बोडव में जनिेिक के प ृ में नाजमत करने से िज।

[फा. सं. 13/21/2017–बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेिर, उृ सजचव

2322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2020

S.O. 754.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

(10 of 1949), Government of India hereby declares that the provisions of sub-clauses (i) of clause (c) of sub-

section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Canara Bank in so far as they relate to the nomination

of Shri Lingam Venkata Prabhakar, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Canara Bank to the Board

of M/s Can Fin Homes Limited as a director, for a period up to 31.12.2022, i.e., the date of his superannuation,

or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 13/21/2017-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 755.—बैंककारी जवजन मन अजिजन म, 1949 (1949 का 10) की िारा 53 की उृ-िारा (1)

द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्द्री सरकार, भारती ररिवव बैंक की जसफाररि ृर, एतद्द्वारा, ि

घोर्णा करती िज दक बैंककारी जवजन मन अजिजन म, 1949 की िारा 19 की उृ-िारा (2) के उृबंि, सरकारी

रािृत्र में इस अजिसूचना के प्रकािन की जतज से तीन वर्व की अवजि तक अ वा इसके प्रजतसंिरण तक, िो भी

ृिले िो, आईसीआईसीआई बैंक जलजमटेड ृर लागू निीं िोंगे, ििां तक इसका संबंि (i) आईसीआईसीआई लोम्बाडव

िनरल इंश् ोरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड और (ii) आईसीआईसीआई प्रूडेंजि ल लाइफ इंश् ोरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड की चुकता

ृूंिी के 30 प्रजतित से अजिक राजि का िे र िारण करने से िज।

[फा. सं. 7/90/2020–बीओए-I]

ए. के. घोर्, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th September, 2020

S.O. 755.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of

India, hereby declares that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

shall not apply to ICICI Bank Limitedin so far as they relate to its holding shares of an amountexceeding thirty

per cent of the paid-up capital of (i) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and (ii) ICICI

Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, for a period of three years from the date of publication of this

notification in the Official Gazetteor till its revocation, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 7/90/2020-BOA-I]

A. K. GHOSH, Under Secy.

ृजरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली 18 अगस्ट् त, 2020

का.आ. 756.—केन् द्री सरकार ने ृजट़्रोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का

अिवन) अजिजन म, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 2 के ण् ड (अ) के अनुसरण में 16 फरवरी 2017 को भारत के

रािृत्र में प्रकाजित, भारत सरकार के ृेट़्रोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल की अजिसूचना सं्‍ ा का. आ.

488(अ) तारी 8 फरवरी 2017 में जनम् नजलज त प ृ में संिोिन करती िज, अ ावत्

‘‘श्री िेव राि िमाव, सक्षम प्राजिकारी, इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, ृी.ए.िे.ृी.एल. - ऊना ब्ांच

ृाइृलाइन ृरर ोिना, 346, कमला कुंि, डी.सी. कॉलोनी, ऊना (जिमाचल प्रिेि) - 174303’’ िब् िों के स्ट् ान

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2323

ृर, ‘‘श्री प्रिांत ाकुर, सक्षम प्राजिकारी, इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, ृी. ए. िे. ृी. एल.-ऊना ब्ांच

ृाइृलाइन ृरर ोिना, उत्तरी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन, ऊना (जिमाचल प्रिेि)’’ िब् ि र े िाएंगे।

ि अजिसूचना िारी िोने की तारी से लागू िोगी ।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/19/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27024]

ृी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 18^th August, 2020

S. O. 756.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

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

following amendment in the notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

S.O. 488(E) dated 8^th February 2017, namely:

In the said notification, in the Schedule, at Sl. No. (i), for the words “Shri Dev Raj Sharma, Competent

Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, PAJPL – Una Branch Pipeline Project, 346, Kamla Kunj, DC-

Colony, Una (Himachal Pradesh) – 174303” the words “Shri Prashant Thakur, Competent Authority, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, PAJPL-Una Branch Pipeline Project, Northern Region Pipeline, Una (Himachal Pradesh)”

shall be substituted.

The notification is applicable from the date of issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/19/2018-OR-I/E-27024]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

को ला मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 7 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 757.—को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें

इसके ृश् चात् उक् त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 9 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन िारी की गई भारत सरकार के

को ला मंत्राल की अजिसूचना का. आ. सं्‍ ांक 529, तारी 16 िुलाई, 2020, िो भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II,

ंड 3, उृ- ंड (ii), तारी 18 िुलाई, 2020 द्वारा प्रकाजित की गई ी, उक् त अजिसूचना से संलग् न अनुसूची में

वर्णिंत 684.620 िेक्टे र (लगभग) ा 1691.730 एकड़ (लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम में और ऐसी भूजम में (जिसे

इसमें इसके ृश् चात् उक् त भूजम किा ग ा िज) ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार, उक् त अजिजन म की िारा 10 की

उृ-िारा (1) के अिीन, सभी जवल् लंगमों से मुक् त िोकर, आत् ंजतक प ृ में केन् द्री सरकार में जनजित िो गए े;

और, केन् द्री सरकार का ि समािान िो ग ा िज, दक ओजडिा कोल एण्ड ृावर जलजमटेड, भूबनेश्वर,

ओजडिा (जिसे इसमें इसके ृश् चात् सरकारी कंृनी किा ग ा िज), ऐसे जनबंिनों और ितों का, िो केन् द्री सरकार

इस जनजमत्त अजिरोजृत करना ीक समझे, अनुृालन करने के जलए रिामंि िज;

अत:, अब, केन् द्री सरकार, उि अजिजन म की िारा 11 की उृ-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग

करते हुए, ि जनिेि िेती िज दक इस प्रकार जनजित भूजम का माृ 684.620 िेक्टे र (लगभग) ा 1691.730

एकड़ (लगभग) उक् त भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार तारी 18 िुलाई, 2020 से केन् द्री सरकार में इस

2324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

प्रकार जनजित बने रिने के बिाए, जनम् नजलज त जनबंिनों और ितों के अिीन रिते हुए, उि सरकारी कंृनी में

जनजित िो िाएंगे, अ ावत् : -

(1)

सरकारी कंृनी उि अजिजन म के उृबंिों और अन् सुसंगत जवजि ों के अिीन ा अविाररत प्रजतकर,

ब् ाि, नुकसाजन ों आदि से संबंजित और वजसी िी मिों की बाबत् सभी संिा करेगी;

(2)

सरकारी कंृनी द्वारा ितव (1) के अिीन, संिे रकमों का अविारण करने के प्र ोिन के जलए उि

अजिजन म की िारा 14 के अिीन एक अजिकरण का ग न दक ा िाएगा और उि अजिकरण और

दकसी ऐसे अजिकरण की सिा ता करने के जलए जन ुि व्यजि ों के संबंि में, उृगत सभी व्य , सरकारी

कंृनी द्वारा विन दकए िाएंगे और इसी प्रकार, जनजित उि भूजम ों में ा उस ृर के अजिकारों के जलए ा

उनके संबंि में अृील आदि जवजिक का वाजि ों की बाबत उृगत सभी व्य भी सरकारी कंृनी द्वारा

विन दकए िाएंगे ;

(3) सरकारी कंृनी, केन् द्री सरकार ा उसके ृििारर ों की, ऐसे दकसी अन् व् के संबंि में क्षजतृूर्तव

करेगी, िो इस प्रकार जनजित उक् त भूजम में ा उस ृर के अजिकारों के बारें में, केन् द्री सरकार ा उसके

ृििारर ों द्वारा ा उनके जवप द्ध दकन् िीं का वाजि ों के संबंि में आवश् क िो ;

(4) सरकारी कंृनी को केन् द्री सरकार के ृूवव अनुमोिन के जबना, उक् त भूजम में इस प्रकार जनजित अजिकारों को

दकसी अन् व् जक् त को अंतररत करने की िजक् त निीं िोगी ; और

(5)

सरकारी कंृनी, ऐसे जनिेिों और ितों का अनुृालन करेगी, िो केन् द्री सरकार द्वारा, िब कभी आवश् क

िो, उक् त भूजम के जवजि्‍ ट क्षेत्रों के जलए दिए िाएं ा अजिरोजृत दकए िाएं ।

[फा. सं. 43015/13/2019-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 7^th September, 2020

S.O. 757.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry

of Coal, number S.O. 529, dated the 16^th July, 2020, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii), dated the 18^th July, 2020, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

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

measuring 684.620 hectares (approximately) or 1691.730 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over the said

land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested

absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said

Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Odisha Coal and Power Limited,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such

terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby directs that the land measuring 684.620 hectares (approximately) or 1691.730 acres

(approximately) and all rights in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from the 18^th July, 2020

instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to

the following terms and conditions, namely:-

(1)

the Government Company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest, damages, etc.,

and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant laws ;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the

amounts payable by the Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in

connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2325

Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like

appeals, etc., for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vesting, shall also be

borne by the Government Company;

(3)

the Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central

Government or its officials, regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested;

(4)

the Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other persons without

the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

the Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by

the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/13/ 2019-LA & IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

िुजद्ध-ृत्र

नई दिल् ली, 7 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 758.—भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II, ंड 3, उृ- ंड (ii), तारी 10 मई-16 मई, 2020

(साप्ताजिक) में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के को ला मंत्राल की सं्‍ ांक अजिसूचना का.आ. 410, तारी 11 मई,

2020, अजिसूचना के विंिी ृा में:-

(क) ृष्ठ 1177 ृर ‘(ग) संरजक्षत वन भूजम का जववरण ’ के नीचे की सारणी में ,-

(i)

ृंजि-15 में, क्रम सं. 9 के सामने आंकड़े ‘44.827’ के स्ट् ान ृर आंकड़े ‘43.827’ ृढें ;

(ii)

ृंजि-19 में, क्रम सं. 13 के सामने ‘भाग’ के स्ट् ान ृर ‘ृूणव’ ृढें ;

(iii)

ृंजि-22 में, क्रम सं. 16 के सामने आंकड़े ‘4.956’ के स्ट् ान ृर आंकड़े ‘4.946’ ृढें ।

( ) ृष्ठ 1178 में,

(i) ृंजि -3 में, ‘ग्राम चकेरी (भाग)’ के स्ट् ान ृर ‘ग्राम ृेरोजग ा (भाग)’ ृढें ।

(ii) ृंजि-7 में, आंकड़े ‘ृी-2126 (भाग)’ के स्ट् ान ृर आंकड़े ‘ृी-2126 (ृूणव)’ ृढें ।

[फा. सं. 43015/8/2019–एलए एण् ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 7th September, 2020

S.O. 758.—In the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Coal number S.O. 410, dated

the 11^th May, 2020 and published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 10^th

May-16^th May, 2020 (weekly), notification in Hindi version:-

(a)

on page 1177, at below Table ‘(C) Details of Protected Forest Land: ’ ,-

(i) In line, 15, against Sl. No. 9 for figure ‘44.827, read figure ‘43.827’;

(ii) In line, 19, against Sl. No. 13 for ‘Part’, read ‘Full’;

(iii) In line, 22, against Sl. No. 16 for figure ‘4.956’, read figure ‘4. 946’.

(b)

on page 1178,

(i)

In line, 3, for ‘village Chakeri (Part)’, read ‘village Parogiya (Part)’;

(ii)

In line, 7, for figure ‘P-2126(Part)’, read figure ‘P-2126(Full)’.

[F. No. 43015/8 /2019-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

2326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल् ली, 7 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 759.—को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजन म 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें

इसके ृश् चात् उक् त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 9 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन िारी भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II,

ंड 3, उृ- ंड (ii), तारी 2 मई, 2020 में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के को ला मंत्राल की अजिसूचना

का. आ. सं्‍ ांक 398, तारी 28 अप्रजल, 2020 के प्रकािन ृर उक् त अजिसूचना से संलग् न अनुसूची में वर्णिंत भूजम

और ऐसी भूजम (जिसे इसमें इसके ृश् चात् उक् त भूजम किा ग ा िज) में, ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार, उक् त

अजिजन म की िारा 10 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन, सभी जवल् लंगमों से मुक् त िोकर, आत् ंजतक प ृ में केन् द्री

सरकार में जनजित िो गए े ;

और, केन् द्री सरकार का ि समािान िो ग ा िज, दक वेस्ट् टनव कोलफील् ्स जलजमटेड, नागृुर, मिाराष्ट्र

(जिसे इसमें इसके ृश् चात् उक् त कंृनी किा ग ा िज), ऐसे जनबंिनों और ितों का, िो केन् द्री सरकार इस जनजम् मत

अजिरोजृत करना ीक समझे, अनुृालन करने के जलए रिामंि िज ।

अत: अब, केन् द्री सरकार, उि अजिजन म की िारा 11 की उृ-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग

करते हुए, ि जनिेि िेती िज, दक इस प्रकार जनजित उक् त भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार तारी 2 मई, 2020

से केन् द्री सरकार में इस प्रकार जनजित बने रिने के बिाए, जनम् नजलज त जनबंिनों और ितों के अिीन रिते हुए,

सरकारी कंृनी में जनजित िो िाएंगे, अ ावत् : -

(1)

सरकारी कंृनी, उक् त अजिजन म के उृबंिों के अिीन ा अविाररत प्रजतकर, ब् ाि, नुकसाजन ों और

सुसंगत जवजि वजसी िी मिों की बाबत् दकए गए सभी संिा ों की केन् द्री सरकार को प्रजतृूर्तव करेगी ;

(2)

सरकारी कम् ृनी द्वारा ितव (1) के अिीन केन् द्री सरकार को संिे रकमों का अविारण करने के प्र ोिनों

के जलए उक् त अजिजन म की िारा 14 के अिीन एक अजिकरण का ग न दक ा िाएगा और दकसी ऐसे

अजिकरण और अजिकरण की सिा ता के जलए जन ुक् त व् जक् त ों के संबंि में उृगत सभी व् , सरकारी

कंृनी द्वारा विन दकए िाएंगे और इस प्रकार जनजित उक् त भूजम में ा उस ृर के अजिकारों के जलए ा

उनके संबंि में अृीलों आदि िजसी सभी जवजिक का वाजि ों की बाबत् उृगत, सभी व् भी सरकारी

कंृनी द्वारा विन दकए िाएंगे ;

(3)

सरकारी कंृनी, केन् द्री सरकार ा उसके ृििारर ों की, ऐसे दकसी अन् व् के संबंि में क्षजतृूर्तव

ृििारर ों द्वारा ा उनके जवप द्ध दकन् िीं का वाजि ों के संबंि में आवश् क िो ;

(4)

सरकारी कंृनी को केन् द्री सरकार के ृूवव अनुमोिन के जबना उक् त भूजम और भूजम में ा उसके ऊृर इस

प्रकार जनजित अजिकारों को दकसी अन् व् क् जत को अंतररत करने की िजक् त निीं िोगी ; और

(5)

सरकारी कंृनी, ऐसे जनिेिों और ितों का ृालन करेगी, िो केन् द्री सरकार द्वारा, िब कभी आवश् क िो,

उक् त भूजम ों के जवजि्‍ ट क्षेत्रों के जलए दिए िाएं ा अजिरोजृत दकए िाएं ।

[फा. सं. 43015/10/2018-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2327

New Delhi, the 7^th September, 2020

S.O. 759.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry

of Coal, number S.O. 398, dated the 28^th April, 2020, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii), dated the 2^nd May, 2020, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

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

rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to

as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1)

of section 10 of the said Act ;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur,

Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and

conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby directs that the said land and all rights in or over the said land so vested, shall, with

effect from 2^nd May, 2020, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the

Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-

(1)

the Government Company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest, damages, etc.

and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant law ;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the

amounts payable by the Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in

connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal, shall be borne by the

said Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings

like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vested, shall also be

borne by the Government Company;

(3)

the Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central

Government or its officials, regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested;

(4)

the Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other person without

the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

the Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by

the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/ 10/ 2018-LA & IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 760.—केन् द्री सरकार को ि प्रतीत िोता िज दक इससे उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णवत ृररक्षेत्र की

भूजम में को ला अजभप्राप् त दकए िाने की संभावना िज;

और, रे ांक सं्‍ ा एनसीएल/मु्‍ ाल /भूजम और रािस्ट्व/2020/81, तारी 18 अप्रजल,2020 और

एनसीएल/मु्‍ ाल / भूजम और रािस्ट्व/2020/82, तारी 18 अप्रजल,2020 को उि अनुसूची में वर्णवत भूजम का

क्षेत्र अन्तर्ववष्ट दक ा ग ा िज, का जनरीक्षण मिा प्रबंिक (रािस्ट्व/ृुनवावस और ृुनस्ट् ावृन), नािवनव कोलफील््स

जलजमटेड, वसंगरौली– 486889, मध् प्रिेि के का ावल में ा मिाप्रबंिक ( ोि प्रभाग), सेंरल माईन प्लावनंग और

जडिाइन इंस्ट्टीच् ूट जलजमटेड, गोंडवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, रांची - 834001, झार ंड के का ावल में ा को ला

जन ंत्रक, 1, काउंजसल िाऊसस्ट्रीट, कोलकाता–700001 के का ावल में ा जिला कलेक्टर, वसंगरौली– 486886,

मध् प्रिेि के का ावल में दक ा िा सकता िज;

2328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अत:, अब, केन्द्री सरकार, को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20)

(जिसे इसमें इसके ृश्चात् उि अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 4 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग

करते हुए, उक् त अनुसूची में वर्णवत भूजम में को ले का ृूववेक्षण करने के अृने आि की सूचना िेती िज ;

उक् त अनुसूची में वर्णवत भूजम में जितबद्ध कोई व् जक् त, –

(i)

संृूणव भूजम ा उसके दकसी भाग ा ऐसी भूजम में ा उसके ऊृर दकसी अजिकार के अिवन ृर आक्षेृ कर

सकेगा ; ा

(ii)

उक् त अजिजन म की िारा 4 की उृ-िारा (3) के अिीन की ग ी दकसी का वािी से हुई ा िोने वाली

संभाजवत दकसी क्षजत के जलए अजिजन म की िारा 6 के अिीन प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा; ा

(iii)

उक् त अजिजन म की िारा (13) की उृ-िारा (1) के अिीन ृूववेक्षण अनुज्ञजप् त ों के प्रभाविीन िोने के

संबंि में ा उक् त अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृ-िारा (4) के अिीन नन ृट्टे प्रभाविीन िोने के जलए

प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा और उसे उक् त अजिन म की िारा 13 की उृिारा (1) के ंड (i) से ंड (iv)

में जवजनर्िव्‍ ट मिों से संबंजित उृगत व् को उृिर्िवत करने के जलए ृूवोक् त भूजम से संबंजित सभी

मानजचत्रों, चाटों और अन् िस्ट् तावेिों को ृररित् त कर सकेगा,

इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से नब्बे दिन के भीतर, मिा प्रबंिक (रािस्ट्व/ृुनवावस

और ृुनस्ट् ावृन), नािवनव कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, वसंगरौली -486889, मध् प्रिेि को भेिेगें।

अनुसूची

बघेला, बुन्िेला, चन्िेला, ककरी ना व, जझगुरिि डीृ और रटृा झरर ा िीओलाजिकल ब्लाक

िुिीचुआ जवस्ट्तार और ककरी ना व ओृनकास्ट्ट ृरर ोिना िेतु

नािवनव कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, वसंगरौली

जिला –वसंगरौली (मध् प्रिेि)

(रे ांक सं्‍ ा एनसीएल/मु्‍ ाल / भूजम और रािस्ट्व/2020/81, तारी 18 अप्रजल, 2020 )

सभी अजिकार :

क्रम

सं्‍ ा

ग्राम का नाम ृटवारी सर्कवल

सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल

(िेक्टे र में)

रटप्ृजण ां

चटका

00005

वसंगरौली नगर

वसंगरौली

42.00

भाग

जझगुरिि

00005

वसंगरौली नगर

वसंगरौली

507.00

भाग

चूरीिि

00005

वसंगरौली नगर

वसंगरौली

9.00

भाग

िोड़ : 558.00 िेक्टे र (लगभग) ा 1378.82 एकड़ (लगभग)

सीमा वणवन :

क – : रे ा जझगुरिा ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर जबन्िु ‘’क’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम जझगुरिि

त ा ग्राम चटका से िोकर गुिरती िज और िुिीचुआ ब्लाक जवस्ट्तार –II की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा के

जबन्िु ‘’ ’’ ृर जमलती िज।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2329

–ग :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’ ’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम चटका त ा ग्राम जझगुरिि से िोकर गुिरती िज और िी

रे ा िुिीचुआ ब्लाक जवस्ट्तार –II की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज और ग्राम

जझगुरिि त ा ग्राम करवारी की उभ सीमा के जबन्िु ‘’ग’’ ृर जमलती िज।

ग – घ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘‘ग’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम जझगुरिि त ा ग्राम करवारी की उभ सीमा से िोकर

िाती िज और िी रे ा िुिीचुआ ब्लाक–I की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा

जबन्िु ‘’घ’ ’ृर जमलती िज।

घ – ड. :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’घ’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम जझगुरिि त ा ग्राम चूरीिि और ृुन: ग्राम जझगुरिि से

िोकर गुिरती िज और िी रे ा बीना –ककरी अमलगमेिन की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर

गुिरती िज त ा जबन्िु ‘’ड.’ ृर जमलती िज।

ड. – च :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’ड.’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम जझगुरिि से िोकर गुिरती िज और िी रे ा बीना–ककरी

अमलगमेिन की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा मध् प्रिेि और उत्तर प्रिेि

राज् की उभ सीमा के जबन्िु ‘’च’’ ृर जमलती िज।

च – छ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’च‘ ’से आरम्भ िोती िज और मध् प्रिेि त ा उत्तर प्रिेि राज् की उभ सीमा से िोकर

गुिरती िज त ा जझगुरिा ब् लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘’छ’’ ृर जमलती िज।

छ – ि :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’छ’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम जझगुरिि से िोकर िाती िज और िी रे ा जझगुरिा ब्लाक

की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से गुिरती िज त ा जबन्िु ‘’ि’’ ृर जमलती िज।

ि – झ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’ि’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम जझगुरिि से िोकर गुिरती िज और िी रे ा जझगुरिा

ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा जबन्िु ‘’झ’’ ृर जमलती िज।

झ – क :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’झ’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम जझगुरिि से िोकर गुिरती िज और िी रे ा जझगुरिा

ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा आरजम्भक जबन्िु ‘’क’’ ृर जमलती िज।

अनुसूची

बुन्िेला,बघेला,मेिरौली ना व, मेिरौली ृूवव और ृजश्चम त ा मोरवा िीओलाजिकल ब्लाक

ि न्त जवस्ट्तार ओृनकास्ट्ट ृरर ोिना िेतु

नािवनव कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, वसंगरौली

जिला –वसंगरौली (मध् प्रिेि)

(रे ांक सं्‍ ा एनसीएल/मु्‍ ाल / भूजम और रािस्ट्व/2020/82, तारी 18 अप्रजल, 2020)

सभी अजिकार :

क्रम

सं्‍ ा

ग्राम का नाम

ृटवारी

सर्कवल

सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल (िेक्टे र

में)

रटप्ृजण ां

गोरबी

00092

जचतरंगी

वसंगरौली

10.30

भाग

क ास

00092

जचतरंगी

वसंगरौली

3.54

भाग

3. कुसवई

00005

वसंगरौली नगर

वसंगरौली

0.52

भाग

मेढौली

00004

वसंगरौली नगर वसंगरौली

638.30

भाग

जृिरेि

00005

वसंगरौली नगर वसंगरौली

558.00

भाग

2330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ृंिरेि)

चटका

00005

वसंगरौली नगर वसंगरौली

127.00

भाग

वझंगुरिि

00005

वसंगरौली नगर वसंगरौली

30.00

भाग

िोड़ : 1367.66 िेक्टे र (लगभग) ा 3379.49 एकड़ (लगभग)

सीमा वणवन :

क – :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’क’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम गोरबी त ा ग्राम मेढौली से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा मेिरौली

वेस्ट्ट (जडृ ना व साइड) ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘’ ’’ ृर जमलती िज।

– ग :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’ ’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम मेढौली से िोकर गुिरती िज और िी रे ा मेिरौली वेस्ट्ट

(जडृ ना व साइड) ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा जबन्िु ‘’ग’ ृर

जमलती िज।

ग – घ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’ग’’से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम मेढौली से िोकर गुिरती िज और िी रे ा मेिरौली वेस्ट्ट

(जडृ ना व साइड) ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा िुिीचुआ ब्लाक

जवस्ट्तार –II और मेिरौली वेस्ट् ट (जडृ ना व साईड ) ब् लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की उभ सीमा के जबन्िु

‘’घ’ ’ृर जमलती िज।

घ – ड. :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’घ‘’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम मेढौली त ा ग्राम वृंिरेि (ृंिरेि) से िोकर गुिरती और

िी रे ा िुिीचुआ ब्लाक जवस्ट्तार – II की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा जबन्िु

‘’ड.’’ ृर जमलती िज।

ड. – च :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’ड.’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम वृंिरेि(ृंिरेि) त ा ग्राम चटका से िोकर गुिरती िज और

िी रे ा िुिीचुआ ब्लाक जवस्ट्तार –II की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा जबन्िु

‘’च’’ ृर जमलती िज।

च – छ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’च’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम चटका त ा ग्राम जझगुरिि से िोकर िाती और जझगुरिा

ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत सीमा रे ा के जबन्िु ‘’छ’’ ृर जमलती िज।

छ – ि :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’छ’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम जझगुरिि त ा ग्राम चटका से िोकर िाती िज और िी रे ा

जझगुरिा ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा जबन्िु ‘’ि’’ ृर जमलती िज।

ि – झ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’ि’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम चटका त ा ग्राम जझगुरिि से िोकर िाती िज और िी रे ा

जझगुरिा ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा जबन्िु ‘’झ’’ ृर जमलती िज।

झ –ञ :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’झ’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम जझगुरिि त ा ग्राम वृंिरेि (ृंिरेि) से िोकर िाती िज और

िी रे ा जझगुरिा ब्लाक की ृूवव अर्िवत भूजम की सीमा ृर से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा जबन्िु ‘’ञ‘’ ृर

जमलती िज।

ञ – ट :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’ञ‘’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम वृंिरेि (ृंिरेि) से िोकर िाती िज त ा ग्राम वृंिरेि

(ृंिरेि) और ग्राम वृंडरताली की उभ सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्िु ‘’ट‘’ ृर जमलती िज।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2331

ट – क :

रे ा जबन्िु ‘’ट’’ से आरम्भ िोती िज और ग्राम वृंिरेि (ृंिरेि) त ा ग्राम वृंडरताली की उभ सीमा त ा

ग्राम मेढौली और ग्राम वृंडरताली की उभ सीमा ग्राम मेढौली ग्राम कुसवई ग्राम क ास त ा ग्राम

गोरबी से िोकर गुिरती िज त ा आरजम्भक जबन् िु ‘’क‘’ ृर जमलती िज ।

[फा. सं. 43015/14/2020-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

New Delhi, the 9^th September, 2020

S.O. 760.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the

lands in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And, whereas, the plan bearing numbers NCL/HQ/ Land & Revenue/2020/81, dated the 18^th April,

2020 and NCL/HQ/Land & Revenue/2020/82, dated the 18^th April, 2020 containing the details of the area of

lands described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the General Manager (Revenue/

Rehabilitation and Resettlement), Northern Coalfields Limited, District Singrauli-486889, Madhya Pradesh or at

the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited,

Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand or at the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council

House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the District Collector, Singrauli-486886, Madhya Pradesh;

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

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

Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the land described in the said

Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, -

(i)

object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land, or of any rights in or over such land; or

(ii)

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

any action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or

(iii)

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting

licenses ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease

ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to

show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of

section 13 of the said Act,

to the office of the General Manager (Revenue/ Rehabilitation and Resettlement), Northern Coalfields Limited,

Singrauli -486889,Madhya Pradesh, within a period of ninety days from the date of the publication of this

notification in the official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

BAGHELA, BUNDELA, CHANDELA, KAKRI NORTH, JHINGURDAH DEEP AND TIPAJHARIA

GEOLOGICAL BLOCKS

For Dudhichua Expansion and Kakri North Opencast Projects

Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli

District – Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh)

[Plan bearing number NCL/HQ/Land & Revenue/2020/81, dated the 18^th April, 2020]

All Rights:

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Patwari

circle

number

Tehasil

District

Area (In

hectares)

Remarks

CHATKA

00005

Singrauli Nagar

Singrauli

42.00

Part

JHINGURDAH

00005

Singrauli Nagar

Singrauli

507.00

Part

CHURIDAH

00005

Singrauli Nagar

Singrauli

9.00

Part

Total : 558.00 hectares (approximately) or 1378.82 acres(approximately)

2332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Boundary description :

A-B:

The line starts from point‘A’ on boundary of previously acquired land of Jhingurda Block and passes

through village Jhingurdah and village Chatka and meets on boundary of previously acquired land of

Dudhichua Block Extension – II at point‘B’.

B-C :

Line starts from point‘B’ and passes through village Chatka and village Jhingurdah and same line

passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Dudhichua Block Extension – II and meets on

common boundary of village Jhingurdah and village karwari at point‘C’.

C-D : Line starts from point‘C’ and passes through common boundary of village Jhingurdah and village

karwari and same line passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Dudhichua Block– I

and meets at point‘D.

D-E:

Line starts from point‘D’ and passes through village Jhingurdah and village Churidah and again passes

through village Jhingurdah and the same line passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of

Bina – Kakri Amalgamation and meets at point‘E’.

E-F:

Line starts from point‘E’ and passes through village Jhingurdah and same line passes over the

boundary of previously acquired land of Bina – Kakri Amalgamation and meets on common state

boundary of Madhya Pradesh and Utter Pradesh at point‘F’

F-G:

Line starts from point‘F’ and passes through common state boundary of Madhya Pradesh and Utter

Pradesh and meets at point‘G’ situated over the previous acquired boundary of Jhingurdah Block.

G-H:

Line starts from point‘G’ and passes through village Jhingurdah and same line passes over the

boundary of previously acquired land of Jhingurdah Block and meets at point‘H’.

H-I:

Line starts from point‘H’ and passes through village Jhingurdah and same line passes over the

boundary of previously acquired land of Jhingurdah Block and meets at point‘I’.

I-A:

Line starts from point‘I’ and passes through village Jhingurdah and same line passes over the boundary

of previously acquired land of Jhingurdah Block and meets at starting point‘A’.

SCHEDULE

BUNDELA, BAGHELA, MEHRAULI NORTH, MEHRAULI EAST AND WEST AND MORWA

GEOLOGICAL BLOCKS

For Jayant Expansion Opencast projct

Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli

District – Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh)

[ Plan bearing number NCL/HQ/Land & Revenue/2020/82, dated the 18^th April, 2020 ]

All Rights:

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Patwari circle

number

Tehasil

District

Area (in

hectares)

Remarks

GORBI

00092

Chitrangi

Singrauli

10.30

Part

KATHAS

00092

Chitrangi

Singrauli

3.54

Part

KUSWAI

00005

Singrauli

Nagar

Singrauli

0.52

Part

MEDHAULI

00004

Singrauli

Nagar

Singrauli

638.30

Part

PIJREH

(PANJREH)

00005

Singrauli

Nagar

Singrauli

558.00

Part

CHATKA

00005

Singrauli

Nagar

Singrauli

127.00

Part

JHINGURDAH

00005

Singrauli

Nagar

Singrauli

30.00

Part

Total : 1367.66 hectares (approximately) or 3379.49 acres (approximately)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2333

Boundary description :

A-B:

The line starts from point ‘A’ and passes through village Gorbi and village Medhauli and meets at point

‘B’ situated on previously acquired boundary of Medhauli West (Dip North Side) Block.

B-C : Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes through village Medhauli and same line passes over the boundary

of previously acquired land of Mehrauli West (Dip North side) Block and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D : Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes through village medhauli and same line passes over the boundary

of previously acquired land of Mehrauli West (Dip North Side) Block and meets at common point‘D’

situated on previously acquired boundary of Dudhichua Block extension – II and Mehrauli West (Dip

North Side) Block.

D-E:

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes through village medhauli and village Pijreh (Panjreh) and same

line passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Dudhichua Block extension – II and meets

at point‘E’.

E-F:

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes through village Pijreh (Panjreh) and village Chatka and same line

passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Dudhichua Block Extension – II and meets at

point‘F’.

F-G:

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes through village Chatka and village Jhingurdah and meets at

point‘G’ previously acquired boundary of Jhingurda Block .

G-H:

Line starts from Point ‘G’ and passes through village Jhingurdah and village Chatka and same line

passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Jhingurdah Block and meets at point‘H’.

H-I:

Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes through village Chatka and village Jhingurdah and same line

passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Jhingurdah Block and meets at point‘I’.

I-J:

Line starts from point ‘I’ and passes through village Jhingurdah and village Pijreh (Panjreh) and same

line passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Jhingurdah Block and meets at point‘J’.

J-K:

Line starts from point ‘J’ and passes through village Pijreh (Panjreh) and meets at point‘K’ situated on

common boundary of village Pijreh (Panjreh) and village Pindartali.

K-A:

Line starts from point ‘K’ and passes through common boundary of village Pijreh (Panjreh) and

village Pindartali and common village boundary of village Mehauli and Pindartali and village

Medhauli, village Kuswai, village Kathas, village Gorbi and meets at starting point‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/ 14/ 2020-LA & IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 761.—केन् द्री सरकार, को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का

20) की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, नीचे िी गई अनुसूची के स्ट्तंभ (2) में जवजनर्िवष्ट

अजिकारर ों को, उि अजिजन म के प्र ोिनों के जलए ा जवजनर्िवष्ट ‘छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर िेनरेिन कंृनी

जलजमटेड, रजिस्ट्रीकषत का ावल और मु्‍ ाल , जवद्युत सेवा भवन, डंगजन ा, रा ृुर, छत्तीसगढ-492013’ की

अजिकाररता के भीतर आने वाले स्ट्तंभ (5) में जवजनर्िवष्ट क्षेत्रों के संबंि में उि सक्षम प्राजिकारर ों के सामने, उसके

स्ट्तंभ (4) में की तत्स्ट् ानी प्रजवजष्ट में ाजवजनर्िव्‍ ट ऐसी िारां के उृबंिों के जलए सक्षम प्राजिकारी जन ुि करती

िज ।

2334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुसूची

क्रम

सं्‍ ा

सक्षम प्राजिकारी के प ृ

में जन ुक् त व् जक् त का

ृिनाम

िासकी ृता

अजिजन म की

िारा

अजिकाररता का क्षेत्र

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

अजतररि

मु्‍

इंिीजन र

अ वा

अिीक्षण

इंिीजन र

(जसजवल),

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

2. का वकारी इंिीजन र

(जसजवल), प्रभाग-I,

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

3. का वकारी इंिीजन र

(जसजवल), प्रभाग-II,

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन

कंृनी

जलजमटेड, रजिस्ट्रीकषत

का ावल

और

मु्‍ ाल , जवद्युत सेवा

भवन,

डंगजन ा,

रा ृुर,

छत्तीसगढ-

492013.

िारा 4 की उृ-

िारा (3).

(क) ृूववेक्षण को ला के जलए भूजम में

प्रवेि और सववेक्षण करना;

( ) उृ मषिा में ोिना ा वेिन

करना;

(ग) भूजम में को ला के ृूववेक्षण के जलए

सभी आवश् क का व दकए िाना ;

(घ) भूजम की सीमाएं जचन् िांदकत करना

जिनमें ृूववेक्षण के जलए प्रस्ट् ताजवत दक ा

िाना िज ;

(ड.) ऐसी सीमां और ृंजि को

जचन्िांदकत करने के जलए जचन् िों को

लगाना; और

(च) ििां सववेक्षण ृूरा निीं दक ा िा

सकता िज और सीमाएं त ा ृंजक् त

जचन् िांदकत दकए गए िैं, विां कम दकसी

ड़ी फसल, बाड़ ा िंगल के दकसी

भाग को कम और साफ करना ।

अजतररि

मु्‍

इंिीजन र

अ वा

अिीक्षण

इंिीजन र

(जसजवल),

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

2. का वकारी इंिीजन र

(जसजवल), प्रभाग-I,

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

3. का वकारी इंिीजन र

(जसजवल), प्रभाग-II,

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन

कंृनी

जलजमटेड, रजिस्ट्रीकषत

का ावल

और

मु्‍ ाल , जवद्युत सेवा

भवन,

डंगजन ा,

रा ृुर,

छत्तीसगढ-

492013.

िारा 6.

काररत िोने वाली संभाव्य क्षजत की

राजि ृर प्रजतकर का संिा और केन् द्री

सरकार को जववाि जनर्िव्‍ ट करना ।

को ला जन ंत्रक

को ला जन ंत्रक का

का ावल ,1, काउवसंल

िाउस

स्ट् रीट,

कोलकाता-700 001.

िारा 8 की उृ-

िारा (2).

अिवन के जवप द्ध आक्षेृों की सुनवाई

और केन् द्री सरकार को ररृोटव प्रस्ट्तुत

दक ा िाना ।

अजतररि

मु्‍

इंिीजन र

अ वा

अिीक्षण

इंिीजन र

(जसजवल),

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन

कंृनी

जलजमटेड, रजिस्ट्रीकषत

का ावल

और

िारा 12.

व् जक् त ों को भूजम का कब्िा

अभ् र्ृवत करने और उसका कब् िा लेने

के जलए नोरटस ।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2335

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

2. का वकारी इंिीजन र

(जसजवल), प्रभाग-I,

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

3. का वकारी इंिीजन र

(जसजवल), प्रभाग-II,

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

मु्‍ ाल , जवद्युत सेवा

भवन,

डंगजन ा,

रा ृुर,

छत्तीसगढ-

492013.

िारा 13 की उृ-

िारा (5) और (5

क).

प्रजतकर का अविारण ।

िारा 13 की उृ-

िारा (6)

नुकसानी के जलए प्रजतकर का संिा

जिसकी अजिजन म में किीं भी उृबंि

निीं दक ा ग ा िज ।

िारा 14 की उृ-

िारा (1)

करार द्वारा जन त प्रजतकर का संिा ।

िारा 14 की उृ-

िारा (4)

प्रजतकर के संबंि में अजिकरण के समक्ष

क न ।

िारा 16

अजिकरण द्वारा अजिजनर्णवत ब् ाि का

संिा ।

िारा 17

प्रजतकर का संिा ।

िारा 19

केन्द्री सरकार द्वारा प्रत् ा ोजित

िजि ों और कतव्य

ों का प्र ोग करना ।

िारा 20 की

उृिारा (3)

केन्द्री सरकार द्वारा अृील की सुनवाई

के िौरान ररृोटव िेना और अृने आिेि

का जन्‍कर्व िेना ।

िारा 21

िानकारी प्राप्त करने की िजि ।

अजतररि

मु्‍

इंिीजन र

अ वा

अिीक्षण

इंिीजन र

(जसजवल),

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

2. का वकारी इंिीजन र

(जसजवल), प्रभाग-I,

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा.

3. का वकारी इंिीजन र

(जसजवल), प्रभाग-II,

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन कंृनी जलजमटेड,

कटघोरा।

छत्तीसगढ राज् ृावर

िेनरेिन

कंृनी

जलजमटेड, रजिस्ट्रीकषत

का ावल

और

मु्‍ ाल , जवद्युत सेवा

भवन,

डंगजन ा,

रा ृुर,

छत्तीसगढ-

492013.

िारा 22

दकसी भी संृजत्त में प्रवेि करने और

जनरीक्षण करने की िजि ।

[फा. सं. 43015/15/2020-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

2336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11^th September, 2020

S.O. 761.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition

and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers specified in

column (2) of the Schedule below to be the competent authorities for the purposes of the said Act and for the

provisions of such of the sections as are specified against the said competent authorities in the corresponding

entry in column (4) thereof , in respect of the areas specified in column (5) falling within the jurisdiction of

‘Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Registered Office and Head Office Vidyut Sewa

Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh -492013’.

SCHEDULE

Sr.

No.

Designation of the person

appointed

competent

authority

Official Address

Section of the

Act

Area of Jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1. Additional

Chief

Engineer

Superintending

Engineer

(Civil), Chhattisgarh State

Power Generation Company

Limited, Katghora.

2. Executive Engineer (Civil),

Division-I, Chhattisgarh State

Power Generation Company

Limited, Katghora.

3. Executive Engineer (Civil),

Division-II,

Chhattisgarh

State

Power

Generation

Company Limited, Katghora.

Chhattisgarh

State

Power

Generation

Company

Limited,

Registered Office

and Head Office

Vidyut

Sewa

Bhawan,

Dangania,

Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-

492013.

Sub -section (3)

of section 4.

(a)

to enter upon and

survey the land for

prospecting coal;

(b)

to dig or bore into the

sub soil;

(c)

to do all acts necessary

to prospect for coal in

the land ;

(d)

to set out boundaries

of the land in which

prospecting

proposed to be done;

(e)

mark

such

boundaries and line by

placing marks; and

(f)

where survey cannot

be completed and the

line marked to cut

down and clear away

any part of standing

crop, fence or jungle.

1. Additional

Chief

Engineer

Superintending

Engineer

(Civil), Chhattisgarh State

Power Generation Company

Limited, Katghora.

2. Executive Engineer (Civil),

Division-I, Chhattisgarh State

Power Generation Company

Limited, Katghora.

3. Executive Engineer (Civil),

Division-II,

Chhattisgarh

State

Power

Generation

Company Limited, Katghora.

Chhattisgarh

State

Power

Generation

Company

Limited,

Registered Office

and Head Office

Vidyut

Sewa

Bhawan,

Dangania,

Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-

492013.

Section 6

Payment of compensation on

amount of damage likely to be

caused and referring dispute to

Central Government.

Coal Controller.

Office of the Coal

Controller,1,

Council

House

Street,

Kolkata-

700001.

Sub-section 2 of

Section 8.

Hearing of objections against

acquisition and submitting of

report to Central Government..

1. Additional

Chief

Engineer

Chhattisgarh

State

Power

Section 12.

To issue notice to persons to

surrender possession of land

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2337

Superintending

Engineer

(Civil), Chhattisgarh State

Power Generation Company

Limited, Katghora.

2. Executive Engineer (Civil),

Division-I, Chhattisgarh State

Power Generation Company

Limited, Katghora.

3. Executive Engineer (Civil),

Division-II,

Chhattisgarh

State

Power

Generation

Company Limited, Katghora.

Generation

Company

Limited,

Registered Office

and Head Office

Vidyut

Sewa

Bhawan,

Dangania,

Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-

492013.

and take possession thereof.

Sub

–sections

(5) and (5A) of

section 13

Determination

compensation.

Sub- section (6)

of section 13

Payment of compensation for

damages

not

provided

elsewhere in the Act.

Sub -section (1)

of section 14

Payment

Compensation

fixed by agreement.

Sub -section (4)

of section 14.

Statement before the Tribunal

regarding compensation.

Section 16

Payment of interest on award

of the Tribunal.

Section 17

Payment of compensation.

Section 19

To exercise the powers and

duties delegated by the Central

Government.

Sub-section (3)

of section 20.

Giving

the

report

during

hearing of appeal by the

Central Government and the

findings of its order.

Section 21

Powers to obtain information.

1. Additional

Chief

Engineer

Superintending

Engineer

(Civil), Chhattisgarh State

Power Generation Company

Limited, Katghora.

2. Executive Engineer (Civil),

Division-I, Chhattisgarh State

Power Generation Company

Limited, Katghora.

3. Executive Engineer (Civil),

Division-II,

Chhattisgarh

State

Power

Generation

Company Limited, Katghora.

Chhattisgarh

State

Power

Generation

Company

Limited,

Registered Office

and Head Office

Vidyut

Sewa

Bhawan,

Dangania,

Raipur,

Chhattisgarh-

492013.

Section 22

Power to enter and inspect any

property.

[F. No. 43015/ 15/ 2020-LA & IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

2338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जवद्युत मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 4 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 762.—केंद्री सरकार, रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के

जन म 10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन भा ड़ा ब् ास प्रबंि बोडव के

अंतगवत उृ मु्‍ ले ाजिकारी बीबीएमबी तलवाड़ा, जिनके 80 प्रजतित कमवचारीवषंि ने विंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान

प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[सं. 11011/9/2017-विंिी]

राि ृाल, आर् वक सलािकार

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2020

S.O. 762.—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 Deputy Chief Account Officer,

BBMB, Talwada of the Bhakra Byas Management Board 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

नई दिल्ली, 7 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 763.—केंद्री सरकार, रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के

जन म 10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन ृावरजग्रड कारृोरेिन ऑफ

इंजड ा जलजमटेड के जनम् नजलज त का ावल ों जिनके 80 प्रजतित कमवचारीवषंि ने विंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर

जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:-

ृावर जग्रड कारृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड,

िजक्षणी क्षेत्र ृारेर्ण प्रणाली-1

श्रीकाकुलम 765 केवी (िीआईएस)/400 केवी (एआईएस) उृ-केंद्र

रामाकष्‍णृुरम (जव) नीलावजत (ृो)

िररृुरम (वा ा) ृलासा (मंडल)

श्रीकाकुलम (डी)

जृन-532243 (आं.प्र.)

ृावर जग्रड कारृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड,

िजक्षणी क्षेत्र ृारेर्ण प्रणाली-1

765/400 केवी जनिामाबाि िीआईएस उृ-केंद्र

जमतृल्ली (गांव)

जनिामाबाि-503164 (तेलंगाना)

ृावर जग्रड कारृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड,

िजक्षणी क्षेत्र ृारेर्ण प्रणाली-1

400/220 केवी उृ-केंद्र

एन.ृी. कुंटा रा चौटी-कादिरर रोड

अनन्तृुरम जिला

जृन-515521 (आं.प्र.)

[सं. 11011/9/2017-विंिी]

राि ृाल, आर् वक सलािकार

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2339

New Delhi, the 7th September, 2020

S.O. 763.— 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 the following offices 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:

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,

Southern Region Transmission System-I

Srikakulam 765 KV (GIS)/400 KV (AIS) Sub-Station,

Ramakrishanpuram (Vill.), Nilavathi (Post),

Haripuram (Via), Palasa (Mandal),

Srikakulam (Dist.),

Pin-532242 (A.P.)

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,

Southern Region Transmission System-I

765/400 KV Nizamabad GIS Sub-Station,

Mittapalli (Vill.),

Nizamabad-503164 (Telangana)

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,

Southern Region Transmission System-I

400/220 KV Sub-Stattion,

N.P. Kunta, Rayachoti-Kadiri Road,

Anantapuram District,

Pin-515521 (A.P.)

[No. 11011/9/2017-Hindi]

RAJ PAL, Economic Adviser

नई दिल्ली, 8 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 764.—केंद्री सरकार, रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के

जन म 10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन टीएचडीसी इंजड ा जलजमटेड

के अंतगवत जव्‍णुगाड ृीृलकोटी िल जवद्युत ृरर ोिना अलकनंिा ृुरम जस ासैंण ृी.ओ.-ृीृलकोटी जिला

चमोली-उत्तरा ंड-246472, जिनके 80 प्रजतित कमवचारीवषंि ने विंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को

एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[सं. 11011/9/2017-विंिी]

राि ृाल, आर् वक सलािकार

New Delhi, the 8th September, 2020

S.O. 764.—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 Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric

Project, Alaknanda Puram, Siyasain, P.O.-Pipalkoti, Distt.-Chamoli, Uttrakhand-246472 of the THDC India

Limited 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

2340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्ट् त, 2020

का.आ. 765.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री सरकार

मेससव जनिवेकिक, अजतररि मिाप्रबंिक (आईआर), भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स जलजमटेड, बंगलौर, और अन् एवं उनके

कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , बैंगलोर के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 06/2013) को प्रकाजित करती िज

िो केन्द्री सरकार को 17.07.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 24^th August, 2020

S. O. 765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 06/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The Director, Gas Turbine Research Establishment , Bangalore & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 17.07.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, BANGALORE

DATED : 06^TH JULY, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ID 06/2013

I Party

II Party

Sh. G.K. Sateesh Reddy,

S/o Late. G.M. Krishnappa,

Residing at Gokul Circle,

Varthur Post, Gunjur,

Bangalore – 560 087.

The Director,

Gas Turbine Research Establishment,

C.V. Raman Nagar,

Bangalore – 560093.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. B. D. Kuttappa

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Prakash Rao. K.

AWARD

It is a Petition filed by an individual workman against his former Employer / 2^nd Party under Sec 2A

(2) and (3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

The claim of the 1^st Party workman is, he joined the service of the 2^nd Party on 29.04.1985 as casual

labourer / helper; his name was sponsored by District Employment Exchange Office at Bangalore; he was

selected after finding him suitable in the interview by the Selection Committee; he worked at maintenance

section of the 2^nd Party for ten years continuously until he was illegally terminated in the month of October

1990; he worked for more than 240 days in each of the calendar years and terminated without any reason and

without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. Similarly placed workmen selected

along with him were discontinued and they raised dispute before this Tribunal and this Tribunal passed Award

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2341

directing the 2^nd Party to reinstate them and they were taken back and they are serving regularly. He is

unemployed and is without any source of income.

The claim is contested by the 2^nd Party on the ground that, the 2^nd Party was engaging casual labourers

on daily wages to carry out odd and miscellaneous jobs; the engagement was purely casual in nature to cater to

the temporary nature of work. Since, the services were no longer required, their engagement were stopped

subsequently. The 1^st Party workman worked intermittently for 513 days from 1985-1990. As per the

guidelines of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India dated 31.01.1991, casual labourers who rendered at

least 240 days of casual service during each of the two years of service will be eligible for appointment to the

post on regular establishment subject to other conditions. The 1^st Party did not work for minimum stipulated

days in any of the block of two years and was not eligible for regular employment.

The 1^st Party workman once filed the claim petition, thereafter, did not pursue his claim. The 2^nd Party

examined it’s witness / Administrative officer reiterating the counter claim averments and produced supporting

documents Ex M-1 to Ex M-4. Ex M-2 is the proceedings of the interview committee dated 07.12.1989 and it is

seen from the said document that the 1^st Party workman was not successful in getting through.

More than anything, the claim of the workman is hit by the limitation contemplated by Sec 2A (3) of

‘the Act’ which reads thus,

“2A (1) ..........

(2) ...........

(3) The application referred to in sub Section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of services as

specified in sub Section (1).”

The alleged Termination in this case is of October 1990 and the dispute is raised in the year 2011, long

after the period stipulated in the above provision. Hence, the Dispute is barred by time and the petition will not

survive.

AWARD

The petition filed by Sh. G.K. Sateesh Reddy under Sec 2A (2) and (3) of the Industrial Dispute Act is

rejected as not maintainable.

(Dictated to o/s LDC, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 06^th July, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 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

02@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@143@2004-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 766.—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. 02 of 2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the Management of M/s. Tisco Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/143/2004-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

2342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 02/2005

Employer in relation to the management of 6 & 7 Pits Colliery of M/s. TISCO Ltd.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

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

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated 24.02.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/143/2004-IR(C-1) dated 14/12/2004 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

“क् ा राष्ट्री कोजल री मििूर संघ की रटस्ट्को, 6 एण्ड 7 जृट्स कोजल री के प्रबंितंत्र से मांग दक कमवकार

श्री के. एन. वसंि को वर्व 1997 से अंडर ग्राउंड भत्ता दि ा िाए उजचत िज? दि िााँ तो कमवकार दकस राित के ृात्र िैं

त ा दकस तारी से?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and workman didn’t appear before the Tribunal.

Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to the concerned workman/union but even then no one appeared on

behalf of the workman/union. It further appears that the General Secretary of the concerned union had been

shown the order sheet dated 09.07.2019 but even on next fixed date no step had been taken by the

workman/union. Now the Case is pending since 03/01/2005 and workman/union is not appearing before

Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is

passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 02@2006½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@57@2005-vkbZvkj ¼lh-I½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 767.—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. 02 of 2006) 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 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/57/2005-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2343

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. 02/2006

Employer in relation to the management of Dhansar Colliery, Kusunda Area 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. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated: 29.05.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/57/2005-IR-(C-I) dated 03/12/2005 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 Dhansar Colliery under Kusunda Area of BCCL, in

dismissing Sri Arjun Bhuia, Miner/Loader of Dhansar Colliery from service w.e.f. 21.1.04 is just,

fair and legal? If not, to what relief is Sri Arjun Bhuia Miner/Loader entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/ workman nor the management

appeared before the Tribunal. Now Case is pending since 02/01/2006 and workman/union is not appearing

before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is

passed. Communicate

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल. 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 05@2006½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@35@2005-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 768.—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. 05 of 2006) 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 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/35/2005-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

2344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 05/2006

Employer in relation to the management of South Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri Ganesh Prasad. Advocate

For the workman. : Sri R.R. Ram. Rep.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry :- Coal

Dated 25.02 .2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/35/2005-IR(C-I) dated 09/12/2005 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 Bahujan Mazdoor Union from the management of BCCL, South Tisra

Colliery that Sh. Kartik Bouri, Explosive Carrier may be given category IV with all

consequential benefits w.e.f. 1974 is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and workman/union didn’t appear before this

Tribunal. Further in course of hearing of the case, the General Secretary of Sponsoring Union Shri R.R. Ram

has informed that workman/union is not interested in contesting the case, so , it is felt that the workman has lost

its interest in this matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल. 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 08@2006½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@136@2005-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 769.—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. 08 of 2006) 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 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/136/2005-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2345

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. 08/2006

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 24.02.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/136/2005-IR(C-I) dated 09/12/2005 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 Colliery Kamgar Union from the management of Basuriya

Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL for regularizing Sri Rahman Mia Miner/Loader as

Trammer is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/ workman nor the management

appeared before the Tribunal.. Now the Case is pending since 02/01/2006 and workman/union is not appearing

before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is

passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ सी-सी-एल. 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 17@2015½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@37@2015-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 770.—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. 17 of 2015) 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 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/37/2015-IR(CM-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

2346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 17/2015

Employer in relation to the management of Sirka Group, Argada Colliery of M/s. CCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Employer

: Sri D.K. Verma. Advocate.

For workman

: Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 04.06.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/37/2015(IR(CM-1)) dated 09.06.2015, 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 Sirka Group project of M/s. CCL in dismissing

Sri A.K. Ojha from the services of the Company w.e.f. 3.11.2000 is fair and justified? To what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

The Sponsoring Union United Coal Workers Union, Sirka C.C.L. Argada, Ramgarh has filed statement

of claim on 30/07/2015 and subsequently the management of M/s. CCL has filed its written statement on

29/01/2016. Thereafter concerned union/workman has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the

management on 20/05/2016 and 05/04/2017.

The claim of the concerned sponsoring union as per its written statement is as follows:-

That the workman namely Sri A.K. Ojha, U.D.C./Cashier was a permanent employee of Sirka Group of

Collieries of M/s. CCL having unblemished service record but the management of CCL, Ramgarh had issued a

Charge-sheet vide no. PO/Sirka/PD-12/Disc. Action/95/11033-41 dated 30/31-10-1996 and had made false

allegation against him. The concerned workman after receipt of the Charge-sheet had submitted his written reply

to the management refusing the charges levelled against him and claiming himself as innocent and not

committing any misconduct. The concerned workman in his reply had submitted that he had not allowed or

ordered Sri Bishun Ram to make payment and Sri Ram had never received any payment from him. The

concerned workman in his reply had also submitted that he had only sent the vouchers submitted to him by the

authorised Pay clerk (duly authorised by Imprest Holder) to the imprest nominee and the Finance Manager of

Sirka Colliery for scrutiny and onward submission to the Area Finance Manager, Argada and the vouchers

submitted by the authorised payment clerk was responsible for signature or thumb impression. The concerned

workman as per policy and practice had given the amount to the authorised pay clerk with relevant vouchers and

the pay clerk was responsible for obtaining signature on the payment vouchers. The concerned workman had

taken charge of the cash from Sri Matin Ahmad, LDC of Sirka Colliery vide office order no. PO(SG)/cash dated

04.04.1994, whereas the allegation related for the period 01/01/1991 to 31/12/1994, so it is evident that the

concerned workman of Sirka Group was not working during 01/01/1991 to 03/04/1994. The disciplinary

authority had not considered the reply of the concerned workman and had ordered for getting the matter

enquired into departmentally by appointing the Enquiry Officer and M.R. in haste. The concerned workman was

suspended w.e.f. 30/09/1996 and after one month charge-sheet was issued on 30/31-10-1996 by the Project

Officer, Sirka of M/s. CCL. The concerned workman had been deprived of his wages w.e.f. 30/09/1996 for no

offence. The C.B.I had also registered a criminal case against Sri K.M. Singh the then Project Officer, Sri J.P.

Pandit the then Finance Manager, Sri R.K. Sinha the then P.M., Sri A.K. Sinha the then Sr. Personnel Officer,

Sri N.N. Mukhopadhyay the then Finance Officer, Bishun Ram LDC, Sheo Kumar Singh Account clerk and the

concerned workman namely Sri A.K. Ojha UDC clerk of Sirka colliery vide R.C. Case No- 10(A) 2001 but the

CBI had not sent up the concerned workman Sri A.K. Ojha for trail as nothing had been found against him

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2347

incourse of investigation. The Enquiry Officer had not conducted the enquiry in accordance of the principle of

natural justice and the disciplinary authority had passed the order of dismissal in utter violation of the provision

of the certified standing orders as well as the principle of natural justice. The order of punishment is quite

disproportionate and liable to be set aside in terms of clause 2.3 of the certified standing orders as the Project

Officer/Agent, Sirka Group was not the competent authority. The concerned workman had not made any

payment of L.T.C./L.L.T.C to any workman rather the same was made by the authorised clerk of the Imprest

Holder and the cashier who was actually in employment during the period from 01/01/1991 to 03/04/1994 was

not issued with any charge-sheet by the Project Officer, Sirka. The enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry

Officer on 28/06/2000 after four years which is also a matter to be taken into account as the reason of such

inordinate delay on this account has not been explained. The process of advance payment of LTC/LLTC was the

responsibility of the bill clerk and cashier had only received the amount as per list and pay order duly received

from the Area Chief Cashier.

The sponsoring union has made a prayer to set aside the order of the dismissal as the punishment

imposed is quite disproportionate and no misconduct has been committed by the workman concerned so he may

be allowed to re-instate on payment of full back wages with effect from the date of suspension i.e. 30.09.1996

with consequential benefits.

The case of the management of Sirka Group of M/s. CCL as per its written statement is as follows:-

That the sponsoring union has raised the present industrial dispute after the lapse of 12 years without

any explanation of such delay, so the present industrial dispute is not maintainable in law. The concerned

workman was working as cashier at Sirka Colliery of M/s. CCL and he was involved in fraudulent, false and

excess payment amounting to Rs. 88.39 Lakhs during the period from 01/01/1991 to 31/12/1994. The concerned

workman had conducted serious misconduct according to the provision of standing orders, therefore he was

charge-sheeted vide order dated 30/31-10-1996 allegation with following:-

“You were requisitioning money from Area Accounts Office, Argada for payment of LTC/LLTC

which included enormous fictitious payments.

You allow Sri Bishun Ram to make payment of LTC/LLTC alongwith an outsider employed by Sri

Bishun Ram even though Sri Ram was not authorise to make payments, inspite of the payment clerk

were deputed to make such payment.

You accepted vouchers after payment of LTC/LLTC with false signatures and thumb impression and

those vouchers were sent to the Area Accounts Officer for adjustment of the advance money drawn

for payment of LTC/LLTC.

You accepted voucher signed by Sri Bishun Ram after drawing money on behalf of employer of

Sirka Colliery without any authorisation of the concerned employee and sent those vouchers also to

Area Accounts Officer for adjustment of advance money.

You did not keep cash book properly and the amount of LTC/LLTC payments was made as lump

sum and did not give the details of the employees to whom the payment were made. This was done to

hide the identity of the persons receiving payment.

In this way fraudulent, false and excess payment amounting to Rs. 88.39 Lakhs was made in the span

of four years i.e. from 01/01/1991 to 31/12/1994. You disregarded the provisions of finance manual.

The above charges constitute misconduct under clause 18(i) (a) and (g) of the Standing Orders by

which your services are governed.”

The concerned workman submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet and on finding the such reply

not satisfactory, the management appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry in respect of the

charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer had conducted a free, fair and impartial enquiry after observing the principles

of natural justice in which the concerned employee participated and defended his case. The Enquiry Officer

submitted his report on 28/06/2000 holding that all the charges were proved and the copy of the enquiry report

was forwarded to the concerned workman by a letter dated 05/07/2000 to which he submitted his reply. After

consideration of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reply of the workman to the findings of the Enquiry

Officer, the Project Officer issued the order of dismissal of the workman on 03/11/2000 from the service of the

company, so the order of dismissal is legal and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

The concerned union/workman has submitted rejoinder to the written statement of the management on

20/05/2016 and 05/04/2017, denying all the facts stated in the written statement.

2348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The sponsoring union/concerned workman has not examined any witness in his support but has proved

the following documents which are marked as:-

Exhibit W-1- Photo copy of charge-sheet No. 11033-41 dt. 30/31.10.96 issued by the Project

Officer/Agent, Sikra Gourp of M/s. CCL.

Exhibit W-2- Photo copy of reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the concerned workman Sri A.K.

Ojha, UDC/Cashier, Sikra Colliery.

Exhibit W-3- Photo copy of order No. 44 dt. 3.11.2000 regarding dismissal of concerned workman Sri

A.K. Ojha.

Exhibit W-4- Photo Copy of Office Order dt. 4.4.94 issued by the Project Officer (SC), Sirka

regarding authorization of taking charge of Cash to work as Cashier.

Exhibit W-5- Photo Copy of Charge-sheet No. 6/2002 dt. 29.6.2002 submitted in RC-10(A)/2001(R)

dt. 9.8.2001 showing the concerned workman Sri A.K. Ojha as being not sent up for trial.

The Management has also not examined any witness but has proved the following documents which

are marked as follows:-

Exhibit M-1- Photo copy of charge sheet dated 30/31-10-1996

Exhibit M-2, Photo copy of reply of concerned workman regarding charge sheet.

Exhibit M-3- Photo copy of order dated 09/12/2009 of Project Officer for holding enquiry against the

concerned workman and appointment of R.N. Singh, Finance Manager as Enquiry Officer.

Exhibit M-3/1- Photo copy of Memo dated 12/13-11-1998 appointing R. Kujur Personnel Manager,

CCL, Ranchi to hold enquiry as Sri R.N. Singh had been transferred.

Exhibit M-4(series)- Photo copy of notice dated 12/01/1999 of schedule date for holding enquiry and

notice dated 28/01/1999

Exhibit M-5(series)- Photo copy of entire enquiry proceeding.

Exhibit M-6(series),-Photo copy of report of Enquiry Officer holding all the charges proved against

the concerned workman.

Exhibit M-7- Photo copy of second show cause notice issued to concerned workman dated

05/07/2000.

Exhibit M-8- Photo copy Reply of concerned workman regarding second show cause notice.

Exhibit M-9- Photo copy of order dated 03/11/2000 regarding dismissal of concerned workman from

service.

The learned lawyer of the concerned union Sri U.N. Lall has submitted before Court that the concerned

workman had joined Sirka Colliery on 04/04/1994, so he was not In-Charge of the cashier since 01/01/1991 to

31/12/1994 for which the charge-sheet has been issued against him. He has also submitted that the concerned

workman has been suspended on 28/09/1996 without finding anything against him and he was illegally

dismissed on w.e.f. 03/11/2000. He has also argued that the C.M.D is the competent authority of dismissal of

any workman but the order of dismissed has been issued by the project Officer against the established principles

as laid down by the standing orders. He has also argued that the management had given disproportionate

punishment to the concerned workman, so the award may be set aside with a direction for reinstatement of the

concerned workman with full back wages.

On the other hand the learned lawyer of management of Sirka Group, CCL, Ranchi has submitted that

the concerned workman had found the enquiry conducted against him as fair and proper vide order sheet dated

10/08/2017 and thereafter this Tribunal has only jurisdiction to consider whether the dismissal of the concerned

workman was proportionate to the offence. He has also argued that there is an allegation of payment of 88.39

lakhs in fraudulent and false manner by the concerned workman during his period as cashier of Sirka Group of

Colliery CCL, Ranchi and in course of enquiry all the charges levelled against him have been proved, so the

dismissal of concerned workman is not disproportionate to the guilt. He has also submitted that the concerned

workman is not entitled for any relief by this Tribunal.

Now, the only point of determination in this case is whether the action of the management of Sirka

Group, Project Officer of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri A.K. Ojha from the services of the company w.e.f.

03/11/2000 is fair and justified and to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2349

FINDINGS

10.

At the outset of discussion it is required to mention here that the concerned workman namely

Sri A.K. Ojha has accepted the domestic enquiry held by the management as fair and proper vide order sheet

dated 10/08/2017, so the Tribunal doesn’t think it proper to discuss here the fariness of the enquiry conducted by

the management.

11.

In this case neither the sponsoring union/concerned workman nor the management has examined any

witness, so there is no oral evidence availale in this case. However both the parties have formally proved certain

documents which are marked as Exhibit.

12.

At this stage it is required to mention here that the Exhibit W-1 and Exhibit M-1, Exhibit W-2 and

Exhibit M-2, Exhibit W-3 and Exhibit M-9 are same documents and both the parties have relied on those

documents.

13.

Now, after going through the statement of claim of sponsoring union/concerned workman and the

written statement of management it is an admitted position that the concerned workman namely Sri A.K. Ojha

was an employee of Sirka Group of Colliery of CCL, Ranchi and he was working as UDC/Cashier at Sirka

Colliery CCL, Ranchi. Further there is also an admission by both the parties that management had issued

charge-sheet dated 30/31-10-1996 (Exhibit W-1 and Exhibit M-1) to the concerned workman for excess

payment of LTC/LLTC amounting to Rs. 88.39 Lakhs during the period 01/01/1991 to 31/12/1994 and the

concerned workman had submitted his reply to the charge-sheet (Exhibit W-2 and Exhibit M-2) but the

management after considering the reply held that there should be detailed enquiry in this matter and appointed a

Enquiry Officer (Exhibit M-3/1) and after that notice was sent to the concerned workman fixing date of enquiry

(Exhibit M-4).

14.

The concerned workman in his statement of claim has challenged the proceeding of the enquiry as well

as the genuiness of the enquiry report but after perusal of the Exhibit M-5 series which is copy of the enquiry

report it appears that the concerned workman namely Sri A.K. Ojha had participated in the departmental enquiry

along with his co-worker namely Mihir Chaudary and the witness of the management was cross-examined at

length on 20/04/1999, 20/05/1999, 09/09/1999, 19/11/1999. Further the concerned workman has submitted his

statement and the management had cross-examined him on 18/04/2000 at length.

It also appears that after conclusion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer namely H. Kujur had submitted his

enquiry report holding that the charge no. 1, charge no. 2, charge no. 3, charge no. 4 and charge no. 5 were

proved against the concerned workman. Further the Exhibit M-7 shows that the concerned workman namely Sri

A.K. Ojha had been given the copy of the enquiry report with a request to submit a representation, if any, within

7 days of receipt of this letter. Moreover, the Exhibit M-8 shows that the concerned workman namely Sri A.K.

Ojha had submitted his representation before the Project Officer, Sirka denying all the charges levelled against

him.

The management after analysing the enquiry report as well as the representation of the concerned

workman namely Sri A.K. Ojha it has been considered to impose a penalty of dismissal from the service with

immediate effect. (Exhibit W-3 & Exhibit M-9).

It is required to mention here that the sponsoring union/concerned workman has admitted that the

departmental enquiry proceeding was fair and proper, so the Tribunal doesn’t think it proper to go into the merit

of the enquiry report at this stage.

Hence, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there is no illegality and impropriety in the

departmental proceeding conducted by management against the concerned workman namely Sri A.K. Ojha

(Exhibit M-5 Series).

15. The learned lawyer of the sponsoring union has submitted that the concerned workman was posted at Sirka

Group of Colliery since 04/04/1994, so he is not liable for payment of excess with respect to 01/01/1991 to

03/04/1994 and he has relied on the Exhibit W-4 which is office order dated 04/04/1999 by which the concerned

workman namely Sri A.K. Ojha was authorized to take charge of Cashier.

2350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

At this stage it is required to mention here that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry

regarding payment of LTC/LLTC for the period of 01/01/1991 to 31/12/1994 and concerned workman had

joined the post as UDC/ cash on 04/04/1994, so he was posted as cashier in Sirka Group of Mines at Argada

since 04/04/1994 to 31/12/1994 and in that period too the Enquiry Officer had found excess payment of

LTC/LLTC, so the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel of concerned workman is not maintainable.

16.

The learned lawyer of the sponsoring union has also submitted that in this matter, the C.B.I had

registered a case as RC case no. 10(A) 2001 and nothing was found by a CBI in investigation against the

concerned workman Sri A.K. OJha, so the CBI had submitted charge sheet showing the concerned workman Sri

A.K. Ojha has not sent up for trial.

In this regard it is required to mention here that since in departmental enquiry report all the charges

against the concerned workman had been found proved and the action had been taken on the basis of that

enquiry report, so it is not necessary that if no material had been found by the CBI in course of investigation no

punishment could be awarded to the concerned workman, so this argument of Ld. Counsel of concerned

workman is also not tenable.

17.

The learned lawyer of sponsoring union/workman has also submitted that the punishment awarded to

the workman is disproportionate to the charges proved against him.

It is relevant to mention here that altogether five charges were leveled against the concerned workman

namely Sri A.K. Ojha and all the five charges were proved. Moreover all the charges leveled against the

concerned workman namely Sri A.K. Ojha were very serious. Further the proved charges include requisitioning

money from Area Account Office, Argada for payment of LTC/LLTC which included enormous fictitious

payment, acceptance of vouchers after payment of LTC/LLTC with false signature and thumb impression,

acceptance of vouchers by Sri Bishun Ram, not properly keeping the cash book and account of LTC/LLTC

payment and fraudulent false and excess payment. Hence the punishment awarded to the concerned is not

disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

18.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that

action of the management of Sirka Group of Project of M/s. CCL in dismissing Sri A.K. Ojha from service of

the company w.e.f. 03/11/2010 is fair and justified and he is not entitled to any relief in this matter.

This is the Award of this Tribunal .

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 18@2001½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@86@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 771.—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. 18 of 2001) 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 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/86/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2351

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. 18/2001

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

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

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

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 27.04 .2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/86/2000(C-I) dated 25/01/2001 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 to deny employment to Sri Manoj Kumar Bhuiya S/o-

Late Tilan Bhuiya under 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A.-V is justified? If not to what relief is the said

dependant of 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 Advocate of

Sponsoring Union Sri S.C. Gour has informed that union is not interested in contesting the case. It is felt that

the workman has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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- 28@2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@227@2004-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 772.—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. 28 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 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/227/2004-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

2352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 28/2005

Employer in relation to the management of Kuya Colliery,Bastacola Area of M/S. B.C.C.L

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

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

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated:29.05.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/227/2004-IR (C-I) dated 31/03/2005 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 deployment of Shri R.L. Dewadi, Bill Clerk of Kuya Colliery, Bastacola Area of

M/s. BCCL to the provident fund department w.e.f. 30.10.2000 tantamount to change in service

condition and/or designation involving higher nature of duties? If so, whether the demand of the

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh to regularize him as P.F. Clerk in just, fair & legal? If so,

what directions are necessary in this regard?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but the workman/union didn’t appear before the

Tribunal. However, the management has appeared in this case. Case is pending since 25/04/2005 and

workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this

matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ इंजड न स्ट्कूल ऑफ माइन्स 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 56@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@393@1998-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 773.—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. 56 of 1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the Management of M/s. Indian School of Mines and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/393/1998-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2353

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. 56/1999

Employer in relation to the management of Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri Sanjay Kumar Sinha. Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry :- Coal

Dated : 26.02 .2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/393/1998-IR(C-I) dated 17/04/1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub–section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Sri Raj Kumar Rajhans, Ex-Employee of ISM, Dhanbad for permanent

absorption in the employment of ISM, Dhanbad is justified? if so, to what relief these workman is

entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared before Tribunal for certain

dates, but subsequently the workman/union left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again three regd.

notices were issued to concerned union/workman and one of the notices returned undelivered. Now the Case is

pending since 19/05/1999 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union

has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 60@1997½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@444@1994-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 774.—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. 60 of 1997) 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 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/444/1994-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/Section Officer

2354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 60/1997

Employer in relation to the management of Bhurungia Project of M/s. BCCL.

AND

Their workmen

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For Employer

: Sri D.K. Verma. Advocate.

For workman

: Sri Shekhar Sharma, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 26.05.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/444/1994-IR(C-1) dated 21.02.1997, 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 claim of the union that Sh. Mangu Kumhar and thirty others (as per list enclosed)

were working at Bhurungia Project since 1985 is correct? If so, whether these workmen are

eligible for regularization by the management of Bhurungia Colliery? If so, to what relief are

they entitled?”

List of the workmen

1. Mangu Kumhar

2. Nageshwar Paswan

3. Rushan Rawani

4. Jhari Rawani

5. Parmeshwar

6. Sadhu Rawani

7. Dhaneshwar Rawani

8. Girja Rawani

9. Ghanshyam

10. Kista Bouri

11. Kajal Gope

12. Shankar Singh

13. Sheo Nath Rawani

14. Khuttu Kumhar

15. Dhiraj Rawani

16.Tuntun Rewani

17. Basdeo

18. Budhan Mahato

19. Bhukhal Rawani

20. Haradhan Rawani

21. Bhuneshwar Rawani

22. Jhantu Rawani

23. Haru Kumhar

24. Gulu Kumhar

25. Pradeep Banerjee

26.Bankim Chand Mahato

27. Laxmi Kant Mahato

28. Bhima

29. Babulal Rawani

30. Ashok

31. Manohar

2. The Tribunal in this matter has passed an award on 27/07/2015 holding that the demand of the union for

regularization of the concerned workmen is not justified and the workmen being aggrieved by the said award

filed a writ petition bearing WP (L) No. 1904/2016 before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court. The Hon’ble

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2355

Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to set aside the said award and has been pleased to remand the matter

for passing fresh award after due appraisal of the evidences already on record.

After production of the order of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court passed in WP(L) No. 1904/2016,

notice was issued against management and subsequently management appeared before the tribunal.

Further in the light of direction of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, both the sides was heard a fresh.

The claim of Bihar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha representing the workmen is as follows:-

That Mangu Kumhar and 30 others workmen had been working as stone cutters at Bhurungia Project

from 1985 and the management had engaged them for stone cutting in the underground against permanent

vacancy. The stone cutting works were being done by regular workers of BCCL in other collieries who were

paid Cat-V wages and other allowances as prescribed under coal wages agreement from time to time. The

concerned workmen had been paid Rs. 1250/- per month whereas a regular worker for the same work had been

paid Rs. 24.50 per day and other allowances. The management of Bhurungia Project had deprived the concerned

workmen of their proper wages and other benefits enjoyed by the regular workers.The stone cutting works was

of regular and perennial in nature for which regular workers were engaged in all BCCL Collieries under

National Coal Wages Agreement. The concerned workmen worked under the control and supervision of the

colliery officials such as Overman and Mining Sardar who supervised the works and quantity done by these

concerned workmen, so the concerned workmen in fact and in law were the employee of M/s. BCCL. There had

been employer- employee relationship existing between these concerned workmen and the management of

BCCL and on demand of concerned workmen for their regularization in service, they were stopped from

discharging their duties since 03/01/1992.

A dispute has been raised by the Union before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad and on

failure of the conciliation, a reference has been made to this Tribunal.

A prayer has been made for holding the concerned workmen as direct & regular employees of

M/s. BCCL and for issuance of direction to the management of BCCL to give employment to the concerned

workmen on the job they had been working with continuity of their service and all other benefits.

On the other hand the case of the management M/S. BCCL as per written statement is as follows:-

That there is no employer-employee relationship ever existed between the management and the

concerned workmen. The concerned workmen had never worked at Bhurungia Project from 1985 on any job

whatsoever. The sponsoring union has advanced a vague claim at the time of conciliation proceeding that the

concerned workmen had worked as stone cutter at Bhurungia Project from the year 1985 but failed to produce

any material before the conciliation officer to establish prima-facie case for sending the same to the Industrial

Tribunal for adjudication. The conciliation officer didn’t find any merit to recommend the case for reference to

an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and subsequently the Central Government refused to entertain the claim

of the concerned workmen by referring the same for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal.

The Hon’ble High Court by order dated 16/12/1996 has been pleased to observe in CWJC No. 338 of

1996 (R) that the appropriate Government should refer the case to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication so as

to give opportunity to the sponsoring union to claim that the concerned workmen had worked as stone cutter at

Bhurungia Project from 1985.

A prayer has been made to pass an Award holding that the concerned workmen are not entitled to any

relief.

6. The sponsoring union representing the workmen has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the

management in which all the averments of the management have been denied.

7. The workman has examined only one witness. He is WW-1 Mangu Kumhar.

The WW-1 Mangu Kumhar has deposed before the Court that he was one of the employees related to

this case and he along with 30 other workers were working as stone cutter in Chanak No.5 of Bhurungia Project

from 1985 to 1991. He has further stated that he and all other workers had worked for 190 days during the

aforesaid period and their attendance had been marked by the authorised person. He has also stated that the

Mining Sardar and Overmen used to supervise his and other co-workers work and they had been paid theirs

remuneration in colliery office. He has also stated that he and other co-workers were paid Rs. 1250/- per month

and in this regard a certificate had been issued by the Project Officer of Bhurungia Project mentioning therein

that he and 30 other workers had worked in the colliery since 03/02/1985 to 31/12/1991 as stone cutter on

payment of Rs. 1250/- per month as salary and deposit amount was Rs. 32,145/-. He has also stated that the said

certificate was signed by Shri Vijaynath, Project Officer. He has also stated that attendance of his and other

2356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

co-workers were marked on Form `C’ Register which was signed by Shri Vijaynath, and he has produced the

photo copy of the same of month April 1991. He has also stated that he has submitted photo copy of Cap Lamp

`C’ register has been kept by the management in the colliery but the same has not been produced before the

Tribunal. He has also deposed that he and other co-workers demanded their regularization in service and

subsequently he and other co-workers were stopped from discharging duties in the year 1992. He has also stated

that services of his and other co-workers be regularized with payment of back wages.

In the cross-examination he has stated that he couldn’t say that any writ petition was filed before the

Hon’ble High Court, Patna. He has also stated that he has no paper to show that he has been appointed in

Bhurungia Project. He has further stated that he has not received any pay slip for such work and he has not

received I.D. Card as well as P.F. Number. He has denied the suggestion that his demand is not justified.

8. The workman/union has proved the following documents which are marked as:-

Exhibit W-1 - A Photo Copy of Form `C’ register in which names of 31 workers have been mentioned.

Exhibit W-2 – A Photo Copy of certificate issued by Project Officer Bhurungia Colliery.

The management has examined only one witness. He is Jatadhari Roy. The MW-1 Jatadhari Roy has

deposed before Court that the Bhurungia Project of M/s. BCCL is not in operation from 1995 and all the records

of Bhurungia Project were transferred to Lohapatti Colliery and all the matters to Bhurungia Project were being

dealt by the management of Lohapatti Colliery. He has also deposed that at present he is working as Clerk in

Personnel Section of Lohapatti Colliery of BCCL and he has full knowledge about the present case. He has also

stated that there was no employer-employee relationship ever existed between the management and concerned

workmen and the concerned workmen never worked at Bhurungia Project from the year 1985. He has further

stated that the sponsoring Union has advanced a vague claim at the time of conciliation proceeding that the

concerned persons had worked as stone cutter at Bhurugia Project from the year 1985 but failed to produce any

material before the conciliation officer. He has also stated that the conciliation officer did not find any merit to

recommend the same for reference to an Industrial dispute for adjudication. He has also stated that the

concerned workmen were never employed by the management in any kind of job and the claim of Union for

regularization of concerned workmen is not correct.

In the cross-examination he has deposed that he couldn’t say the date when the Project was stopped. He

has also stated that it was working till June 1995. He has also stated that he was working in Lohapatti Colliery

as a Personnel Clerk from 1985 to 1991. He has also stated that there are four collieries under Mahuda Area and

Lohapatti Colliery comes under the jurisdiction of Mahuda Area. He has further stated that in Mahuda Colliery

Area there was no provision of casual workers but for work contract was given. He has also stated that M.

Ansari was one of the Project Officer working from 1985 to 1991.

10. The management has not proved and exhibited any documents in its support.

11. The representating of Union of the workmen has submitted before the Tribunal that all the concerned

workmen were working as stone cutter in Bhurungia Colliery from 1985 to 1991 against the regular post of

stone cutter as per NCWA. He has further argued that the concerned workmen were regularly paid their salary

of Rs. 1250/- per month and their works were regularly supervised by the Mining Sardar and Overman. He has

also argued that an employer-employee relationship existed between the concerned workmen and the

management of BCCL but in the year 1992 the workmen demanded their regularization from the management

of the BCCL and subsequently they were stopped from discharging their duties. He has made prayer to pass an

Award for regularization of all the 31 concerned workers with payment of back wages.

12. The representative of the union has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in FLR 528

2012 (132) H.S. Rajashekara Vs. State Bank of Mysore and others. Further, the representative of the

workman/union has also relied on the decisions as FLR 926 2012 (132) Horticulture Department, Delhi Vs.

Rajinder Prasad and others. 2012 (133) FLR 463 Ram Chandra Yadav and State of U.P. and others. 2012

(132) FLR 688 Director Food and Supplies, Punjab and others Vs. Parkash Singh.2012 (132) FLR 258

Orrisa Mining Corporation Ltd Vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another.

13.

On the other hand the learned lawyer of the management has submitted before the Tribunal that the

concerned workmen had never been appointed by the management of BCCL and there was no employer-

employee relationship between them. He has also submitted that the concerned workmen had never been

appointed by Bhurungia Colliery and the concerned workmen had not produced any documents to show that

they had been appointed by the management of Bhurungia Colliery. He has also submitted that the sponsoring

Union has advanced a vague claim and they are not entitled for any relief by this Tribunal.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2357

14. Now the only point of determination in this case is whether the claim of the Sponsoring Union that Sri

Mangu Kumhar and 30 other workers working at Bhurungia Project from 1985 is correct and if so, whether

these workmen are eligible for regularization by the management of Bhurungia Colliery and to what relief they

are entitled to.

FINDINGS

15. It is the pleading of the Union/Workman that the concerned workmen had worked in Bhurungia Project of

BCCL for more than one ninety days, so they are eligible for regularization.

16. In this context it is relevant to mention here the provisions of Section 25-B of the I.D. Act. The Section 25-B

of I.D. Act reads as follows:-

25-B. Definition of continuous service – For the purpose of this Chapter,-

(1) A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in

uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or

authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of

work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of

one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-

(a) for a period one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding

the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the

employer for not less than –

(i)

one hundred and ninety (190) days in the case of a workman employed below ground

in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(b)…………………………………..

17. In the light of pleading of the Union/workman and the provision of law of I.D. Act it is required to discuss

the oral and documentary evidence available in this case.

18. At the outset of discussion it is required to mention here that out of thirty one workers only one workman

namely Mangu Kumhar has been examined as WW-1 on behalf of all the concerned workmen.

19. The WW-1 Mangu Kumhar has categorically deposed that he and 30 other workers were working as stone

cutter in Chanak No. 5 of Bhurungia Project from 1985 to 1991 and all of them had worked for 190 days during

the aforesaid period. He has also stated that their attendance had been marked by authorized person and they

had worked under Mining Sardar and Overman. He has further deposed that he and other workers had been paid

Rs. 1250/- per month and he has produced a photo copy of Form ‘C’ Registerof the month of April 1991, on

which the attendance of workers were marked. He has also stated that he has submitted photo copy of Cap Lamp

In the cross-examination he has stated that he has no paper to show that he was appointed in Bhurungia

Project and he has no pay slip for such work. He has also stated that he has not got I-Card and P.F. Number.

The MW-1 Jatadhari Roy has deposed that Bhurungia Project of M/s. BCCL was not in operation from

1995. He has further deposed that there was no employer-employee relationship ever existed between the

management and the concerned workman and the concerned workman never worked at Bhurungia Project from

1985.

20. It is required to mention here that the concerned workman/union has not produced any appointment letter

issued by the Management of Bhurungia Colliery of M/s. BCCL regarding their appointment as a stone cutter in

the Colliery. Further the union/workman has not produced any I-Card of the Company as well as Provident

Fund Number before the Tribunal. Moreover in absence of appointment letter, I.Card and PF Number it can not

be said that the concerned workmen were appointed by the management of M/S BCCL, Dhanbad.

21.

Now, coming to the documentary evidence it appears that Exhibit W-1 is the photo copy of Register of

Persons in Below Ground Working with heading of casual mazdoor and it bears names of thirty one workers of

which some names are legible and some names are not legible. Further Exhibit W-1 doesn’t bear the specific

date on which the concerned workman had worked in the Company. Moreover the photo copy of Lamp Register

shows that Cap Lamp had been issued to the concerned workman for one month and there is no Attendance

2358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further the Exhibit W-2 is a photo copy of certificate issued by Project Officer Bhurungia in which the

name of all 31 workers are mentioned as they were working since 03/02/1985 to 31/12/1991 as a stone cutter @

Rs. 1250/- per month as a Casual Mazdoor but the signature of the Project Officer is not clear and no name has

been mentioned under his signature on the Exhibit W-2. Moreover it does not bear any memo no of issuing

office.

22. Now after perusal of Exhibit W-1, it appears that it is photo copy of Register of Persons of Below Ground

Working in which name of 31 persons have been mentioned but the concerned workman/union has not produced

the original copy of this document. Further Exhibit W-2 which is also photo copy of certificate mentioning

therein that the concerned workmen were working as a casual labours in the Colliery of Bhurungia on payment

of Rs. 1250/- per month but the concerned workman/union has not produced the original copy of this certificate.

In view of above discussion the Exhibit W-1 and Exhibit W-2 do not inspire confidence, so both the

documents are not trustworthy and reliable.

Under such circumstances there is no documentary evidence that the concerned workmen had been

working as stone cutter in Bhurungia Project from year 1985 to 1991 which is more than 190 days as stipulated

u/s 25-B (2) (a) (i).

23. Now, in the light of above discussion the Tribunal finds that in this case there is no cogent and convincing

evidence that the concerned workmen had continuously worked as stone cutter from 1985 to 1991 in the

Bhurungia Colliery of BCCL.

24.

It is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case H.S. Rajashekara Vs. State

Bank of Mysore & Another as reported in 2012 (132) FLR 688 has been pleased to hold that this decision shall

not be treated as precedent as the same has been rendered keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances

of this case.

Further, the other decisions of different Hon’ble High Court as relied by the representation of

Union/Workman are related to regularization of service of a workmen on continuous service of two hundred and

forty days.

25. At this stage it is required to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Madhyamik

Shiksha Parishad vs. Anil Kumar Mishra, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 122, has been pleased to hold specially in

Paragraph No. 5 as under:-

“5. We are unable to uphold the order of the High Court. There were no sanctioned posts in existence

to which they could be said to have been appointed. The assignment was an ad hoc one which

anticipatedly spent itself out. It is difficult to envisage for them the status of workmen on the analogy

of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, importing the incidents of completion of 240

days’ work. The legal consequences that flow from work for that duration under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, are entirely different from what, by way of implication, is attributed to the present

situation by way of analogy. The completion of 240 days’ work does not, under that law import the

right to regularisation. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at that time of

termination of the service. It is not appropriate to import and apply that analogy, in an extended or

enlarged form here.”

It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Housing Board vs. Manoj

Shrivastava, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 702, specially in Paragraph No. 17 as under:-

“17. It is now well settled that only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he

does not derive and legal right to be regularised in service.

(See Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. vs. Anil Kumar Mishra; Executive Engineer, ZP

Engineering Divn. vs. Digambara Rao; Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Bhola Singh; Manager,

Reserve Bank of India vs. S. Mani and Neeraj Awasthi.)”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2359

It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Master General, Kolkata vs.

Tutu Das (Dutta), reported in (2007) 5 SCC 317, especially in Paragraph No. 16 as under:-

“16. The short order which was the subject-matter of decision of this Court in Debika Guha also

stood overruled in Umadevi (3). We may at this stage also notice that the concept of 240 days to be

the cut-off mark for the purpose of regularisation of services came up for consideration of this Court

in Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra wherein it was clearly laid down that the

completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year would be attracted only in a case where

retrenchment has been effected without complying with the provisions contained in Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, but would not be relevant for regularisation of service.”

It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs.

Dan Bahadur Singh, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207, especially in Paragraph No. 18 as under:-

“18. The next question which requires consideration is whether completion of 240 days in a year

confers any right on an employee or workman to claim regularisation in service. In Madhyamik

Shiksha Parishad vs. Anil Kumar Mishra it was held that the completion of 240 days’ work does not

confer the right to regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain

obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the services. In M.P. Housing Board vs.

Manoj Shrivastava (para 17) after referring to several earlier decisions it has been reiterated that it

is well settled that only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not

derive any legal right to be regularised in serivee. This view has been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai

vs. Siemens Ltd. The same question has been examined in considerable detail with reference to an

employee working in a government company in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen

and paras 34 and 35 of the report are being reproduced below: (SCC p.426)

“34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularisation.

Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In the case

of E. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation dehors the

rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v.

Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by the services Tribunal for regularising the services of

persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside

although the petitioner had been working regularly for a long time.

35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not

give any right for regularisation is governed by the statutory rules.””

The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has been pleased to observe in L.P.A No. 268/2012 which is as

under:-

“(xiv) Be that as it may, even assuming without admitting that this appellant has worked more than

240 days in couple of years, then also, his services cannot be regularized. 240 days’ working is not a

magic bond which converts illegal appointment into the legal appointment. In fact, 240 days working

has nothing to do with the regularization at all. 240 days working has got reference under Section

25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for calculation of continuous years of service and nothing

beyond that. Unnecessarily several times the Labour Court or the Industrial Courts are committing

an error that if any worker has completed 240 days, their services should be regularized. In fact,

there is no casual connection at all between the working of 240 days and right of regularization.

Illegality in the appointment cannot be diluted by the working of 240 days. Illegality in the

appointment continues, even if, the worker has worked for 240 days.”

The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has been further pleased to hold as follows:-

“Whenever any employment is given unauthorizedly, in the respondent-UCO Bank, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, such type of employment cannot be converted into a regular employment unless there are

rules for regularization or scheme for regularization. In the facts of the present case, there are no

2360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

rules of regularization nor there is any scheme of regularization floated by the UCO Bank. In

absence of such type of law, the charity shown by the Court will be cruelty to others. If such type

regularization is allowed by the Courts, it will provide encouragement to those who are adorning

high-ranking administrative position to give illegal appointment and later on, to get them

regularized by the orders of the Courts. A thing which cannot be done directly, can never be done

indirectly. If no employment can be given without there being any advertisement and without there

being any recruitment process, the Court cannot be a party to illegal regularization of such

employee.”

26. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court as discussed above,

the concerned workmen are not entitled for regularization of their service in Bhurungia Project of M/s. BCCL.

27. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the claim of the union that Mangu

Kumhar and 30 others were working at Bhurungia Project from 1985 is not correct and they are not eligible for

regularisation by the management of the Bhurungia Colliery. Further they are not entitled for any other relief.

This is the Award of this Tribunal.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ सी.सी.एल 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 104@2002½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@165@2002-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 775.—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. 104 of 2002) 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 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/165/2002-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 104/2002

Employer in relation to the management of Jarangdih Colliery of M/s. CCL.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 28.04.2020

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2361

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/165/2002-IR (C-I) dated 07/10/2002 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 Jarangdih Colliery of M/s. CCL Ltd. to dismiss

Shri Goma, Trammer Cat-II is just fair and legal? If not to what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management

appeared before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since 16/10/2002 and workman/union is not appearing

before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is

passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 142@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@505@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2020

S. O. 776.—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. 142 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 27.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/505/1999-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 142/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Baroda Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 25.02.2020

2362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/505/1999-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

“क् ा बी.सी.सी.एल., बरोड़ा क्षेत्र वािरी के प्रबंितंत्र द्वारा एक िी जवभागी ृिोन्नजत सजमजत द्वारा रक्मेंड दकए गए

कमवकारों को िो अलग अलग आिेिों दि: 03.04.91 त ा 27.06.91 द्वारा ृिोन्नत दकए िाने से संबजन्ित कमवकारों

की वररष्ठता जडस्ट्टबव हुई िज? क् ा प्रबंितंत्र द्वारा ऐसा दक ा िाना कजडर स्ट्कीम, िारी प्रदक्र ा के अनुप ृ, जवजिवत

एवम न् ा ोजचत िज? त ा इस संबंि मे क् ा जनिवेकि दि े िाने आवश् क िज?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently both of them left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued to both the

parties but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union. Now the Case is pending since

13/03/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its

interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 777.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव ृासृोटव का ावल , उत्तरा ंड, फरीिाबाि और अन् एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली-1 के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 12/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को

01.07.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42012/69/2017-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2018) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court New Delhi-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Passport Office, Uttrakhand. & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 01.07.2020.

[No. L-42012/69/2017-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

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

New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 12/2018

Date of Passing Award : 8th January, 2020

Ms. Shilpi,

r/o. Village & Post Office Majra,

Dehradun 248171.

Ms. Shivani Singhal,

r/o. Village & Post Office Majra,

Dehradun 248171

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2363

Mr. Varun Sharma,

Rishikesh Colony, Rishikesh,

District Dehradun,

Dehradun 249201.

…Workmen

Versus

The Passport Office,

Passport Office,

Near MKP College,

Uttrakhand.

The Managing Director,

S-2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd.,

6^th Floor, G Wing, Trade World,

Kamla Mill Compound,

SB Marg, Lower Parel,

Mumbai 400003.

…Managements

Appearances :-

None

: For the Workman

Ms. Namita Mahapatra, Proxy A/R : For the Management No.1&2

AWARD

On receipt of reference from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide letter

No. L-42012/69/2017-IR(DU) dated 29.01.2018 followed by corrigendum letter dated 5/2/2018, under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the

Act”) notices were issued to the parties for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of National Institute of M/s S2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd. in

terminating the services of the three workmen Ms. Shilpi, Ms. Shivani Singhal and Shri Varun Sharma

is illegal and unjustified. If so, then what relief the workmen are entitled to ?’

In response to the notice, all the workmen/claimants appeared in person and filed their statement of

claims separately but on similar lines, averring that they were serving as Data Entry Operator/s in the Passport

Office on contractual basis. Ms. Shilpi and Ms. Shivani were engaged in the year 2009, whereas the

workman/claimant Varun Sharma was engaged in the year 2014. The work and conduct of the workmen was

satisfactory and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Passport Office, Dehradun. However, all of a

sudden on 3^rd September, 2015 at about 3 PM the claimants/workmen were intimated through the contractor

company M/s S2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd. that their services were terminated from Passport Office. When they wanted

to know the reason for their termination, Passport Officer replied that they had misbehaved with him and that is

why they are being terminated. He even threatened the workmen with consequence and ruining their career.

The allegation of misbehavior imputed against the workmen by Shri Vijay Shankar Pandey, Passport Officer,

Dehradun is false and wrong, because the workmen had never derelicted their duties. The claimant Varun

Sharma has pleaded that on 2/9/2015 while he was busy in doing his work, after about 11-45 AM Ms. Archana

Mishra, (official of Passport Office) came to his seat, started shouting at him that he does not know how to give

respect to the senior, as he had not wished her “good morning” and asked him to deposit the mobile phone,

despite the fact that he was not at fault. Even Shri Vijay Shankar Pandey, the then Passport Officer had

misbehaved & insulted him without any reason, just to favour Ms. Archana Mishra. The workmen have pleaded

that the Management No.2 terminated the services of the workmen Ms. Shilpi and Ms. Shivani w.e.f. 30/9/2015,

whereas services of workman Varun Sharma were terminated w.e.f. 10/9/2015 without any reason on baseless

allegations, despite the fact their re-employment/re-engagement was upto 31/9/2016. It is also pleaded that

Management No.2 in violation of labour laws did not provide them benefit of any sick leave or overtime

allowance for performance of duties on Saturdays and Sundays. The claimants/workmen are not well off and

have by now got tired to have a long fight for justice. They have prayed for justice.

Management No.1 filed written statement, contesting the case of the workmen/claimants inter-alia on

the grounds the claimants were neither the employees of Management No.1, nor were terminated by the

Management No.1 rather they were deployed at Passport Office, Dehradun by the outsourced agency M/s S-2

Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai i.e. Management No. 2 in whose favour a contract was awarded for providing Data

2364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Entry Operators in various Passport Offices. As such, there is no relationship of master and employee between

the Management and claimants, as the claimants were engaged by outsourced agency M/s S-2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Management No. 2 filed separate written statements to the statement of claims of the

workmen/claimants but almost with similar pleas. Denying each and every allegations of the workmen, it is

stated that the claimants were appointed at the position of a DEO (Data Entry Operator) at base salary of

Rs.1,28,604/- per annum by the Management No. 2. vide its offer of contractual employment dated 23/7/2013,

effective from 1/8/2013 till 31/7/2014. Since last drawn wages of the workmen/claimants exceeded the threshold

of Rs.10,000/- per month and their nature of employment was managerial in nature, the claimants falls within

the purview of the exclusion set out in Section 2(S) of the Act. It is also stated that clause 10 of the said Offer

of contractual employment clearly stated that the contract can be terminated by either party after giving one

month’s notice. The conduct of the workmen/claimants included acts like refusal to work, disobedience of the

orders of superior officer, wrongfully interfering with the work of other co-associates, improper acts within the

office premises, using abusive language, willful absence from office etc. The misconduct, misbehavior and

repeated complaints against the workmen/claimant from the employees of Management No. 1 left no option

with the Management No. 2 but to terminate their services and same was done as per clause 10 of the offer of

contractual employment, by giving 1 month advance notice to the claimants. As such, the case of the workmen

does not fall within the meaning of retrenchment and in fact falls in the exclusion set out in Section 2(oo)(bb) of

the Act. The claimants raised false and malicious claims, suppressing all the material facts. Prayer has been

made for rejection of the claim petition/s.

Since no rejoinder was filed on behalf of the claimants, following issues were framed in this case on

11/1/2019 :-

(1)

Whether the proceeding is maintainable?

(2)

Whether the claimants fall within the definition of workmen defined under Section 2(S) of ID

Act ?

(3)

Whether the termination of the claimants from service is legal and justified ?

(4)

Whether the claimants are entitled to reinstatement with back wages ?

(5)

To what other relief the parties are entitled to ?

Perusal of the record shows that despite number of opportunities granted to the workmen/claimants to

adduce evidence in support their case regarding illegal termination of their services by the Management No. 2,

none of them came forward to lead any evidence for the reasons best known to them. It is a matter of record that

the claimants had chosen the course not to participate in the proceedings from 25/5/2018 onwards. As a matter

of precaution, fresh notices of appearance were issued to the claimants through registered post for 14/10/2019

but despite that, none of the claimants caused appearance either on 14/10/2019 or on subsequent date of hearing.

Hence, this Tribunal was left with no option but to close evidence of the claimants vide order dated 19/12/2019.

Since the claimants themselves did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove their case, A/R for

the Management chose not to lead any evidence.

At the outset it is mentioned that onus was upon the claimant/workman to prove that their services were

illegally & unjustifiably terminated by Management No.2 at the instance of Management No. 1 and that they are

entitled to get relief of reinstatement into service with back wages. The workman/claimant has failed to

discharge the onus. Since the workmen/claimants were/are not interested to prosecute their case on merits, it

seems that dispute between the parties does not survive any more. In view of the fact that the claimants have

not led any evidence in support of their case, this Tribunal is constrained to pass “No Dispute Award” in the

matter. Award is passed accordingly.

Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Dictated & corrected by me.

8th January, 2020

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2365

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 778.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव जडवीिनल इंिीजन र, बी एस एन एल, गुड़गांव और अन् एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली -1 के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 55/2009) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को

01.07.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-40012/12/2009-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2009) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court New Delhi-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Gurgaon. & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 01.07.2020.

[No. L-40012/12/2009-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 55/2009

Date of Passing Award- 24^th January, 2020

Between:

Shri Sunder Singh,

S/o Shri Ram Singh

R/o Village Gaddhi Harsaru,

Gurgaon.

… Claimant

Versus

The Divisional Engineer,

BSNL,

Telephone Exchange, Delhi Road,

Gurgaon.

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Rupesh (A/R)

: For the claimant

Shri Pradeep Mathur (A/R)

: For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute

existing between employer i.e. the management of BSNL, Gurgaon and its workman/claimant herein, under

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter

No. L-40012/12/2009 (IR(DU) dated 03.09.2009 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management BSNL, Gurgaon in terminating the services of their workman,

Shri Sunder Singh w.e.f 17.04.2006 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to?”

2366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The claimant filed his claim statement pleading inter alia that he was appointed as a helper in the

respondent/management in February 2003 and drawing monthly salary @2000/- alongwith admissible TA and

DA revised from time to time. During course of his engagement he had rendered service for more than 240 days

in a calendar year to the full satisfaction of the employer and thus was in continuous service of the management.

On 17.04.2006 the management illegally terminated his service without assigning any reason and while doing so

intentionally omitted to follow the procedure of labour law laid u/s 25F of the ID Act. The said action of the

management was illegal as no termination notice, notice pay, or compensation was paid to him. Since the date of

termination the workman is unemployed. Finding no other remedy he served a demand notice on the

management and raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner where conciliation was taken up. The

conciliation failed and the appropriate government referred the matter to this tribunal for adjudication. The

claimant has prayed that a direction be issued to the management for reinstating him in service with continuity

and payment of back wages alongwith other consequential benefits.

Notice being served the management BSNL appeared and filed WS denying the stand taken by the

claimant/workman. While denying the employer employee relationship between the management and the

workman it has been pleaded that that the claimant was never appointed by the management nor he had rendered

continuous service for more than 240 days in a calendar year as claimed by him. The specific plea of the

management is that it is a statutory corporation owned and controled by the Government of India. It is not an

industry as per the definition of ID Act. The government owned company has its own Rules and Regulations for

recruitment of the employees in different cadre which has been approved by the Government of India. On

10.01.2003 the General Manager Telecom District BSNL and M/s Keshav Security Services New Delhi had

entered into an agreement for upkeep of Telecom installation in Telecom Exchange of Gurgaon Telecom

District after approval of the tender. The said contract was valid for a period of one year from February 2003 to

July 2004. The workman was engaged by the said contractor for attending some casual works. In clause 8 and

clause 15 of the said agreement there were specific clauses stipulating that the acceptance of the tender for

engagement of aforesaid work shall not entitled the contractor or anybody employed by him for the purpose of

future absorption or employment in BSNL and the manpower so deployed by the contractor will have no claim

whatsoever for absorption in BSNL later on. The other stand taken by the management is that the claimant was

working casually and was being paid on the contingency of the work and his duty was never continuous nor he

was the employee of the management. Thus, the management has pleaded that his claim for reinstatement has no

merit. Dispute has also been raised by the management about the belated service of demand notice on the

management on 12.10.2007. It has also been pleaded that the claimant since had admitted before the conciliation

officer about his engagement through the contractor, the prayer for reinstatement made in this proceeding is

liable to be dismissed.

By filing corrigendum the workman challenge the stand of the management and also apleaded that

initially for one year he was working under the contractor. But in the year 2004 he was taken by the

management in its payroll and worked as such till 17.04.2006 when his service was terminated illegally. During

this period i.e from August 2004 to 17.04.2006 he was getting salary from BSNL directly and during this period

he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and thereby acquired the status of a temporary

employee. He has also pleaded that the J.T.O of the management was paying his salary every month and the

management was maintaining the record to that effect. In order to deprive him of his legal rights the

management is suppressing the truth and withholding the documents.

On the rival pleading the following issues were framed.

(1)

Whether there exists any relationship of employer and employee.

(2)

As per terms of the reference.

The claimant examined himself as WW1 and exhibited the photocopies of the vouchers showing

payment to him by the management during the relevant period which have been marked in a series of WW1/1 to

WW1/57. The AGM legal of the management testified as MW1 and proved two documents marked as MW1/1

to MW1/2. MW1/1 is a representation made by a workman to the secretary/ Chief Labour Commissioner

alleging arbitrary rejection of his demand notice and MW1/2 is a photocopy of the agreement dated 01.01.2003

entered between the management and M/s Keshav Security Services.

At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that an application was filed

praying for a direction to the management for a production of the records of the management evidencing

engagement of the claimant and also documents relating to payment made to him directly by the management.

The management took a plea that the documents being beyond the period of preservation are not available and

not traceable. Thus, this tribunal by order dated 02.04.2014 gave liberty to the claimant for production of

secondary evidence in respect of payment vouchers and accordingly the documents marked as WW1/1 to

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2367

WW1/57 were filed. The Ld. A/R for the workman also advanced argument that the management is guilty of

suppression of material documents and by placing the documents marked as WW1/1 to WW1/57 the workman

has successfully discharged the burden of proving that he was working continuously for the management by

completing 240 days of work in a calendar year as has been defined u/s 25B of the ID Act 1947. The counter

argument of the management was that the workman has not produced any document to prove his employment

by the management. The said employment having not been proved according to the prescribed standard of

proof, the allegation that his service was terminated illegally is baseless and the reference is liable to be

answered against the workman. He also submitted that the workman was an employee of the contractor and his

claim is maintainable against the said contractor but not against BSNL. Argument was also advanced that BSNL

not being an industry the industrial dispute is not maintainable.

FINDING

ISSUE No. 1

This is the Moot point to be answered in this proceeding. In his oral evidence the claimant has stated

that in February 2003 he was appointed as a helper in the establishment of the management on a monthly salary

of Rs. 2000/- alongwith admissible TA and DA. He was working continuously and had completed 240 days of

work in the calendar year preceding to the date of his termination on 17.04.2006. This statement of the claimant

is in the line of the pleadings made by him in the claim statement. To corroborate his oral testimony he has filed

photocopies of the number of vouchers for the period between 2004 to 2006. During cross examination he was

asked by the management about the appointment letter if any in his possession. The witness answered in

negative with explanation that no appointment letter was issued to him. He was also asked if his appointment

was through Keshav Security in the year 2003 to which he also denied. The Ld. A/R for the management also

cross examined him about his admission made in the appeal to the secretary about the engagement through the

contractor to which he also denied. On behalf of the management the memo of appeal filed by the workman to

the Secretary Cum Chief Labour Commissioner central has been filed and marked as MW1/1 but the said

document nowhere contains the admission of the workman about his appointment through the contractor.

On the contrary on behalf of the workman evidence has been adduced to the effect that his initial

appointment was in February 2003 and from August 2004 he was under the direct payroll of the management. In

order to prove the same the workman has filed the copies of several payment vouchers which relate to the period

August 2004 to March 2006. Under these vouchers which have been marked in a series of WW1/1 to WW1/57

the claimant workman was paid remuneration though at different rates per month. These are the vouchers of the

Indian Telecom Department containing the seal and signature of the JTO Telephone Exchange Gurgaon

showing payments to the claimant Sunder Singh. The management has not denied the credibility of these

documents since the originals being in their custody could not be produced despite the direction given by the

tribunal. These are all old documents created during an undisputed point of time. The management being the

custodian of the originals when failed to produce the same this tribunal has no hesitation in accepting the

secondary evidence in terms of section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in

(2001) 7SCC Page 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court have also prescribed for the effective control test to ascertain

about the relationship of the workman with the management or the contractor. Not only that in the case of

Chintaman Rao (1958(II)LLJ252) the Apex court ruled that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients

(i)Employer (ii) Employee (iii) Contract of Employment. The employer is one who employees or engages the

service of other person. The employee is one who works for another for hire. The employment is the contract of

service between the employer and employee, where under the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to

his control and supervision. In the case of Food Corporation of India reported in (1985(ii) LLJ4) the Hon’ble

Apex Court pronounced that the contract of employment always discloses a relationship of command and

obedience between them. Where a contractor emplyoes a workman to do the work which he contracted with a

third person to accomplish, the workman of the contractor would not become more than the workman of the

third person.

In the case of Ram Singh and Others vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and Others (2004)1 SCC

126 the Hon’ble Apex Court have elaborately discussed the factors to be considered for determining the

employer employee relationship and the factors include control, integration power of appointment, liability to

pay, liability to organize work etc. Thus, from the above analysis of the Principle of Law, it emerges that the

effective control is a test to determine the employer employee relationship between the parties.

The management in its WS took a stand that the claimant was engaged through the contractor

M/s. Keshav Security with whom the management had entered into an agreement on 01.01.2003 for upkeep of

Telecom installation in Telephone Exchange of Gurgaon Telecom District. A photocopy of the agreement has

2368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

been filed as MW1/2. This document was executed on 01.01.2003 between the GM Telecom District Gurgaon

and M/s Keshav Security Agency and the validity of the contract was for one year from the date of execution of

the contract. This means the contract expired on 01.01.2004 since both the parties had signed the same on

01.01.2003. No document has been filed by the management to prove that the contract was extended beyond the

period 01.01.2004. Apart from the contract no other document has been filed by the management to prove that

the claimant was a person deployed by the contactor to work in the premises of BSNL.

BSNL is a public office dealing with valuable machineries and records. It is a fact presumable that any

person other than the employee of the BSNL would not be allowed to enter the premises for any work without

proper verification of the identity and issue of identity card or entry pass. In this case though the management

has taken a specific stand about the engagement of the claimant through the contractor not a single piece of

paper has been produced to prove the fact that he was issued entry pass or identity card. On the contrary the

claimant by producing the payment voucher has successfully proved his engagement directly under BSNL

which in turn proves his relationship with BSNL as its employee.

In this proceeding the workman has all along maintained that he was working under the supervision

and control of management and not the contractor. While testifying as WW1 he fortified the said fact. This

statement alone indicates the effective supervision of the work of the workman by management which is also

evident from the document like the payment vouchers. Hence it is concluded that the workman was the

employee of the management and the contract if any between the management and the contractor is a

camouflage. Issue No.1 is accordingly answered in the favour of the workman and it is held that he was working

for the management till his service was dispensed with from 17.04.2006.

ISSUE No. 2

The reference has been received to adjudicate the reliefs the workman is entitled to in case he is held to

be employed by the management. In view of the finding arrived in respect of issue no.1 it is now to be decided if

he is entitled to the relief of reinstatement and back wages and other consequential benefits.

The claimant has pleaded that during the period between February 2003 to 17.04.2006 he was working

continuously for the management and during the calendar year preceding to the date of his termination he had

worked for more than 240 days. The Ld. A/R for the management raised serious objection and pointed out that

the claimant in his rejoinder filed to the WS has clearly stated that he is in possession of documents to prove that

he had worked for 240 days in the preceding calendar year. No document to that effect having been filed the

plea is liable to be rejected. This argument of the Ld. A/R doesn’t sound convincing since the workman in his

application filed u/s 11(3) of the ID Act had prayed for production of the said documents but the management

failed to do so and this tribunal considering the plea of the management that original documents are not

available allowed the secondary evidence to be adduced by the workman. There is no dispute that the employer

or the management is the custodian of the documents relating to the employment and payment made to the

persons working for the management. In this case the management has shed its responsibility with regard to the

original documents on the plea that the documents being for beyond the period of preservation are not available.

In such a situation the claimant is left with no other option than producing the secondary evidence or the

photocopies. The remarkable aspect of this proceeding with regard to the document marked as exhibit WW1/1

to WW1/57 is that at no point of time the management has disputed the authenticity of the said documents.

Thus, from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant/workman the inevitable conclusion is

that the claimant was working for the management BSNL during the period August 2004 to 17.04.2006 and

getting payment directly from the management BSNL through its official having the designation JTO.

The law is well settled that the burden always lies upon the workman to prove whether he had worked

continuously for 240 days or more in the preceding calendar year. Once the workman succeeds in discharging

the initial burden, the same shifts on to the management to disprove the same. In this case the workman in his

oral statement has stated that from February 2003 to 17.04.2006 he was working continuously for the

management and being in its payroll was getting the salary from JTO through vouchers. In order to prove the

same the workman has filed several payment vouchers and the management has not disputed the authenticity of

the same at any point of time. On the basis of these documents the claimant has advanced a claim that for being

in continuous service of the management and having completed 240 days of work he is entitled to a temporary

status. But his service was terminated illegally without complying the provision of section 25F of the ID Act

and for the said unfair labour practice meeted to him he is entitled to reinstatement into service with all

consequential benefits including the back wages.

The management has not denied that the date on which the employment of the workman was brought to

an end he was not paid any retrenchment compensation, retrenchment notice or notice pay in terms of section

25F of the ID Act. The only explanation offered is that the workman not being an employee of the management

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2369

there was no need to comply the provision of section 25F. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Superintending Engineer TWAD Board and Another vs. M Natesan and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC

(L and S) 160 have held that when the casual labour daily wager proves to have worked continuously for 240

days in a year and thereby discharges the initial burden of proves he is entitled to reinstatement with back

wages.

Way back in the year 1980 the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma and

Others vs. CGIT Delhi had observed that

“Plain commonsense dictates that the removal order terminating the service of the workman must

ordinarily lead to the reinstatement in the service of the workman. It is as if the order was never been

made and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages. But there may be exceptional circumstance which

makes it impossible for the employer to direct reinstatement with full back wages.”

In such cases the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appropriate order would be for payment of

compensation in lieu of reinstatement. But in the case of G.M ONGC Silchar vs. ONGC Contractual Worker

Union reported in 2008 LLR 801 the Hon’ble Apex Court after giving due consideration to several

observations in different pronouncement which suggest that a workman who was put in 240 days or a

contractual worker is not entitled automatically to regularization came to hold that in appropriate cases

regularization can be ordered.

Here is a case where the workman has prayed for a relief simplicitor for reinstatement to service with

back wages. The basic issue in the present case is the status of the workman and whether he is an employee of

the management. The issue No. 1 in this regard has already been decided in favour of the workman. While

adducing evidence the workman has successfully prove that he is not been gainfully employed during the

intervening period between his termination and date of his examination in this proceeding. The Ld. A/R for the

workman strenuously argued that the workman having not attained the age of superannuation an order should be

passed for his reinstatement into service. But from the evidence it appears that the workman had worked in the

management for a brief period i.e from February 2003 to April 2006. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Management Hindustan Tools Limited vs. Ghanshyam Sharma reported in 2018LLR1285 (SC) have

clearly held that when the workman worked for a brief period, in such a case reinstatement is not justified. The

Labour court should award lumpsum compensation instead of reinstatement taking recourse to the powers u/s

11A of the ID Act. Of course in this case the management has not adduced any evidence about the gainful

employment of the workman. But considering all the aspects emerging from the evidence it is felt proper to

award a lumpsum compensation to the workman instead of directing his reinstatement in service with

consequential benefits.

In view of the foregoing discussion the issue is answered accordingly and it is directed that the

management shall pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as a lumpsum compensation. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the workman. It is directed that the

management shall pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the workman within 3 months from the

date when the award would be notified and made executable. If the management would fail to pay the amount

within the time stipulated, the same shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of the notification of the

award till the payment is made. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as

required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

24^th January, 2020.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

2370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 779.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव री अरुृना भट्टाचा व, एल.डी. सलाि, कोलकात और अन् एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कोलकात के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 03/2005) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को

19.08.20 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42012/108/2015-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03 / 2005) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal

cum-Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Mr. Arupnath Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel, Kolkata , & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 19.08.20.

[No. L-42012/108/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. NT-03 of 2005

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of India Government Mint

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. Arupnath Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel

On behalf of the Workmen

: Mr.A.K. Banerjee, Ld. Counsel

Mr. T. Das, Ld. Counsel with Mr. S. Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel,

Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Ld. Counsel,

Mr. A.K. Banerjee, Ld. Counsel with Mr. Raraj Dutta, Ld. Counsel,

Mr. S. Roy, Ld. Counsel with Mr. S. Murarka, Ld. Counsel.

State: National.

Industry: Mint.

Dated: 30^th July, 2020

AWARD

The dispute under reference pertains to non-payment of 19% compensation for increased working

hours of India Government Mints, Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad from 37½ to 44 hours per week consequent

upon recommendation of 5^th Pay Commission. It appears that in 1951 the General Manager, Government of

India Mint had attempted to enhance working hours from 37½ to 40 hours per week and the authorities also

started deducting salaries from the pay packet for not discharging duties of 40 hours per week whereupon the

employees moved an application No. PWA 353 of 1951 before the authority of the Payment of Wages Act. The

application was allowed and the working hours of the employees were maintained to 37 ½ hours per week and

deduction from salary was held to be illegal. After submission of 4^th Pay Commission report in 1986 in which

working hours of India Govt. Mint was mentioned as 44 hours, a circular was issued by the General Manager,

India Govt. Mint on 21^st November, 1986 enhancing working hours from 37 ½ hours to 44 hours. However, it

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2371

was cancelled by diary order dated 15^th January, 1987. In this background the Mint management issued a notice

under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 16^th January, 1988 proposing to enhance the working

hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours a week in terms of recommendation of 4^th Pay Commission. Aggrieved by the said

notification and rejection of objection against the notification of notice the union filed a writ petition before the

Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta praying for order to direct the management of Mint to rescind or cancel the

notice under section 9A of the Act of 1947for enhancing the working hours. However, during pendency of this

writ petition, recommendation of 5^th Pay Commission came in and for implementation of which several round of

discussion by the General Manager of Mint with the union representatives were held. In this connection a

meeting was held on 15^th April, 1998 with the various unions of India Government Mint, Kolkata, Hyderabad

and Mumbai. The minutes of this meeting were sent to the Ministry of Finance. Subsequently on 5^th of May,

1998 a further meeting was held in which various decisions were adopted mutually by and between the parties.

During above meetings the unions agreed for increase of working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week, but

demanded 19% compensation for increase of working hours in the existing pay. The demand was sent to the

Ministry of Finance for favourable consideration. One of the points of discussion was also regarding 10 hours

overtime per week at the usual applicable rates in addition to stipulated 44 hours. Ministry of Finance, however,

turned down the demand for payment of 19% compensation for increase of working hours as per

recommendation of 5^th Pay Commission observing that the employees shall be entitled for revised pay scale

from the date on which the Mints start working 44 hours a week. This decision resulted in industrial dispute

which has been referred to this National Tribunal by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under

Section 7B read with Section 10(1A) constituted a National Tribunal vide order No. L-16011/3/2004-IR(DU)

dated 06.06.2005 and referred the industrial dispute in the following language:

“Whether the action of the management of India Government Mint in not granting of 19%

compensation for the increased working hours from 37.5 hours per week to 44 hours per week (as per

recommendation of Vth Pay Commission), is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?”

All India Mint and Presses Employees Federation, Calcutta Mint Workers Union, Calcutta Mint

Employees Union, Hyderabad Mint Staff Association, Hyderabad Mint Employees Union, Bharatiya Mazdoor

Sangh, Hyderabad, Takshal Karmik Sangh, Hyderabad, Takshal Mazdoor Sabha Mint Premises Union,

Mumbai, Takshal Mazdoor Sabha, Mumbai have filed their respective statements of claim in response to the

above reference. All the unions have pleaded almost similar set of facts. It is stated that there are four units of

India Government Mints situated at Kolkata, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Noida, but the nature of services rendered

by Noida Mint is different from others. At Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad Mints coins are made from virgin

state whereas at Noida Mint bank coins are stamped. As such, it is claimed, the workmen of Kolkata, Mumbai

and Hyderabad Mints belong to one class while workmen of Noida Mint belong to separate class. This was the

reason why the number of working hours at Noida Mint from its very inception from the year 1984 has been

more than the working hours of the workmen of other three mints. The process of manufacturing coins from

virgin state is more rigorous than the process of stamping of coins. It is further pleaded that in Fourth Pay

Commission report the normal working hours was incorrectly recorded due to inadvertence as 44 hours per

week. The working hours of employees of Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad Mint had been 37 ½ hours per

week at the time of recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission also. There was no recommendation in Fourth

Pay Commission report for increase of the working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week. Though the notice

under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was issued proposing to enhance the working hours from

37 ½ to 44 hours, but the same was challenged by the unions through a writ petition filed before the Hon’ble

High Court at Calcutta during pendency of which the report of Firth Pay Commission was published. Various

meetings were held by the General Manager of the Mints with the union representatives for implementation of

Fifth Pay Commission report. The demand of 19% compensation in case of increase of working hours from 37

½ to 44 hours per week was also discussed in the meeting held on 15^th April, 1998 and 5^th May, 1998 and

forwarded to the Ministry of Finance for favourable consideration. Therefore, the Writ Petition No. 9523(W) of

1988 which was pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta was not pressed by the petitioners. The

members of the unions at all material times till February, 2004 had been discharging their duties of 44 hours

plus 10 hours overtime allowance per week on the basis of the said agreement with regard to above

compensation. The demand of the unions for payment of 19% compensation was not accepted and a diary order

dated 24^th March, 2005 determining the normal working hours as 44 hours per week was issued by the Mint

authorities. It was also a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intending to give effect to

the diary order with effect from 18^th April, 2005. There cannot be any increase in the number of working hours

of an employee without corresponding compensation thereof. Therefore, 6 ½ working hours per week should be

compensated with corresponding increase in the pay packet. The workmen are required to work 17.73% of

hours of extra work. Accordingly taking into account the anomalies of pay as recommended by the Fifth Pay

2372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Commission, the percentage of compensation was arrived at 19% and promised by the management of the Mint.

The unions have prayed that the demand raised by the unions for 19% compensation for increase in working

hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week should be accepted and the action of the management in not granting

compensation as above, may be declared unjust, illegal and improper.

The management of India Government Mint has filed its written statement in reply to the pleadings

submitted by the unions in which it is pleaded that the normal working hours of Kolkata, Mumbai and

Hyderabad Mints was 37½ hours which has been enhanced to 44 hours as normal working hours per week after

implementation of Fifth Central Pay Commission report with effect from 27.05.1998, but the normal working

hours of Noida Mint have been 44 hours from the very inception. The management of India Government Mint,

Kolkata had issued a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 enhancing the normal

working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week which was challenged by the Calcutta Mint Workers Union and

others in Writ Petition No. 9523(W) of 1988 before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta , however, it was

dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Though in appeal stay order was granted by the Division Bench of

the Hon’ble Court, but the same was withdrawn by the Calcutta Mint Workers Union on 13^th May, 1998. A

meeting was held by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance with the representatives of all unions on the issue

of implementation of recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission on 15^th April, 1998 in which the workers

demanded 19% compensation on introduction of 44 hours normal working hours. However, it was decided that

the issue would be taken up for favourable consideration with the Department of Expenditure. Another meeting

was held on 5^th May, 1998 between the Mint management and the members of steering committee of the unions.

It is further pleaded that the management has not given any assurance in writing regarding 19% compensation

for increased working hours. The Calcutta Mint Workers Union had also moved an application No. 115 of 2001

and MA No. 74 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the matter of 19% compensation, wherein

the Tribunal vide its order dated 08.02.2001 directed the Mint authority to take decision and communicate the

same. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal the communication dated 1th May, 2001 was issued by the

Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance denying any justification for grant of compensation and that

from 01.01.1996 to 26.05.1998 the pay should be proportionately depressed where the workmen did not work

for 44 hours a week. It is also pleaded that the employees of Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad and Noida Mints

belong to Central Government and governed by CCA Rules, 1965, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not

applicable in case of employees of Mint. It is also pleaded that India Government Mint, Kolkata has been

declared a public utility service under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Rejoinders have been filed in reply to the pleadings in written statement reiterating the facts pleaded in

the statements of claim. It is also pleaded that increase in working hours was accepted only on assurance of the

management of mint for favourable consideration. Hence principle of Promissory Estoppels is applicable and

Mint authority is duty hound to grant 19% compensation for increased working hours.

On behalf of the workmen WW-01, Shri V.T. Bhaste, WW-02, Shri Provat Ghosh, WW-03,

Shri Biswanath Sikdar, WW-04, Shri K. Dasavaranam, WW-05, Shri K. Uma Maheswara Rao, WW-06,

Shri Jaywantrao Yeshwantrao Rao have been examined. On behalf of the management only witness MW-01,

Shri Shahid Ashraf has been examined. Parties have also filed number of documentary evidences which shall be

taken up at appropriate stage in the findings of the Award for convenience.

I have heard the learned counsels for the unions and also for the management of Government of India

Mint.

The learned counsels for the unions have submitted that increase in working hours amounts to change

in condition of service and notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was mandatory to effect

any change in working hours. The unions had agreed to work for the increased working hours for 44 hours only

on assurance of the management of Mint to pay 19% compensation. Hence the management is bound to pay

19% compensation for increased working hours.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the India Government Mint has argued that acceptance of the

revised pay scale by the employees amounts to waiver of notice under Section 9A of the Act. The steering

committee of the unions had entered into agreement/settlement in a meeting with the General Manager of Mint

giving consent for increase of working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours. Mint management never gave any

assurance for payment of 19% compensation for increased working hours.

Based on the rival pleadings and submissions of the unions and the management following points of

determination may be delineated –

Whether India Government Mint is an industry?

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2373

Whether judgment in case No. PWA 353 of 1951 under Payment of Wages Act operates as res-

judicata?

Whether notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is mandatory?

Whether acceptance of revised pay scale as recommended by Pay Commission would amount to

waiver of notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Whether India Government Mint is bound to pay 19% compensation to the employees by virtue

of principles of Promissory Estoppels?

Mint as industry

10.

Though at the very outset the management of Government of India Mint has taken the point of

maintainability that the employees of Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad Mints belong to Central Government

and they are governed by CCS Rules, 1965, therefore, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and other

labour laws are not applicable, but in paragraph 12 of the written statement the management has also pleaded

that India Government Mint, Kolkata is under the Industrial Disputes Act and is governed by the provisions of

Factories Act, 1948. Not only this the management has also pleaded that above units of India Government Mint

have been converted into a public sector unit of SPMCIL since 13^th January, 2016. Government notification

dated 10^th February, 2006 has also been filed on record to the effect that in pursuance of cabinet decision on 2^nd

September, 2005, Government of India has decided to corporatize the functions of nine units of Department of

Economic Affairs and accordingly all the existing functions of those nine units including Security Presses etc in

respect of security grade papers and coin and printing of currency notes and non-judicial stamp papers have

been transferred to a wholly owned company viz. “Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India Limited”.

Consequently, the management, control, operation and maintenance of production etc. have been transferred to

the company. Statutory definition of “Industry” is given in Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947 –

“2(j) “industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and

includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of

workmen:”

11.

Above definition of ‘industry’ was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bangalore Water

Supply v. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 where it has been observed -

“Where (i) any systematic activity, (ii) organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the

direct and substantial element is chimerical), (iii) for the production and or distribution goods and

services calculated to supply human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of

material things or services geared celestial bliss i.e. making on large scale Prasad or food; prima facie,

there is an ‘industry’ in that enterprise.)”

It was observed that mere absence of profit motive will not necessarily push the activity out of the pole

of industry, further that act undertaken in fulfillment of the state’s constitutional obligation or in discharge of

constitutional or sovereign functions is excepted from the definition of ‘industry’. However, Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi in Union of India v. Raj Kumar Shah (WP (C) 3495 of 2015 decided on 20.01.2020 while

considering the question whether the Controller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks was an industry,

held that every function which is performed by the government is not sovereign. Sovereign functions which are

core and inalienable are exempted from Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947.Sovereign functions become inalienable

only when it becomes impossible to delegate them to any other authority, then only it is exempted from the

ambit of Section 2(j) of the Act. Functions such as collection of tax, maintenance of law and order, external

relations which have at all time to be performed by the government and the government alone would qualify as

‘inalienable’ sovereign functions.

12.

In the instant case, as it has been seen above, the units of India Government Mint has been corporatized

and converted into a public sector unit of SPMCIL (Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India Limited)

on 13.01.2006 as a consumer goods industry engaged in the manufacture/production of currency and Bank

Notes, Security Paper, non-judicial stamp papers, postal stamps and stationery, cheques, bonds etc., thus these

functions cannot be said to be inalienable and sovereign functions. Not only this, it is admitted case between the

parties that the units of India Government Mint have been declared public utility services under the provision of

Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Only industry specified in First Schedule can be declared

public utility services. Hence, obviously the units of Indian Government Mint comes within the definition of

industry and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to it. Apart from this a specific issue whether

Mint is an industry or not had also come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in

Writ Petition No. 3586 of 1982 (The management of India Government Mint, Hyderabad v. workmen) In

2374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

which the Mint was held to be not an industry. Against this judgment of the Hon’ble Single Bench appeal was

preferred before the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1988 where Mint was considered to be

industry. Special Leave petition filed against the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench was also dismissed by

the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus it is established that Mint is an ‘Industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Res-judicata

13.

Learned counsel for the unions have submitted that the working hours of units have been 37½ hours

per week. Attempts were made by the Mint management in 1951 to enhance the working hours without giving

notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the Mint management illegally tried to

enhance the working hours from 37½ to 40 hours and also tried to deduct wages for 2½ per week from the

workers who did not work for 40 hours. The matter went to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act

which ruled that normal working hours of unit was 37½ hours per week since the creation of Mint and the

employer has no right to increase the working hours in absence of contract without increase of their wages. In

these circumstances, learned counsel for the unions have contended that in view of judgment of authority under

the Payment of Wages Act the working hours cannot be increased without increase in wages of the employees

and principles of res-judicata will be applicable in the matter. I do not agree with the contentions of the learned

counsels that principles of res-judicata applies in such circumstances.

14.

Principles of res-judicata has been incorporated in Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure which reads

as follows –

“Section 11. No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue

has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between

parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to

try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been

heard and finally decided by such court.”

In order to apply the principles contained in Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure following

conditions must satisfy –

There must be a suit and a former suit between the said parties;

The former suit must have been heard and finally decided;

The former court must be competent to try the second suit; and

The matter must have been directly and substantially in issue in former suit also.

14.

Conditions (3) and (4) are relevant and important to the matter in issue. It is essential that the former

court must be competent to try the subsequent suit. Thus the decision in a previous suit by a court, not

competent to try the subsequent suit, will not operate as res-judicata. The principle behind this condition is that

the decision of the court of limited jurisdiction ought not to be final and binding on a court of unlimited

jurisdiction. Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 limits the jurisdiction and power of the Authority to

the determination of claim arising out of deduction from wages or delay in the payment of wages which cannot

be extended to include the power to adjudicate upon a matter under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is a court of limited jurisdiction. Only Industrial Tribunal or Labour

Court is competent to determine such matters.

15.

Apart from that, it is also necessary that the matter must have been directly and substantially in issue

before the formal court. From the perusal of judgment passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act

Ext. W(I) - 1 it is clear that the matter of violation of provision of Section 9A of the Act of 1947 was not in issue

before the court in Case of PWA 353 of 1951. Thus no question of application of principles of res-judicata

arises.

Notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947

16.

Undisputedly the employer has every right to change the condition of service after serving notice under

Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Item No. 4 of the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1947 shows

that hours of work is to be treated as condition of service. It is also not disputed that change in working hours is

condition of service which can be varied by the employer after giving notice under Section 9A of the Act of

1947. The provision of Section 9A of the Act of 1947 may be reproduced below for convenience -

9A. Notice of change – No employer, who proposed to effect any change in the conditions of service

applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change –

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2375

(a)

Without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed

manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or

(b)

within twenty-one days of giving such notice;

Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change –

(a)

Where the change is effected in pursuance to any settlement or award; or

(b)

Where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental

and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil

Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil service Regulations, Civilians

and Defence Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway

Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the

appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply.

17.

Thus from the above provision it is clear that whenever any change in condition of service is proposed

by the employer four conditions must be complied with (a) notice giving effect to change; (b) notice must be in

prescribed form; (c) change can be effected to only after lapse of 21 days from the date of service of notice; and

(d) change must be in matter specified in Fourth Schedule.

18.

Now question arises whether the Mint Authority has given notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947

before enhancing working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week. The statement of claim of the union reveals

that notice under Section 9A increasing working hours from 37½ to 44 hours a week based on the

recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission was issued by the Mint authorities on 16.01.1988. This was

objected by the workmen and the unions representing workmen of the India Security Press and the Currency

Note Press issued notice of strike proposing to proceed on indefinite strike in view of unjustified increase of

working hours. A Writ Petition was also filed before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta praying for withdrawal

of notice. The matter was then admitted in conciliation and during conciliation it was agreed that during

pendency of above writ petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, notice dated 16.01.1988

would not be given effect to and thus notice of strike was not implemented. Subsequently the Writ Petition No.

9523 (W) of 1998 pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta was dismissed on 07.01.1991. A failure

report was submitted by the conciliation officer. Reference was also initially refused by the Central

Government, but under the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, reference was made. Thus

after closure of conciliation proceeding the notice issued on 16.01.1998 cannot be said to survive. Therefore a

fresh notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 was required for change in condition of service. Admittedly no

notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 was issued thereafter.

Effect of accepting revised Pay Scale as recommended by Pay Commission

19.

Learned counsel for the management of Government of India Mint has submitted that during pendency

of writ petition in Hon’ble Calcutta High Court Fifth Pay Commission has submitted its report and was

implemented by the Central Government. The workmen of Indian Government Mint also took benefit of the

revised pay scale. Enhancement of working hours from 37½ to 44 hours a week was condition precedent for

revision of pay scale and other benefits to the employees. Therefore, question of service of any notice under

Section 9A of the Act of 1947 does not arise. Learned counsel has also submitted that Firth Pay Commission has

specifically dealt with the issue of enhancement of working hours. Contrary to it the learned counsels for the

unions have submitted that the Pay Commission report is not binding on the workmen in absence of notice

under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 and acceptance of revised pay scale by the workmen does not give the

authority to the Mint management to enhance working hours.

20.

Justifying increase in working hours the Fifth Pay Commission in paragraph 66.31 of the report has

observed that mere fact that the Mints have been observing 37½ hours over a century is not a reason enough to

necessitate that status quo should be maintained regardless of changes in the working environment and

condition. A lesser number of working hours might conceivably have been justified in the earlier years when the

coin manufacturing process were not refined enough and involved working in arduous and intemperate

condition. The progressive modernization and automation of the Mints would however have resulted in a fatigue

and this is an aspect that will necessarily have to be kept in view. The Pay Commission have also taken into

consideration the working hours of Noida Mint which was working for 44 hours a week and in order to maintain

uniformity in working hours, the Pay Commission had recommended for enhancement of normal working hours

from 37½ to 44 hours.

21.

Admittedly 5^th Pay Commission has already been implemented and the workmen are getting benefits of

the same. WW-01, Shri V.T. Bhaste in his statement has said that in respect of one Mint, the recommendation of

2376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Pay Commission has been implemented after fulfilling certain conditions from the workmen side. He has further

stated in his cross-examination that the recommendation of 6^th Central Pay Commission has been accepted by

the management as well as by all the employees unions. Other witnesses also have admitted in their cross-

examination that the workmen are getting the revised pay scale and other allowances as recommended by the 5^th

and 6^th Central Pay Commission.

22.

Now question of waiver arises at this stage as to whet her acceptance of the revised pay scale as

recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission amounts to waiver of notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947.

This question has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Rajasthan and Bombay High Courts. In Director, State

Forms v. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, 2003 (2) WLN 629 where Project Allowance given @ 10% by the

Government of India where the basic minimum amenities were not available to the workmen at underdeveloped

places was subsequently reduced to 8% which resulted in an industrial dispute. The matter came up before the

Hon’ble High Court. The argument of the management was not accepted by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court

that notice to the workmen likely to be affected by the reduction in the rate of Project Allowance was not

required as the Project Allowance was reduced by the management following the report of the Third Pay

Commission which had heard the employees union and associations before making recommendations. The

Hon’ble Court had observed –

“Under Section 9A of the Act before reducing the rate of Project Allowance from 10% to 8% the

Corporation was bound to follow the mandate of Section 9A of the Act. After recommendations of the

Third Pay Commission were accepted by the Government the Appellant blindly followed the same

without taking any independent and voluntary decision on their own with regard to the question

whether or not reduce the Project Allowance. The dependence of the Appellant on the report of the Pay

Commission was so heavy that it thought that since the unions of workmen of various enterprises have

already pleaded their case before the Pay Commission, it was not necessary to give 21 days’ notice to

the employees in the project before effecting the change. This was clearly a wrong approach which

cannot be countenance. Since the Appellant Corporation failed to comply with the provisions of Section

9A the change effected in the rate of Project Allowance payable to the workmen cannot be changed.”

23.

The question of issue of notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 before increase in working hours

after acceptance of revised pay by the workmen came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court at

Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5400 of 1996 in Union of India v. India Security Press decided on 3^rd August,

2010 where the number of working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week were increased in view of the

recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission and the workmen have accepted the benefits of the

recommendation of the Pay Commission in as much as they were drawing wages in accordance with the

recommendation. Not only this, but in above case the workmen have also submitted undertaking to abide by the

recommendations. The Hon’ble Court did not accept the above argument advanced by the management and held

that any change in the service condition of workers working in the India Security Press or Currency Note Press

must be preceded by a notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947. The Hon’ble Court has also held that under

Section 9A of the Act notice of change is required whenever a change is proposed in respect of any matter

specified in Fourth Schedule of the Act. The change in working hours is one of the reason that would require a

notice under Section 9A of the Act. Thus, mere fact that the workmen accepted the revised pay scale would not

waive of the notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947.

24.

Thus from the above discussion it is clear that the fact that the unions of workmen were heard by the

Pay Commission or the workmen accepted the pay scale as revised by 5^th Pay Commission would not obviate

the requirement of giving a prior notice of the proposed change in the condition of service of the workmen of

India Government Mint.

Effect of Agreement with Unions

25.

Where change in condition of service is effected in pursuance of any settlement or Award, notice is not

required. Proviso to Section 9A of the Act of 1947 says –

“Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change –

(a)

Where the change is effected in pursuance to any settlement or award; or

(b)

Where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental

and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil

Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil service Regulations, Civilians

and Defence Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway

Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the

appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply.”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2377

Explaining the purpose of giving notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 the Hon’ble Bombay

High Court in Navbharat, Hindu Daily, Nagpur v Navbharat Shramik Shanga 1985-I-LLJ 474 (Bombay) has

observed that –

“The intention behind the notice appeared to be that the workmen affected has a chance to raise a

dispute by approaching proper authority. The said dispute can also mature into a reference if the

parties do not arrive at an amicable settlement.”

26.

In the instant case the management of Mint has emphasized the factum of amicable settlement with the

unions. Learned counsel for the management of India Government Mint relying on the minutes of meeting held

on 15^th April, 1998 with the unions/associations of India Government Mint, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Mumbai

has submitted that during pendency of writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta Fifth Pay Commission

had submitted its report. Therefore, for implementation of the report of the Fifth Pay Commission the General

Manager, India Government Mint held several meetings with joint action committee of unions/associations of

India Government Mint, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Mumbai and in one of the meeting held on 15^th April, 1998 at

New Delhi the unions had agreed that the three mints of India Government would function for 44 hours per

week. In above meeting a demand of 19% compensation on account of introduction of 44 hours work per week

based on recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission was also raised by the workers for which there was an

agreement that this demand would be taken up with the Department of Expenditure for favourable

consideration. Record of discussion held on 15^th April, 1998 at New Delhi between India Government Mints and

unions have been filed on record.

27.

For better appreciation of the terms of agreement it would be pertinent to quote minutes of above

meeting held on 15^th April, 1998 which is as follows –

“Record of discussions held on 15.04.1998 at New Delhi with Unions/Associations of India Govt.

Mints, Calcutta, Hyderabad & Mumbai.

The three mints will function 44 hrs. per week as normal working hours as recommended by the

fifth Pay Commission. Revised pay scales recommended by the commission as approved by

Government will be allowed to the workers/employees from 1.1.1996 after they start 44 hrs.

normal working per week.

Keeping in view the demand – supply position of coins etc. the General Manager of each Mint

will be authorized to sanction maximum overtime working with a view to increasing production

according to work needs and in conformity with Factories Act i.e. approximately 54 hrs. per

week. The demand supply gap as at present likely to continue in the foreseeable future. The OTA

working will be only subject to review and revision after consultation with the

unions/association.

Overtime Allowance will be allowed on the revised pay scales from 1.1.1996 in conformity with

Government orders/Factories Act.

Increases in production corresponding to the revised weekly working hours including overtime

working will be effected. The base level production, target production and incentive parameters

will be determined on the basis of total weekly working hours including OTA working. Incentive

payment will be based on this.

The eligibility for and ceiling on OTA on the basic pay as per the new pay scales based on 44 hrs.

normal weekly working will be revised appropriately.

The workers/employees demanded 19% compensation on account of introduction of 44 hrs.

normal weekly working hours as per 5^th Pay Commission recommendations. This will be taken

up with the Department of Expenditure for favourable consideration.

The General Manager of concerned Mint will take action on the basis of minutes of the above

discussions in conformity with the existing rules/ regulations/ statutory laws/ agreements/

pending litigations/ court orders etc.”

28.

Next meeting was held on 5^th May, 1998 between General Manager, India Government Mints and

members of steering committee of unions and associations in which normal working hours of 44 hours with new

pay scale was again reiterated. The minutes of meeting dated 5^th May, 1998 may also be reproduced as below –

“Minutes of the meeting held on 5.5.98 at 3.30 P.M. in the Conference Hall with General Manager

along with D.G.M., C.A.O., SR. L.O.W.M. L.O.A.W. Ms and members of steering Committee of

Union & Associations.

2378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

General Manager stated that O.T.A. Arrears from 1.1.96 will be paid on the basis of 37½ hrs. as

normal hours with new scales till the start of 44 hrs. working as Normal hours. But he added that

this payment will be made only after receiving orders from Ministry.

This point is already clarified in the minutes of the meeting with the Ministry of Finance at point

No. 3.

Regarding distribution of normal working hours, General Manager agreed upon 8 hrs. per day

from Monday to Friday and 4 hours on Saturday as normal working hours per week.

Timing shall be:

9.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. Monday to Friday

9.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. on Saturday

As regards 48 hrs. per week the timings shall be : -

9.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. Monday to Friday

9.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. on Saturday.

G.M. expressed that 54 hrs. working can be implemented only after the availability of raw

materials/blanks and consumables required for running plants and machineries are ensured by the

concerned officers of the shop floor. The J.A.C. proposed to extend their co-operation for

implementation of 54 hrs. and proportionate increase in production. However G.M. proposed that

54 hrs./week working will be started from 1.6.98 by which time blanks required for continuous

running along with other consumables will be made available so that there will not be any

problem for smooth working.

G.M. had agreed to take up the matter with Ministry of Finance regarding 19% compensation

with Ministry of Finance.

As regards recommendation made in part B of 5^th Pay Commission, the G.M. advised the

employees concerned to submit their representation on the basis of which further action will be

taken. As part ‘C’ does not concern this organization it was not discussed.

The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair.”

29.

It is material to note here that the Bombay Mint Employees Federation had served a notice of strike

dated 18^th February, 1998 on account of increase in working hours. The parties entered into conciliation

proceeding during which the notice of strike was withdrawn by the federation on settlement that 7 items of

records of discussion held on 15^th April, 1998 at New Delhi would be implemented after compliance with the

relevant statutory provisions and other rules and regulations. The learned counsels for the unions have made

minutes of meeting held on 15.04.1998 basis of their argument for grant of 19% compensation. It is submitted

that one of the terms of agreement in minutes of 15^th April, 1998 was that the demand of the unions for grant of

19% compensation on account of introduction of 44 hours normal weekly working hours shall be taken up with

the Department of Expenditure for favourable consideration. The terms of discussion have to be read as a whole.

The unions cannot be allowed to adopt favourable terms and discard the unfavourable one. Paragraph 1 of the

agreement was regarding 44 hours normal working hours of the Mints as recommended by Fifth Pay

Commission. It was also agreed that the revised pay scale will be allowed to the workers from 01.01.1996 after

they start 44 hours normal working per week. Thus the unions accepted that the workers would start working for

44 hours per week and the day they start working for 44 hours, they would be entitled for the revised pay scale.

In pursuance of this agreement the workmen have also started working and they are getting revised pay scale. So

far as demand of 19% compensation is concerned, the management does not appear to have accepted the grant

of 19% compensation. The term of agreement was that their demand would be placed before the Department of

Expenditure for favourable consideration. The term ‘favourable consideration’ does not mean acceptance of

demand. It denotes that the final authority was with the Department of Expenditure and subject to decision of

the Department of Expenditure, the demand of 19% compensation would be disposed of.

30.

The unions also wanted implementation of minutes of 15^th April, 1998 and for the enforcement of the

minutes the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and Hyderabad Mint Staff Association had gone to the extent of filing

O.A. No. 648 of 1998 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pleading inter alia that on the basis of

recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission the working hours of India Government Mints have been increased

from 37½ to 44 hours a week and in meeting of April, 1998 it was decided that the demand of 19%

compensation on account of increase of working hours to 44 hours would be taken up with the Department of

Expenditure for favourable consideration. In above O.A. the Tribunal directed the Department of Expenditure to

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2379

consider the demand of the employees expeditiously. In Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal

O.A. 115 of 2001 was also filed by the Calcutta Mint Workers Union to the same effect. In this O.A. also the

Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Department of Expenditure to take decision

and communicate the same to the Applicant within three months vide order dated 8^th February, 2001. Thus it is

explicit that the unions themselves wanted the implementation of the agreement/settlement arrived at between

the India Government Mint and the members of the steering committee of unions/associations.

31.

In above set of facts and circumstances, where the unions through their steering committee have

themselves come to the terms of settlement and agreed for implementation of the minutes of meeting held on

15^th April, 1998, whether notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 wasstill required? Section 9A of the Act of

1947 categorically says that no notice shall be required for effecting any change in condition of service where

the change is effected in pursuance with any settlement or award. From the above discussion it is clear that the

members of the steering committee of unions/associations had come to terms in the meeting of 15^th April, 1998

that the three Mints at Kolkata, Hyderabad and Mumbai will function for 44 hours per week as normal working

hours as recommended by Fifth Pay Commission. It was agreed that the revised pay scales recommended by the

Pay Commission will be allowed to the workers/employees from 01.01.1996 after they start 44 hours normal

working per week. The witnesses examined on behalf of the unions have admitted that the unions agreed for

implementation of the 5^th Pay Commission report which was recorded in form of a minutes of a meeting. WW-

04, Shri K. Dasavaranam has named it as tripartite settlement. Not only this, in meeting held on 5^th May, 1998 it

was again reiterated that the minutes of meeting of 15^th April, 1998 would be implemented. The implementation

of minutes of meeting held on 15^th April, 1998 was also reiterated in meeting between Mumbai Mint and

Bombay Mint Employees Federation held on 5^th May, 1998 during conciliation proceedings. Some of the unions

had also gone to the extent of moving to Central Administrative Tribunal for issue of direction to implement the

minutes of meeting dated 15.04.1998. Thus, in view of above agreement/settlement it is obvious that notice of

change in working hours was not required as provided in Section 9A of the Act of 1947.

32.

Admittedly after direction issued by the Central Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad and also that of

Kolkata the Department of Economic Affairs communicated its decision refusing to pay 19% compensation for

increased working hours.

Promissory Estoppel

33.

The learned counsels for the unions have also taken the point of doctrine of promissory estoppel

against the India Government Mint. It has been submitted by the learned counsels for the unions that appeal

from the Hon’ble High Court was withdrawn on the basis of agreement entered into by and between the parties

whereby it was assured that the claim for 19% compensation would be for “favourable consideration” which

cannot be treated a stray assurance or assurance given in a casual manner. The principles of promissory

estoppel is applicable where one party by words or conduct made to the other a clear or unequivocal promise

which intended to create a legal relation or affect a legal relationship to arise in future knowing or intending that

it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is, in fact, was acted upon by the

other party. In that case promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go

back on it. Applying the above principles to the facts of the instant case, it appears that the promise as

incorporated in minutes of meeting dated 15.04.1998 was made by the India Government Mint only to place the

demand of 19% compensation before the Department of expenditure. There was no assurance by the India

Government Mint to grant above compensation and the unions had also agreed to this. Placing of demand of

19% compensation to the Department of Expenditure for “favourable consideration” implies only that final

authority to decide or accept the demand lies with the Department of Expenditure. Such promise is no promise

of acceptance of demand. Hence principle of ‘Promissory Estoppel’ does not apply.

34.

Learned counsels for the unions have also submitted that in grant of overtime, Central Administrative

Tribunal, Kolkata had refused to change the deviser and upheld the deviser of 192 as applied by the

management, but the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and held that

deviser would be 191 instead of 192. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court was challenged before the

Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, but this

argument of the learned counsels for the unions has no reflection on increase of working hours or on grant of

compensation. The deviser was applied treating the normal working hours as 44 hours a week. However, the

judgment is applicable in the matter of grant of quantum of overtime and it has nothing to do with the matter in

controversy in the present case. Merely because the workmen are required to work 17.73 hours of extra work

due to implementation of 5^th Pay Commission report the workmen cannot be said to be entitled to 19%

compensation in view of the fact of the agreement entered into between the management and the unionjs on

15.04.1998.

2380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

36.

Thus, it is concluded that the workmen of India Government Mint represented by the unions are not

entitled for 19% compensation on account of increase in working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week and the

decision of the management of India Government of Mint in not granting 19% compensation for the increased

working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week (as per recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission) is just and

legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

37.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 30^th July, 2020

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 780.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव इंडस टावसव जलजमटेड, कोलाकाता और अन् एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों

और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न् ा ाल , कोलाकाता के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 55/2014) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को 24.03.20

को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2014) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Indus Towers Limited, Kolkata, & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 24.03.20.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 55 of 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Indus Towers Limited

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. R. De, learned counsel

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Telecommunication

Dated: 16th March, 2020

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2381

ORDER

By Order No. L-42011/53/2014-IR(DU) dated 04.07.2014 and corrigendums of even number dated

07.08.2014 and 22.04.2015 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 Quantum Global Infrastructure (P) Ltd., a

vendor/service provide under Indus Towers Ltd. Over the issue of alleged illegal termination of

services of 116 security guards w.e.f. 2011 is legal justified? If not, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

After the above order of reference, notices were issued to all the concerned parties and all of them

appeared by filing their respective letter of authority/vakalatnama. Only Purba Medinipur Zela Security Service

& Allied Workers Union, however, filed its statement of claims and M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. filed its written

statement in reply. Both the unions and also M/s. Quantum Global Infrastructure (P) Ltd. are found absent since

07.11.2019. Opportunity of adducing evidence was given to the unions, but they remained absent 14.01.2020.

Opportunity of adducing evidence was also given to M/s. Indus Towers Limited, but its learned counsel

submitted on 11.03.2020 that in the wake of no evidence being led by the union, they close their evidence.

Union did not file any evidence to support the claim of the workmen. As documentary evidence the

union has filed several documents, but in absence of oral evidence the above documents which are merely photo

copies and prepared on loose papers, they cannot be admitted in evidence to support the claim of the two

workmen.

From the pleadings of the union it appears that 116 workmen were verbally terminated by the

contractor M/s. Quantum Global Infrastructure (P) Ltd. on the instruction of the principal employer, M/s. Indus

Towers Ltd. on different dates. Thus it is a case of ‘retrenchment’ under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. In these circumstances for the compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, it is obligatory

on the part of the union to show that 116 workmen concerned worked for more than 240 days in a year

preceding the date of their termination. But, there is nothing on record to show that they worked for 240 days

preceding the date of their termination. Therefore, compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise.

In view of above, I come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the claims submitted by the union

for the 116 workmen concerned. Therefore, they are not entitled for any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata, The 16^th March, 2020

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 781.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव विंिुस्ट्तान जिृ ाडव जलजमटेड, गांिीग्राम, जविा ाृत्तनम िजिराबाि और अन् एवं उनके कमवचारी के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि-1 के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 10/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्द्री सरकार को 04.08.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-14011/26/2016-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

2382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2017) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The General Manager, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd, Gandhigram, Visakhapatnam Hyderabad, & Others, and their

workmen which were received by the Central Government on 06.08.2020.

[No. L-14011/26/2016-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 2^nd day of March, 2020

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 10/2017

Between:

The General Secretary,

Shipyard Contract Labour Union,

CITU office, D. No.61-4-19/A, Malkapuram,

Visakhapatnam – 521175.

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Hindustan Shipyard Ltd.,

Gandhigram,

Visakhapatnam -530 005.

The Sr. Manager,

M/s. Hawk Security Services Ltd.,

Prince Apartment No.8, D.No.9-19-9/1/2,

First Floor, CBM Compound,

Visakhapatnam (A.P.)-53000

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. P. Venkata Narayana, T. Viswanadha Rao & B. Karunakar, Advocates

For the Respondents : M/s. Saibaba & Srinivas, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-14011/26/2016-IR(DU) dated

22.3.2017/27/3/2017 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication

to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Unitech Machine Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of M/s. Hawk Security Services Ltd., Contractor of Hindustan

Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri Ch. Surya Rao, Ex-Security Guard is

legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference it is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 10/2017 and notices were issued

to the parties concerned.

The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner Union.

Inspite of repeated calls, the Petitioner union did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given

to the Petitioner Workman/Union to attend the court to prosecute the case. But the Petitioner workman/union

failed to attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner workman/union

has already been settled and the Petitioner Union has got nothing to raise any claim against the Respondent.

Hence, the case of the Petitioner workman/Union is closed and a ‘No dispute’ award is passed.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2383

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 2^nd day

of July, 2020.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 782—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव उृ जनिेिक, रीिनल कॉफी ररसचव स्ट्टेिन, नरसीृट्टनम, जविा ाृत्तनम, िजिराबाि और अन् एवं

उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में

केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि -1 के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 205/2014) को

प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को 04.08.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42012/107/2014-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 205/2014) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal

cum-Labour Court Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Deputy Director, Regional Coffee Research Station, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad,

& Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 06.08.2020.

[No. L-42012/107/2014-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of February, 2020

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 205/2014

Between:

Sri V. Mahendran,

S/o Vellaswamy,

Yerravaram Village, G.K. Veedhi (Mandal),

Visakhapatnam (A.P.)

…Petitioner

2384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Deputy Director,

Regional Coffee Research Station,

P.B. Palli, R.V. Nagar,

Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam -531116.

The Director of Research,

Central Coffee Research Institute,

Coffee Research Station, Coffee Board,

Chikmanglur Dist.

Karnataka – 577117.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. K.Venkateswarlu & T. Sridhar, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. M.S.Srinivasa Iyengar, Hirendernath & G. Narender Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-42012/107/2014-IR(DU) dated

9.9.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal between the management of Regional Coffee Research Station and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Deputy Director (Research), Regional Coffee Research

Station, P.B. Palli, Narasipatnam, Visakhapatnam District/Director of Research, Central Coffee

Research Institute, Coffee research station, Coffee Board, Chikmanglur, Karnataka in terminating the

services of Shri V. Mahendran, Ex Regular Mazdoor is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 205/2014 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

Petitioner has filed claim statement and documents. Respondents did not file counter and documents

though several opportunities have been given. As such, Respondents were set ex-parte. The case stands posted

for Petitioner’s evidence.

Inspite of service of notices, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to

the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to attend this Tribunal which

clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner is not interested to prosecute his case and perhaps the dispute of the

Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner has nothing to claim. Hence, a ‘No dispute’ award is

passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 18^th day

of February, 2020.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2385

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 783.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव मु्‍ मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, िजिराबाि और अन् एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र

के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि -1 के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 117/2007) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री

सरकार को 06.08.2020को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 117/2007) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal

cum-Labour Court Hyderabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd,Hyderabad.& Others, and their workmen

which were received by the Central Government on 06.08.2020.

[No. L-42025/07/2020-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Dated the 8^th day of July, 2020

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 117/2007

Between:

Sri Khaja Aneesuddin,

S/o Khaja Mohiuddin,

R/o 5-4-240, Gunj Street,

Jagityal, Karimnagar district.

…Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

A.P. Circle, Abids, Hyderabad.

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Karimnagar.

The Sub Divisional Officer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Jagityal Sub Division, Jagityal,

Karimnagar.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri M.V. Praveen Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent : Sri M.C. Jacob, Advocate

2386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Sri Khaja Aneesuddin, the Petitioner who worked as Mazdoor in the Respondent’s organization has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Ltd., seeking for declaring the oral termination order dated 15.7.1991 passed by Respondent No.1 as

illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into

service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other

attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made by the Petitioner in the claim petition are:

Initially the Petitioner was engaged as a casual mazdoor in the month of September, 1986 under

Respondent No.3 and was engaged between September, 1986 and 15.7.1991 with artificial breaks and thereafter

his services were orally terminated without further engagement. It is stated that initially the appointment of the

Petitioner in the month of September, 1986 was in A.P. Telecom which was subsequently privatized/changed as

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. It is further stated that when the Petitioner was terminated from service, he

made several representations to the Respondents for his reengagement. As the Respondents did not pay any

heed to the representation of the Petitioner he was compelled to file OA No.881/1995 before the Hon’ble

Central Administrative Tribunal for a declaration that he is entitled for re-engagement as per CGM AP Telecom

Proc. No.TA/RE/20-1/Rigs/Corr., dated 22.2.1993 as casual mazdoor under the control of the Respondents by

holding the action of the Respondents in not re-engaging him as illegal. The Hon’ble Central Administrative

Tribunal has disposed of the above OA on 9.8.1995 with the following directions:

“In view of what is stated by the applicant, it has to be presumed that he had gained some experience in

the work in the Telecom Department. So, it is in the interest of the applicant, if he is engaged in

preference to a fresher whenever there is work. If the applicant is going to be engaged in pursuance of

this order, none shall be retrenched who are already in service.”

It is further submitted that when the Respondents did not implement the order of the Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing WP No.17397 of 2000 for

declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative

Tribunal passed in OA No.881/1995 dated 9.8.1995 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directed the

Respondents to implement the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by reinstating

the Petitioner with all consequential benefits. The Hon’ble High Court after hearing the Petitioner was pleased

to dismiss the above WP on 18.1.2001 with the following direction:

“Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, AIR 1997

SC 1125 in our opinion, this Writ Application is not maintainable as the Petitioner can file appropriate

application before the Learned Tribunal….”

In view of the above direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the Petitioner filed MA No. 129/2002, in OA

No.881/1995 for implementation of the order of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 9.8.1995,

however, the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal has passed the following directions:

“In the reply statement, the Respondents submitted that the orders of this Tribunal was to engage the

applicant in preference to freshers whenever there is work. If such a contingency arises, two conditions

namely (1) availability of work, and (2) the need of the Respondents organization to engage any

person shall arise, then only need for implementation of Judgement arises….”

It is stated that in view of the above order passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal the

Petitioner has approached the Respondents time and again requesting to permit him to work as Mazdoor in the

department on par with persons on par with him and also subsequent to him and are continuing. It is further

submitted that the Director General of Telecom, New Delhi issued various Circulars including Lr. No. 269-

10/89/STN, dated 7.11.1989 wherein at para 6, it has been provided that temporary status would entitle the

casual labourers to the following benefits:

Wages at daily wages with reference to the minimum of the pay scale for regular Group-D

official including DA, HRA, and CCA.

Benefits in respect of increments in Pay Scale will be admissible for every one year of service

subject to performance of duty for atleast 240 days (206 days in administrative days and

observing 5 day week) in the year.

Leave entitlement will be on prorate basis, 1 day for every 10 days of work. Casual Leave or any

other kind of leave will not be admissible. They will also be allowed to carry forward the leave

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2387

entitlement on their regularization. They will not be entitled to the benefit of encashment of

leave on termination of services for any reason of their fit in service.

Counting of 50% of service rendered under the temporary status for the purpose of retirement

benefits after their regularization.

After rendering 3 years continuous service on attainment of temporary status, the casual

labourers would be treated on par with temporary Group D Employees for the purpose of

contribution to General Provident Fund, and would also further be eligible for grant of Festival

Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group-D

Employees, provided they furnish the sureties from permanent Government servants of this

Department.

Until they are regularized they are entitled for productivity linked bonus only at the rates as

applicable to casual labour.

It is further submitted that the Department of Telecommunication in continuation of the above

orders, reiterated the above provision by various other orders dated 12.2.1999, for sanction of

posts of regular mazdoors for regularization of temporary status casual mazdoors, regularization

of casual mazdoors no.269-94/98-STN-II, dated 29.9.2000 and also No.269-13/99-STN II, dated

25.8.2000. It is also stated that the Petitioner has been appointed as temporary mazdoor in

September, 1986 and however not re-engaged inspite of directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal and

also circulars of the Department time and again, the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with

all consequential benefits such as continuity of service, regularization of service etc. Therefore,

the action of the Respondents in terminating the services of the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and

in violation of section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as no notice was issued prior to the

termination of his services. The Petitioner stated that since the date of his termination he

remained unemployed and could not secure any alternative employment inspite of his best efforts

resulting in distress and untold misery and hardship. The Respondents have taken the following

persons who are similarly situated like him into work, namely, S/Sri K. Peddanna(ID No.45/90),

S. Hanumanthu(ID No.30/96), K. Nageshwar (ID No.40/96), V. Goverdhanachari (ID No.41/96)

and V. Srinivas Rao (ID No.39/96) wherein the Petitioner has been discriminated by not giving

similar treatment, which is also violative of article No.14 and 15 in addition to the violation of

section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. With the above averments, the Petitioner prayed

to direct the Respondents to reinstate him into service as Mazdoor with all consequential benefits

by holding the action of the Respondents in terminating the services of the Petitioner orally from

15.7.1991 without issuing any notice as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the principles of

natural justice and also contrary to section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and pass

such other order or orders as this court may deem fit and proper.

The Respondent filed counter with the averments in brief as follows:

In their counter the Respondents while admitting some of the facts made in the claim statement have

also challenged the claim of the Petitioner stating therein that the Petitioner has filed OA No.881/95 before the

Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and other

attendant benefits. The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of the said OA by an order dated

9.8.95 with a direction to the 2^nd Respondent to reinstate the applicant as casual mazdoor in preference to

freshers whenever there is work. If the applicant is going to be engaged in pursuance of the orders of Hon’ble

Central Administrative Tribunal, none shall be retrenched who are already in service. It is stated that the subject

matter and the facts in OA No.881/95 filed before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal and the present

dispute in LC No.117/2007 filed before this Tribunal and the relief sought for by the Petitioner is one and the

same in both the cases. The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal has already decided the above dispute of

the Petitioner by an order dated 9.8.95. Therefore, principles of resjudicata applies to the present case filed by

the Petitioner. The Respondents also stated that without causing prejudice to the above contentions, it is

further submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as a casual mazdoor in September, 1986 under the control of

Respondent No.3 and was engaged as and when work is available in the telecom Department and also after

completion of work the Petitioner was disengaged. It is submitted that if the order passed by the Hon’ble

Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.881/95 will be carried out and the Petitioner is going to be engaged

in pursuance of the above order, none shall be retrenched who are already in service. It is also submitted that

since the Petitioner has not been engaged in service and has not worked under the Respondents, he is not

entitled to get any benefit including relief of consequential benefits and other terms and conditions including the

circular Lr.No.269-10/89/STN dated 7.11.1989 on par with regular employees of the Department does not arise.

2388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The claim of the Petitioner that the Respondents have not implemented the orders of the Hon’ble

Central Administrative Tribunal and the action of the Respondents’ management is illegal, arbitrary and it is

not proper. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is not in service of the Respondents’ organization in the

year 1999 and subsequently also. The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.881/1995

categorically directed to engage the Petitioner in preference to fresher whenever there is work in the Telecom

Department and further passed order that if the Petitioner is going to be engaged in pursuance of this order, none

shall be retrenched who are already in service. It is further submitted that as the Petitioner is not engaged till

this date, the question of application of existing terms and conditions of regular employees of the Telecom

Department does not arise. Since the Petitioner was not in service, the question of the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, including section 25 of the Act does not arise. The Petitioner cannot claim the benefit on par with

the other employees of the Telecom Department since he has not been engaged, and with these averments, the

Respondents submitted for dismissal of the claim petition.

During the course of hearing of this case, the Petitioner has been examined himself as WW1 and also

relied on 6 documents in support of his claim, which have been marked as Exs.W1 to W6. On the other hand,

the Respondents have examined Sri G. Subhash, Asst. General Manager(Admn.) of the Respondents’

management as MW1 and also relied on 8 documents which have been marked as Exs.M1 to M8.

In view of the facts stated above, the points for determination of this case are as follows:

Whether the action of the Respondents’ management in terminating the services of the Petitioner

is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service as Mazdoor with all consequential

benefits and to what other relief the Petitioner is entitled?

III.

Whether the case is barred by the principles of res judicata?

I have already heard the Learned Counsels for both the sides and also perused the evidence adduced so

far.

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that

initially the Petitioner was engaged as a casual mazdoor in the month of September, 1986 under Respondent

No.3 and he was engaged in between September, 1986 and 15.7.1991 with artificial breaks and thereafter the

services of the Petitioner were orally terminated without further engagement. The Petitioner prayed the

Respondent authority to reinstate him into service. But the Respondent did not reinstate him. He made several

representations to the Respondents but it was in vain. Thereafter, the Petitioner was compelled to file OA

No.881/1995 before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal for a declaration that he is entitled for re-

engagement as per CGM AP Telecom Proc. No.TA/RE/20-1/Rigs/Corr., dated 22.2.1993 as casual mazdoor

under the control of the Respondents by holding the action of the Respondents in not re-engaging him as illegal.

The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal has disposed of the above OA on 9.8.1995 directing the

Respondents to engage the Petitioner in preference to freshers whenever there is work. Even after passing of

this order, when the Respondents did not engage the Petitioner into service, the Petitioner filed writ petition

No.17397/2000 wherein the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the application as it was not maintainable. Again

the Petitioner filed M.A. No.129/2002 in OA No.881/1995 for implementation of the orders passed in OA No.

881/1995. Again the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal passed order directing the Respondents to

reinstate the Petitioner into service subject to availability of work and to the need of the Respondents’

organization to engage any person when vacancy arises, then only need for implementation of judgement arises.

Inspite of the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, the Respondents did not reinstate the

Petitioner into service and on this ground the case is not barred by the principles of res-judi-cata. On the other

hand the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that admittedly, the Petitioner has

taken shelter in the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No.881/1995 on this subject matter

and the facts in OA 881/1995 filed before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal and the present dispute

in this LC 117/2007 filed before this Tribunal and the relief sought by him in both the cases is one and the same.

He further contended that in this case the workman has been examined himself as WW1, and is cross examined

in both the cases. He admitted that this case and OA NO.881/1995 are against the same termination order. The

OA order is passed directing this Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service in preference to freshers

subject to availability of work. He contended that the relief sought for in the present case has already been

decided by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal. When one court has already decided the same matter,

no court shall decide the same dispute when the same has already been decided by a competent court. The

Petitioner is estopped to agitate the above issue before this court and the relief sought for in the present case is

hit by the principles of res judi cata. In fact, as per the admission of the Petitioner he has approached the

Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal challenging his termination order dated 15.7.1991 and in this case the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2389

Petitioner has also challenged the same order with the same prayer and this dispute has already been decided by

the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal directing the Respondents to engage the Petitioner into service in

preference to freshers whenever there is work and if the applicant is going to be engaged in pursuance of this

order none shall be retrenched who are already in service. Even the Respondents filed M.A.1/2002 in the same

OA 881/1995, challenging the order passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 9.8.1998, the

Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal also passed the same order directing the Respondents to provide job to

the Petitioner subject to availability of work, and the Respondents have not denied to provide any work to the

Petitioner as yet. When the same dispute has already been decided by another forum, the present case is barred

by the principles of res-judi-cata.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly against the Petitioner.

Point Nos.:II & III: Both the points are taken up together for convenient discussion as the same rise to

the same facts and laws involved. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the

Petitioner was initially engaged as a casual mazdoor from the month of September, 1986 to 15.7.1991 with

artificial breaks and thereafter his services were orally terminated without further engagement. He also

submitted that the Petitioner’s appointment was in the month of September, 1986 and he has worked for more

than 240 days in a year from the month of September, 1986 to 15.7.1991. But all of a sudden the Respondents

terminated him orally which is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner was not

served any notice nor paid any notice pay nor retrenchment compensation on his termination. The Respondents

are liable to pay the same. WW1 in his evidence has also supported the averments made by him in his chief

evidence affidavit. But in his cross examination WW1 has admitted that there is no document with him to show

that he has worked for 240 days continuously in a year. He further admitted that he has not mentioned the

names of the persons who have been engaged after the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, in

his claim statement. He also admitted that he has not been regularized in his post by the Respondents. The

admission of WW1 clearly indicates that there is no document with him to show that he has worked for 240

days continuously in a year. In his examination in chief WW1 has also admitted that he worked from

September, 1986 to 15.7.1991 with artificial breaks. The admission of the workman (WW1) clearly indicates

that he has not worked 240 days continuously in a year. Similarly, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents

contended that when the workman has not worked continuously 240 days in a calendar year, he is not entitled

either notice or notice pay before his termination, and the provision of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 is not applicable in the case of the present Petitioner. Similarly WW1 in his evidence has admitted

that the Petitioner was appointed as a casual mazdoor from the year 1986 -1991 with breaks. He denied the

suggestion of the Respondents that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year under

the Respondents. He also admitted that as the Respondents have not engaged no one since 1991, the workman

was not engaged. He further denied the suggestion of the Petitioner to the effect that the Respondents have

illegally terminated the service of the Petitioner without following the procedures contained in the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, the workman was engaged as a casual labour under the Respondents from the

month of September, 1986 till 15.7.1991 intermittently. He has not worked 240 days continuously in a year. He

has been terminated orally by the Respondents. The Respondents have agreed to carry out the order of the

Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal subject to availability of work. Since no work has been arisen, the

Respondents have not complied the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal as yet. since the

workman has not worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year and has been terminated orally and the

Respondents have agreed to provide job as and when vacancy will arise, the termination of the Petitioner is not

illegal and the Petitioner is not entitled to get any other relief as sought for except the prayer for re-engagement

when there will be a vacancy. On consideration of the evidence adduced from both the sides it can safely be

held that the Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as claimed for except the relief of re-engagement in

service.

Thus, Point Nos.II & III are answered accordingly.

10.

In view of the findings given in the above issues, it can safely be held that the Petitioner is only entitled

to get the relief which has already been given by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal and is not entitled

to get any other relief. Hence, the order.

ORDER

The management of the Respondents are directed to carry out the order of the Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No.881/1995 which has already been communicated to them within a

period of four months subject to availability of work/vacancy.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

2390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

8^th day of July, 2020.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Khaja Aneesuddin

MW1: Sri G. Subhash

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of Lr.No.269-10/89-STN, dt:7.11.1989 issued by DG Telecom, New Delhi

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of Proceedings of Asst. Director General (STM), Dt.12.2.1999, issued by the

Department of Telecom

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of order passed in OA No.881/1995 dt:9/8/1995 by Hon’ble Central Administrative

Tribunal

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of certificate issued by the Department of Telecom, dt:7.4.1995 by the O/o Telecom

District Engineer, Karimnagar.

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.17397/2000 dt:18.1.2001

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of representation of Petitioner dt.18.7.1998

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photostat copy of ban orders on engagement of casual labour dt.30.3.1985

Ex.M2:

Photostat copy of casual labourers (Grant of temporary status and regularization ) Scheme, 1989

Ex.M3:

Photostat copy of Ban orders on casual labour recruitment dt.22.6.1988

Ex.M4:

Photostat copy of extension of casual labourers (Grant of temporary status and regularization )

Scheme, 1989 dt:17.1.1993

Ex.M5:

Photostat copy of ban orders on recruitment / engagement of casual labourers

Dt:12.2.1999

Ex.M6:

Photostat copy of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal orders in OA No.881/1995

Ex.M7:

Photostat copy of Hon’ble Supreme Court orders in Civil Appeal No.292/2009 in the case of BSNL

vs.Teja Singh.

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 784.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव ृंिी क, आईआईटी रुड़की, उत्तरा ंड और अन् एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों

न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली -1 के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 172/2012) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को

01.07.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42011/103/2012-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2391

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 172/2012) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal

cum-Labour Court New Delhi -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Registrar, IIT Roorkee, Uttarakhand & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 01.07.2020.

[No. L-42011/103/2012-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 172/2012

Date of Passing Award- 17^th January, 2020

Between:

Shri Kishan Lal,

S/o Kishori Lal,

General Secretary,

IIT Roorkee Karmchari Union,

IIT, Roorkee,

Haridwar.

… Claimant

Versus

The Registrar,

IIT Roorkee,

Uttarakhand.

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Amit Sharma (A/R) : For the claimant

Shri Ravi Mishra (A/R) : For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute

existing between employer i.e. the management of Indian Institute of Technology, and its workman/claimant

herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947

vide letter No. L-42011/103/2012 (IR(DU) dated 07.12.2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following

effect.

“Whether the action of the management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Kishan

Lal, S/o Shri Kishori Lal, Helper despite rendering service for more than 22 years continuously is

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

As per the claim statement the claimant was appointed as a Helper/ (Gate Keeper) in the erstwhile

University of Roorkee w.e.f November 1990. When he was working as such the name of the University of

Roorkee was changed to IIT Roorkee but the workman continued to work as such. Though, the workman was

repeatedly demanding regularization in service the management was not paying any heed to his request. After

serving for more than 22 years continuously he approached the Labour Commissioner by raising a dispute. A

conciliation proceeding was taken up. But the management did not agree to the proposal given by the conselator

and the conciliation since failed the appropriate government referred the matter to the tribunal for adjudication.

The management being noticed filed WS challenging the maintainability on the ground that IIT

Roorkee is not an industry but an Educational Institution. Moreover the claimant was engaged on 01.10.90 on

fixed term basis against a project and his employment was co-terminus with the project. However, his

engagement was extended from time to time to meet the exigency of work. He being a fixed term contractual

employee is not entitled to regularization. It has also been pleaded that the claimant and many persons in the

2392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

same footing through a union had raised dispute and went into agitation. For the intervention of the local

administration the management and the union entered into one MOU dated 22.11.1994 according to which one

Y-Pool of 361 workers was created and they were observed against regular vacancy on phased manner subject

to their minimum essential qualification and being found suitable by the selection committee. The present

workman could not qualify for regularization and as such he was not regularized though many persons from the

Y-Pool have been regularized against permanent posts. Thereby the management claimed for dismissal of the

claim petition.

On the rival pleading the parties agreed for adjudication of the matter as per the terms of reference.

When the matter came up for evidence the workman though filed an affidavit did not come up to tender the

affidavit evidence and to face the cross examination. The A/R for the claimant intimated on 17.10.2019 that the

claimant has expired and his legal heirs are not coming forward to peruse the matter. In view of the

circumstance the Ld. A/R for the management informed that no evidence will be adduced by the management.

Since, no evidence has been adduced by the claimant to substantiate his stand this tribunal is left with

no other option then to answer the reference in negative against the claimant and pass a no claim award. Hence,

ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered against the claimant as he failed to substantiate the claim.

Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID

act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

17^th January, 2020

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 785.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव टाटा कम् ुजनकेिन जलजमटेड, नई दिल् ली और अन् एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली -1 के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 71/2019) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को

01.07.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42011/06/2019-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 785.—In In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2019) of the Central Government Industrial-

Tribunal cum-Labour Court New Delhi -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The TATA Communication Ltd. New Delhi. & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 01.07.2020.

[No. L-42011/06/2019-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2393

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty

ID. NO. 71/19

Shri Anuj Kumar s/o Shri Shyam Trivedi,

Through the General Secretary, Delhi Plumber Allie,

1801/9, Gobind Puri Extension , Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

…Workman

Versus

Ms. TATA Communication Ltd. GK-I,

Near Savrit Cinema, New Delhi.

Delhi-110065.

Walsons Services Private Limited,

A-367/368, Basant Building Sultanpur,

New Delhi-110030.

…Managements

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No. L-42011/6/2019(IR(DU)) dated 18.02.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the services of the workman Shri. Anuj Kumar s/o Shri Shyam Sunder Trivedi have been

terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably w.e.f 05.06.2017 by the management of M.s Tata

communication Ltd. and Walsons Sevices Ltd? If yes, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled

and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15

days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties

involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with

the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.

Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the

Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies

in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant

opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that

the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for publication.

Date: 18.02 020

Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 786—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्री

सरकार मेससव अजििासी अजभ ंता, भारत संघ, फरीिाबाि और अन् एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली -1 के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 110/1998) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को

01.07.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42012/30/1997-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

2394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2020

S. O. 786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/1998) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal

cum-Labour Court New Delhi -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Executive Engineer, Union Of India, Faridabad. & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 01.07.2020.

[No. L-42012/30/1997-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 110/1998

Date of Passing Award- 14^th January, 2020

Between:

Shri Ved Parkash,

S/o Shri Raghubir

R/o Village & Post

Office:- Sihol, Tehsil Palwal,

Distt. Faridabad- 121001

… Claimant

Versus

Union Of India

The Executive Engineer,

Faridabad Central Division-I,

CPWD, Old CGO Building,

Faridabad- 121001.

..Management

Appearances:-

None for the claimant (A/R)

: For the claimant.

Shri Atul Bhardwaj (A/R)

: For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute

existing between employer i.e. the management of CPWD, Faridabad, and its workman/claimant herein, under

clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter

No. L-42012/30/1997 (IR(DU) dated 1.04.1998 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of CPWD, in terminating the service of Shri Ved Parkash-

Enquiry Clerk w.e.f 11.02.1996 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per the claim statement the claimant Shri Ved Parkash had joined the service of the management as

Enquiry Clerk w.e.f 02.12.1992 and his initial place of posting was new Press Colony, Faridabad NIT. He was

then transferred to the office of NH No. IV and he worked there till 10.02.1996. His last drawn monthly salary

was Rs. 1200/- besides that salary he was never provided with other service benefits like leave encashment, over

time, etc. the workmen was often making demand of the same. Being annoyed the management stopped his

salary for the period 06.11.1995 to 10.02.1996. The claimant by a registered letter dated 19.02.1996 made a

complaint about the same. Instead of redressing his grievance the management terminated his service w.e.f

11.02.1996 without assigning any reason. During such termination no charge sheet was served on him nor any

domestic inquiry was conducted. The order of termination was arbitrary and amounts to unfair labour Practice

for violation of the provision of 25-F of the ID Act. The claimant had completed continuous work for more than

240 days for the management during the preceding calendar year of the date of his termination. Since then the

claimant is unemployed. Moreover, he is a physical handicapped person and finding no other way he had raised

a dispute before the Labour Commissioner where conciliation was taken up. But the management remained

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2395

adamant and no desirous result could be achieved. The Appropriate Government then referred the matter to this

tribunal for adjudication.

The management by filing WS took a stand that the entire claim is false. There never existed any

relationship between the claimant and the management as the employee or employer. He might have been

engaged by some contractor to whom works were awarded at different times for the purpose of execution of the

said work. The allegation that he was appointed and transfer are all false. When the workman had raised a

dispute before the labour commissioner the management was called upon to submit a reply. During that period

the workman was served with a letter by the management asking him to produce documents like appointment

order, transfer order, pay slip, etc. The workman could not produce the same. While denying the allegation of

terminating the service of the workman the management has pleaded for dismissal of the claim.

On this rival pleading following points which are required to be determined are.

If the proceeding is maintainable.

If there exist any relationship of employer and employee between the management and the

workman.

If the workman was illegally terminated from service and entitled to the relief prayed in the

claim.

The claimant examined himself as WW1and produce the documents which were marked in a series of

WW1/1 to WW1/5. These documents include the copy of the dispatch register, containing the name of the

workman and one copy of one attendance register. O behalf of the workman the copy of the demand notice has

also been filed. But the management has denied the copy of the attendance register and the dispatch register

though the admitted the demand notices. On behalf of the management one of its Executive Engineer Shri

Inderjeet Yadav testified as MW1 and he also proved certain documents which have been marked in a series of

MW1/1 to MW1/25. These documents include the copy of the contract awarded to different contractors the

payment made to the said contractors and the reply submitted to the demand notice of the claimant. Due to the

long absence of the claimant who was substituted by his legal heirs the witness could not be cross examined.

The deceased claimant in his claim statement has stated that he was working for the management w.e.f

02.12.1992 till 10.02.1996 and during this period he had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year. By

rendering such work he was deserving to be given a temporary status of employee in the management. But the

management without assigning any reason terminated his service illegally on 10.02.1996. He corroborated the

same by giving oral evidence. During his oral evidence the claimant stated that he was initially appointed at

New Press colony Faridabad NIT and then transferred to NH No. Office his monthly salary was Rs. 1200/-.

During cross examination when he was asked about appointment letter, transfer letter etc., he fumbled. At one

point of time he stated that the appointment letter and transfer letter though were received, he handed over the

same to the officers of the management. He again stated that J.E Mukesh Tiwari used to make payment office

salary. But could not produce any salary Slip etc. similarly when asked about the termination letter he failed to

produce any document. The only documents filed by him are some copies of the attendance register and the

dispatch register of the management. But the management has disputed the authenticity of the same since the

said copies do not bear the seal and signature of any of the officials of the management. Hence it is held that the

workman could not discharge the burden of proof to the effect that he was ever employed by the management,

working under the supervision and control of the management, receiving salary from the management and his

service was terminated by the said management. There being no evidence about termination of service by the

management the allegation of the claimant that his service was illegally terminated without following the

procedure of labour law seems unfounded. The claim advanced by the claimant is thus, answered in negative

against him. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The claim be and the same is dismissed. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for

notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

14^th January, 2020

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

2396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल. 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

147@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@499@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 787.—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. 147 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 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/499/1999-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 147/2000

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 26.02.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/499/1999-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 demand of Rashtriya Colly. Mazdoor Sangh to regularize Sri Suresh Paswan as a

Pump Operator with consequential benefits is proper and just? If so, to what relief is the

workman entitled and from what date?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently both of them left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to both

parties and the notice of concerned workman/union is returned with endorsement of “Addressee died”. Now the

Case is pending since 13/05/2000 and there is a report that workman is dead. so, action is required in this matter.

Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2397

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 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

159@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@59@1995-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 788.—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. 159 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the Management of M/s. Tisco Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/59/1995-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 159/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Block-II Area of M/s. TISCO Ltd.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 24.02.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012 (59)/1995-C-I dated 13/03/2000 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 demand of the National Coal Workers Congress for promotion of S/Shri A.K. Sen

Gupta and Nanulal Singh to Cat-VI in Grade ‘B’ w.e.f. 12.07.1985 and to Grade ‘A’ thereafter, is

as per Cadre Scheme, promotion policy of the Company, just and proper? If so, to what relief are

the workmen entitled and from what date?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and workman/union didn’t appear before the

Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to both the parties but even then no one appeared on behalf of

the workman/union. Now the Case is pending since 20/04/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before

Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

2398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 162@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@57@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 789.—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. 162 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 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/57/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 162/2000

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers : Sri Ganesh Prasad. Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 26.02.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/57/2000 (C-I) dated 11/05/2000 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 Gopalichak Colliery of M/s. BCCL in superannuating

Md. Suleman, Pump Khalasi w.e.f. 17.05.2000 by assuming his date of birth as 17.05.1940 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently the workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to

concerned union/workman and the notice returned with endorsement of “Addressee not found”. Now the Case

is pending since 22/05/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that

workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2399

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 164@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@139@1997-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 790.—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. 164 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 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/139/1997-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 164/2000

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

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

For the workman. : None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated : 26.02 .2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/139/1997-IR(C-I) dated 26/05/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BCCL, Bararee Colliery in not accepting the

resignation of Smt. Sabitri Devi under VRS is just and proper? If not, to what relief is the

workman entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently the union/workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to

both the parties but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union. Now the Case is pending since

08/06/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its

interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

2400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ सी.सी.एल 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 200@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@37@1998-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 791.—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. 200 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the Management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/37/1998-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 200/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Jarangdih Colliery of M/s. CCL .

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

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

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 27.04.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/37/1998-IR(C-I) dated 12/07/2000 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 Jarangdih Colliery, C.C.L Ltd., P.O. Jarangdih,

Distt. Bokaro in not correcting the date of birth as 29.12.1947 instead of 29.12.1937 in respect of

Sri Gobind Mandal, Body Searcher and retiring him from the services w.e.f. 28.12.97 is correct

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently the union/workman left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to

both the parties and on such notice Ld. Lawyer of management appeared but no one appeared on behalf of the

workman/union. Now the Case is pending since 02/08/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before

Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is

passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2401

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सीएल 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 204@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@25@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 792.—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. 204 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 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/25/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 204/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda 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. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 29.05.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/25/2000(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 M/s. BCCL, Kusunda Colliery in changing the date of

birth of Sh. Chhota Kail Das from 1.6.45 to 1.6.40 is just and proper? If not, to what relief is the

workman entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently both of them left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter regd. notices were issued to both the

parties but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union. Now the Case is pending since

07/08/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its

interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SING, Presiding Officer

2402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 209@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@11@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 793.—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. 209 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 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/11/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 209/2000

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

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

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

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 29.05.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/11/2000(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

“क् ा बस्ट्ताकोला कोजल री चांिमारी ूजनट मजससव भारत कोककंग कोल जलजमटेड के प्रबंिन द्वारा कमवकार श्री अिोक

साव, श्री मिाबीर रिबार, श्री भगीर रजविास त ा श्री भगवान ृासवान को एस. डी. एल. ऑृरेटर के ृि से िटा

कर केवल मजन के ृि ृर वाजृस भेिा िाना जवजि एवं न् ा की िषजष्ट से तकव संगत, सिी एवं उजचत िज? दि निीं तो

उृरोि कमवकार दकन लाभों के िकिार िज।’’

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the union/ workman nor the management

appeared before the Tribunal. However, the management has appeared in this case but the union/workman failed

to appear. Now Case is pending since 07/08/2000 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

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2403

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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@2001½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@287@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 794.—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 2001) 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 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/287/2001-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 212/2001

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. Advocate

For the workman. : Sri Pintu Mondal. Vice President

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 28.04.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/287/2001-IR(C-I) dated 21/09/2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BCCL, Sijua Area in not allowing Sh. Kuleshwar

Bhuia to join duty at Bhalgora in terms of their letter dated 10/28.3.97 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 Sri Pintu Mondal has informed that union is not interested in contesting the case. It is felt

that the workman has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed. communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

2404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 222@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@3@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 795.—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. 222 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 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/3/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 222/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Giridih Colliery of M/s. CCL.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

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

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated: 29.05.2020

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/3/2000 (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 Giridih Colliery of M/s. CCL in not giving pay

protection in respect of S/Sri Sukhdeo Sao and 17 others (list enclosed) while converting them

from P.R. to time rated cat. Is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled?”

List of the workmen

1. Sukhdeo Sao (Piece rate Gr.III)

2. Arjun Das (Piece rate Gr. III)

3. Kamruddin Meah (Do)

4. Biswanath Rai (Do)

5. Hiraman Chamar (Do)

6. Girdhari Chamar (Do)

7. Jiblal Kumhar (Do)

8. Dayal Pasi (Do)

9. Puran Ram (Do)

10. Tahal Rajak (Do)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2405

11. Amralli Meah (Do)

12. Jogeshwar Barhi (Do)

13. Mohammad Meah (Do)

14. Banshi Das (Do)

15. Md. Rauf (Do)

16. Hadish Ansari (Do)

17. Akhtar Hussain (Do)

18. Mahabir Gope (Do)

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently the workman/union left appearing before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since 07/08/2000

and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this

matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 254@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@79@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 796.—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. 254 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 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/79/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 254/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Ram Kanali 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. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated :29.05.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/79/2000(C-I) dated 07/09/2000 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:

2406 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing

Sri Kamesh Kumar Bhuia from the services of the company w.e.f. 24.11.98 is justified and

proper? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently both of them left appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notices were issued to both

the parties but even then both the parties did not appear before the Tribunal. Now the Case is pending since

25/09/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. So, it is felt that workman/union has lost its

interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ सी.सी.एल 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 278@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@161@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 797.—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. 278 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the Management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/161/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 278/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Project of M/s. CCL .

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

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

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 28.04.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/161/2000-IR(C-I) dated 18/09/2000 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:

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2407

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Central Coalfield Limited, Govindpur Project,

P.O. Kathara, Dist. Bokaro to dismiss Shri Gurujee Manjhi, workman from service is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently both the parties left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to both

the parties and the Ld. Lawyer of management appeared but no one appeared on behalf of the workman/union.

Now the Case is pending since 03/10/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. So, it is felt

that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ बी.सी.सी.एल 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 303@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@222@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 798.—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. 303 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 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/222/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 303/2000

Employer in relation to the management of East Bhuggatdih Colliery of M/s. BCCL.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers : None

For the workman : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated : 27.04 .2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/222/2000(C-I) dated 29/09/2000 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:

2408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“क् ा बी.सी.सी.एल., भगतडीि कोजल री के प्रबंितंत्र द्वारा श्री िेओ िरण भुइ ा की सेवाएाँ दि: 8.8.97 से समाप्त

दक ा िाना जवजिजवत एवं न् ा संगत िज? दि निीं तो क् ा उनकी आजश्रत ृत्नी श्रीमजत जस ा िेवी सिानुभूजत

आिार ृर जन ुि दि े िाने की ृात्र िैं? दि िााँ तो इस संबंि में क् ा जनिवेकि आवश् क िैं?”

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 again regd. notice was issued to

concerned union/workman and the notice returned with endorsement of “Insufficient Address”. Now the Case is

pending since 09/10/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. So, it is felt that

workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ सी.सी.एल 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 325@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@218@2000-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] MsLd vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2020

S. O. 799.—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. 325 of 2000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the Management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 31.08.2020.

[No. L-20012/218/2000-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Desk Officer/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. 325/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Jarangdih Colliery of M/s. CCL.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

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

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 28.04.2020

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/218/2000(C-I) dated 25/10/2000 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:

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2409

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. CCL Jarangdih Colliery in terminating there

services of Shri Etwari Ram on grounds of submitting false information for employment after

putting in 17 years of service is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman

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 again regd. notice was issued to

concerned union/workman and the said notice returned with endorsement of “Addressee not found”. Now the

Case is pending since 21/11/2000 and workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that

workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; iatkc

us'kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] iVuk ¼fcgkj½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 03 ¼lh½@2014½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-09-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-39025@01@2020-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8^th September, 2020

S. O. 800.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03(C) of 2014) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA (BIHAR)

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.09.2020.

[No. L-39025/01/2020-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No. 03 (C) of 2014

Between the management of (1) The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Gaya Circle Office,

A.P.Colony, Gaya-823001 (2) The General Manager ( personnel Administration Deptt. ) Punjab National Bank

Head Office, 7 Bhikaji Cama Place, Africa Avenue, New Delhi-110067 And Their workman Indrajeet Kumar,

S/O- Late Basant Prasad, Vill.- Lattu Bagaicha, Chand Choura, P.S- Civil Lines, Gaya.

For the management :

Sri Sanjeev Kumar.

Ms. Nivedita Sinha, Manager (HRD)

For the workman :

Sri B. Prasad, General Secretary, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar.

Present : Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt. 29^th May, 2020

The present case has been filed u/s 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Dispute ( Amendment ) Act, 2010 by

the aforesaid workman who was terminated during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings seeking relief

of reinstatement as a temporary part time sweeper in 1/3^rd scale wages of a full time subordinate staff with back

wages, payment of due wages for the period of his working.

Matter was raised by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna (for

short A.L.C ( C ) Patna ), who issued notice dt. 14.05.2012 to the parties vide file no.- 1/39/2012/ALC -1 ;.

2410 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As a period of more than 45 days elapsed with no sign of any settlement, the workman preferred an

application before this tribunal as per the provisions of section 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes

(Amendement ) Act, 2010.

The application was filed before this tribunal on 29.04.2014 and case was registered and notice were

issued to the parties concerned for filing written statement. Management appeared before this tribunal and filed

written statement. On behalf of the workman only one witness namely Indrajeet Kumar and on behalf of the

management only two witnesses namely Kamlesh Prasad and Warish Minz were examined and exhibits were

marked on behalf of the both sides and record was fixed for final argument.

In the instant case a petition has been filed on behalf of the management on 08.05.2019 stating therein

that in view of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C No.- 2053 of 2016 on

22.11.2017 and confirmed in L.P.A No.- 1822 of 2017 on 17.05.2018 the present I.D. Case is not maintainable

and hence the same should be rejected.

A petition has also been filed on behalf of the workman on 25.11.2019 praying theirin to withdraw the

instant I.D.Case in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court withdraw the I.D.Case.

Heard both the parties.

Accordingly, In view of the petition dt-25.11.2019 filed by the workman, the instant I.D.Case is

hereby dispossed of as withdrawan and also being not maintainable in view of the aforesaid judgement of the

Hon’ble Patna High Court. This award is effected after gazette notification / publication of award.

Accordingly, this is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

29.05.2020

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 8 flrEcj] 2020

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; iatkc

us'kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] iVuk ¼fcgkj½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 16 ¼lh½@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

08-09-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12011@73@2018-vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8^th September, 2020

S. O. 801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16(C) of 2018) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA (BIHAR)

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.09.2020.

[No. L-12011/73/2018-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Reference Case No. 16 (C) of 2018

Between the management of (1) The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, G.M. Road,

P.O- Lalbagh, Darbhanga-846004 (2) The Manager, Punjab National Bank, At & PO- Kamtaul, P.S - Kamtaul,

Dist.- Madhubani- 847304 And Their workman Sri Mukesh Kumar Mahato, PTS represented through the

President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar, Saboo Republic Hotel, Patna, Bihar-800001.

For the management : Mrs Preeti, Dy Manager, HRD.

For the Workman : Sri B. Prasad, President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 12, 2020/भाद्र 21, 1942

2411

Present: Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna

AWARD

Patna, dated 28^th February, 2020

By the adjudication order No.-L-12011/73/2018-IR(B-II) dated- 20.11.2018 the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) and sub-section-(2A) of section-

10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”), the following dispute

between (1) The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, G.M. Road, P.O- Lalbagh, Darbhanga-

846004 (2) The Manager, Punjab National Bank, At & PO- Kamtaul, P.S - Kamtaul, Dist.- Madhubani- 847304

And Their workman Sri Mukesh Kumar Mahato, PTS represented through the President, Bank Employees

Federation, Bihar, Saboo Republic Hotel, Patna, Bihar-800001 for adjudication to this tribunal:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab NationalBank, is not regularizing service of Shri

Mukesh Kumar Mahato, Part Time Sweeper working from 17.09.2014 at Kamtaul Branch, Distt.

Madhubani and keeping him on daily wages since last 4 years, is justified? If not, to whatrelief the

workman concerned is entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference/notification, notices were issued to the parties concerned through

registered post. Both the parties appeared before this tribunal but did not filed any statement of claim and

written statement.

In this case a petition has been filed on behalf of the workman Mukesh Kumar Mahato for withdrawing

the dispute. It has been submitted by the learned representative of the workman that the during the pendency of

the present dispute before this tribunal, recruitment process for filling the post of Part Time Sweeper was started

by the management and the workman also participated in the aforesaid process and his name also appears in the

list of candidates selected for appointment as a Part Time Sweeper. As such in the changed circumstances the

workman does not want to contest the dispute and accordingly he prays for withdrawal of the case.

A petition has also been filed on behalf of the management annexing a petition filed by the workman

Mukesh Kumar Mahato stating their in to withdraw the present case pending in this tribunal. The learned

representative of the management submitted that in view of the petition filed by the workman the present

reference case should be dismissed / closed.

In view of the aforesaid facts and the petition filed by the workman as well as the management, the

present reference case is here by closed as there does not exist any only dispute between the concerned parties.

Therefore, I pass “ No Dispute Award” in this case. This award is effected after date of publication and gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

28.02.2020

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 802.—राष्ट्रृ‎जत, श्री ृुणवेकन्िु कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव, ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी, केन्द्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक

अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर को सौंृे गए केन्द्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल ,

ल नऊ के ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी के अजतररि प्रभार की अवजि ‎दिनांक 05.09.2020 से छ: माि तक अ वा

जन जमत ृिाजिकारी की जन ुजि तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, इनमे िो भी ृिले िो तक बढाते िैं ।

[सं. अ-11016/02/2019-सीएलएस-II]

सतीि चन् िर, अवर सजचव

2412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 12, 2020/BHADRA 21, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8^th September, 2020

S.O. 802.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow entrusted to Shri Purnendu Kumar

Srivastava, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for a further

period of six months with effect from 05.09.2020, or till the appointment of regular incumbent to the post, or

until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/02/2019-CLS-II]

SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 जसतम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 803.—राष्ट्रृ‎जत, श्रीमती प्रजणता मोिंती, ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी, केन्द्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक

अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल सं. 2, दिल्ली को सौंृे गए केन्द्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल ,

सं. 1, दिल्ली के ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी के अजतररि प्रभार की अवजि ‎दिनांक 11.09.2020 से छ: माि तक अ वा

[सं. अ-11016/02/2019-सीएलएस-II]

सतीि चन् िर, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8^th September, 2020

S.O. 803.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Delhi entrusted to Smt. Pranita Mohanty,

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, Delhi for a further period

of six months with effect from 11.09.2020, or till the appointment of a regular incumbent to the post, or until

further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/02/2019-CLS-II]

SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.

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.

SURENDER

MAHADASAM

Digitally signed by SURENDER

MAHADASAM

Date: 2020.09.14 14:08:52 +05'30'