5437 GI/202

(2879)

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. 43]

नई दिल् ली, नवम् बर 15—नवम् बर 21, 2020, िजनवार/ कार्तिक 24—कार्तिक 30, 1942

No. 43]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 15— NOVEMBER 21, 2020, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 24—KARTIKA 30, 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

(रािस्ट्व जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 14 अक् तूबर, 2020

का.आ. 1018.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के

जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन आ ुक्त, केन्री माल एवं सेवाकर त ा केंरी

उत्ृाि िुल्क का का ािल , नागृुर-II जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमिचारर ों ने जिन्िी का का ि सािक ज्ञान प्राप्त

कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीि चन्र, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-26112020-223322

CG-DL-W-26112020-223322

2880 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, 14th October, 2020

S.O. 1018.—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, herby notifies, Office of The Commissioner CGST

Central Excise & Custom, Nagpur-II, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]

Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Director (OL)

सीमा िुल्क प्रिान आ ुक् त का का ािल

जविा ाृट्टनम, 28 अक् तूबर, 2020

सं्‍ ा 02/2020 (एन टी) (जविा ाृट्टनम)

जवष : जविा ाृट्टनम ृोटि रस्ट्ट के वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट सं्‍ ा 7 एवं वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट सं्‍ ा 8 को सीमा िुल्क क्षेत्र घोजषत

करने के संिभि में

का.आ. 1019.— सीमा िुल्क अजिजन म 1962 (52) की िारा ८ उृिारा (अ) के तित प्रित्त अजिकारों

का प्र ोग करते हु े मैं, डॉ. डी. के. श्रीजनवास, सीमा िुल्क प्रिान आ ुक्त, जविा ृट्टनम, जविा ाृट्टनम ृोटि रस्ट्ट

द्वारा उनके ृत्र सं्‍ ा ITRA/SHP/FCUS दिनांक 06.10.2020 के माध् म से दकए गए अनुरोि ृर संलग्न रे ा

जचत्र के अनुप ृ 18788 वगि मीटर क्षेत्र को कंटेनरीकषत कागो को छोड़कर आ ात एवं जन ाित दकए िाने वाले

वस्ट्तुओं के लिान एवं उतारने िेतु उजचत स्ट् ान के प ृ में मान् ता प्रिान करता हूँ।

सा िी, सीमा िुल्क अजिजन म 1962 (52) की िारा 8 उृिारा (ब) के तित प्रित्त अजिकारों का प्र ोग

करते हु े मैं, उक्त घाटो एवम उनसे लगे जनजित माृ के क्षेत्रों एवम संलग्न चािरिीवारी की सीमा एवम ृररसीमा

जनम्न्वत जवजनर्ििष्ट करता हूँ :

वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट सं्‍ ा 7 की माृ :

लंबाई- 280 मीटर

चौड़ाई – 33.5 मीटर

गिराई– 16.1 मीटर

वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट 8 की माृ :

लंबाई- 280 मीटर

चौड़ाई – 33.6 मीटर

गिराई– 16.1 मीटर

उृरोक्त सीमा िुल्क क्षेत्र का िारा ८ (ब) के अंतगित ृररसीमन जनम्नानुसार िज :

सारणी

ब ि का नाम

सीमा

सरिि

जविा ाृट्टनम ृोटि रस्ट्ट

वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट सं्‍ ा ७ एवं

वेस्ट् ट क् वी घाट सं्‍ ा ८

संलग्न रे ा जचत्र के

अनुसार सीमा िुल्क

सरिि के जनिेिांक

उत्तर

वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट सं्‍ ा 8 एवं वाृसी जसरा

ृूवि

उत्तरी भुिा चजनल

िजक्षण

(अ) वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट 7 िेतु – वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट 6

(ब) वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट 8 िेतु – वेस्ट्ट क् वी घाट 7

ृजिम

मौिूिा सड़क के सा नालको के चािरिीवारी

तक 16867.20 वगि मीटर का ृूर्तिकर क्षेत्र

[फा. सं. एस 10/97/99-जन]

डॉ. डी. के. श्रीजनवास, सीमा िुल्क प्रिान आ ुक् त

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2881

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Visakhapatnam, the 28th October, 2020

No. 02/2020 (CUSTOMS)(NT)(VSP)

Sub: Declaration of West Quay Berth No. 7 and West Quay Berth No. 8 of Visakhapatnam Port Trust as

Customs Area- regarding.

S.O. 1019.— In exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section (a) of Section 8 of the Customs Act

1962 (52 of 1962), I, Dr. D.K.Srinivas, Principal Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam, upon the request of

M/s. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam vide their letter No. ITRA/SHP/FCUS dated 06.10.2020,

hereby declare the Customs Area of 18,788 Sq Meters, as per enclosed drawing, to be proper place for loading

& unloading of “export / import goods” except containerized cargo.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-Section (b) of Section 8 of the Customs Act,

1962, I also specify the boundaries, and the limits of the above stated berths and the adjoining area bearing

specific measurements and enclosed by the boundaries as specified below:

Measurement of the West Quay Berth No. 7

1. Length: 280 Mts.

2. Breadth: 33.5 Mts.

3. Depth: 16.1 Mts.

Measurement of the West Quay Berth No. 8

1. Length: 280 Mts.

2. Breadth: 33.6 Mts.

3. Depth: 16.1 Mts.

The boundaries and limits of the Customs Area as per Section 8(b), as given in the schedule below:

SCHEDULE

Name of the Berth(s)

Area/ Boundaries

Limits

Visakhapatnam Port Trust

West Quay Berth No. 7 &

West Quay Berth No. 8.

Coordinates of Customs Boundary as

per enclosed drawing

North- West Quay Berth No. 8 return end

berth.

East- Northern Arm Channel.

South-

a) For WQ-7 berth: WQ-6 berth

b) For WQ-8 berth: WQ-7 berth.

West- Back up space measuring 16867.20

Sq Mts. (Approx) area upto the NALCO

boundary wall including the existing road.

[F. No. S 10/97/99-Prev.]

Dr. D. K. SRINIVAS, Principal Commissioner of Customs

कार्मिक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मिक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 18 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1020.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का

25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए उत्तर प्रिेि राज् सरकार

के उत्तर प्रिेि गषि (ृुजलस) अनुभाग-4, ल नऊ के आिेि सं. 02 सीबीआई/VI-ृी-4-2019-1(31)बी/17,

2882 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

दिनांक 11 अक्टूबर, 2019 के माध् म से िारी सिमजत से, कोतवाली ृुजलस ाना, जिला इलािाबाि (प्र ागराि)

में भारती िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 447 के तित ििि मामला अृराि सं. 259/2016 और ृुजलस

ाना िज़रतगंि, जिला ल नऊ में भारती िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 420, 409 और 506 के तित

ििि मामला अृराि सं. 244/2017 से िुड़े अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण सा िी ू.ृी.जि ा सेंरल वक़् बोडि और

ू.ृी. सुन्नी सेंरल वक़् बोडि द्वारा वक़् संृजत्त ों की अवजि जबक्री- रीि एवं िस्ट् ानांतरण की िाूँच/अन्वेषण त ा

ऐसे अृरािों से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए

गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों

की िजक्त ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त उत्तर प्रिेि राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/34/2019-AVD-II]

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2020

S.O. 1020.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued vide Order No.02 CBI/VI-P-4-2019-1(31)B/17 dated 11^th October,

2019 of Uttar Pradesh Home (Police) Section-4, Lucknow, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation into the

offence (s) relating to Case Crime No. 259/2016, under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad (Prayagraj); and Case Crime No. 244/2017, under

sections 420, 409 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Hazaratganj,

District Lucknow as well as enquiry/investigation into illegal sale-purchase and transfer of Waqf properties by

U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board and U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the

course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. E-228/34/2019-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

को ला मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1021.—केन् री सरकार ने को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अििन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957

का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके ृश् चातउ उक् त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 4 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन भारत

सरकार ने को ला मंत्राल द्वारा िारी की गई अजिसूचना सं्‍ ाक का. आ. 409, तारी 11 मई, 2020, िो भारत

के रािृत्र के भाग II, ण् ड 3, उृ ण् ड (ii), तारी 16 मई, 2020 में प्रकाजित की गई ी, उस अजिसूचना से

उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िि्‍ ट ृररक्षेत्र की भूजम में जिसका माृ 321.13 िेक् टर (लगभग) ा 793.51 एकड़

(लगभग) िज, को ले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आि की सूचना िी ी ;

और केन् री सरकार का ि समािान िो ग ा िज दक इस अजिसूचना से संल न अनुसूची में जवजित उक् त भूजम

के भाग में को ला अजभप्राप् त िज ;

अत:, अब, केन् री सरकार उक् त अजिजन म की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग

करते हुए, इससे संल न अनुसूची में व्णत 321.13 िेक् टर (लगभग) ा 793.51 एकड़ (लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम

में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार का अििन करने के अृने आि की सूचना िेती िज :

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2883

रटप् ृण 1 : इस अजिसूचना के अिीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रे ांक सं्‍ ांक सी-I(ई)III/ एफआर/0920/962,

तारी 4 जसतम् बर, 2020 का जनररक्षण कलेक् टर, नागृुर, मिारा्‍ र के का ािल में ा को ला जन ंत्रक, 1,

काउंजसल िाउस स्ट् रीट, कोलकाता- 700 001 के का ािल में ा जवभागाध् क्ष ा मु्‍ प्रबंिक, वेस्ट् टनि कोलफील् ्स

जलजमटेड, (रािस्ट् व जवभाग), कोल इस्ट् टेट, जसजवल लाईन् स, नागृुर - 440 001 (मिारा्‍ र) के का ािल में दक ा िा

सकता िज ।

रटप् ृण 2 : उक् त अजिजन म की उृिारा 8 के उृबंिों की ओर ध् ान आकष्‍ ट दक ा िाता िज, जिसमें जनम् नजलज त

उृबंि िज :-

‘‘8. अििन की बाबत आृजत् त ॉ .- (1) कोई व् जक् त िो दकसी भूजम में, जिसकी बाबत िारा 7 के अिीन अजिसूचना

जनकाली गई िज, जितबद्ध िज, अजिसूचना के िारी दकए िाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम् ृूणि भूजम ा उसके दकसी भाग

ा ऐसी भूजम में ा उस ृर के दकन् िीं अजिकारों का अििन दकए िाने के बारे में आृजत् त कर सकेगा ।

स्ट् ृ्‍ टीकरण.- इस िारा के अंतगित ि आृजत् त निीं मानी िाएगी, दक कोई व् जक् त दकसी भूजम में को ला उत् ृािन

के जलए स्ट् व ं नन संदक्र ाएं करना चािता िज और ऐसी संदक्र ाएं केन् री सरकार ा दकसी अन् व् जक् त को निीं

करनी चाजिए ।

(2)

उृ- िारा (1) के अिीन प्रत् ेक आृजत् त सक्षम अजिकारी को जलज त प ृ में की िाएगी और सक्षम

अजिकारी, आृजत् तकताि को स्ट् व ं सुने िाने, जवजि व् वसा ी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर िेगा और ऐसी सभी

आृजत् त ों को सुनने के ृश् चातउ और ऐसी अजतररक् त िांच, दि कोई िो, करने के ृश् चातउ िो वि आवश् क समतता

िज, वि ा तो िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन अजिसूजचत भूजम के ा ऐसी भूजम में ा उस ृर के अजिकारों के

संबंि में एक ररृोटि ा ऐसी भूजम के जवजभन् न टुकड़ों ा ऐसी भूजम में ा उस ृर के अजिकारों के संबंि में आृजत् त ों

ृर अृनी जसफाररिों और उसके द्वारा की गई का िवािी के अजभले सजित जवजभन् न ररृोटि केन् री सरकार को

उसके जवजनश् च के जलए िेगा ।

(3)

इस िारा के प्र ोिनों के जलए वि व् जक् त दकसी भूजम में जितबद्ध समता िाएगा िो प्रजतकर में जित का

िावा करने का िकिार िो, दि भूजम ा दकसी ऐसी भूजम में ा उस ृर के अजिकार इस अजिजन म के अिीन

अर्िित कर जलए िाते िज ।

रटप् ृण 3: केन् री सरकार ने को ला जन ंत्रक 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट् रीट, कोलकाता - 700 001 को उक् त

अजिजन म के अिीन अजिसूचना सं्‍ ा का. आ. 2519, तारी 27 मई, 1983 िो भारत के रािृत्र भाग II, ंड

3, उृ- ंड (ii) में, तारी 11 िून, 1983 में प्रकाजित की ग ी ी, द्वारा सक्षम प्राजिकारी जन ुक् त दक ा िज ।

अिासा भूजमगत से ओृनकास्ट् ट ान

नागृुर क्षेत्र

जिला नागृुर (मिारा्‍ र)

(रे ांक सं्‍ ा सी- I(ई)III/एफआर/0920/962, तारी 4 जसतम् बर, 2020)

भाग - I

सभी अजिकार :

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्किल सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल िेक् टर में

कुल

क्षेत्रफल

रटप्ृजण ां

जनिी

सरकारी

वन

कोटोडी

सावनेर

नागृुर

95.68

28.93

0.00

124.61

भाग

2. ेरंडगांव

सावनेर

नागृुर

4.46

0.00

4.46

भाग

2884 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. ृंढ़रा ेड़ी

सावनेर

नागृुर

78.06

1.38

0.00

79.44

भाग

कुल :

178.20

30.31

0.00

208.51

भाग - II

सभी अजिकार :

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्किल सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल िेक् टर में

कुल

क्षेत्रफल

रटप्ृजण ां

जनिी

सरकारी

वन

1. ^{कोटोडी}

सावनेर

नागृुर

45.52

0.86

0.00

46.38

भाग

2. ^{ेरंडगांव}

सावनेर

नागृुर

34.91

7.64

0.00

42.55

भाग

3. ृटका ेड़ी

सावनेर

नागृुर

6.79

0.10

0.00

6.89

भाग

कुल :

87.22

8.60

0.00

95.82

भाग - III

सभी अजिकार :

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्किल सं्‍ ा

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल िेक् टर में

कुल

क्षेत्रफल

रटप्ृजण ां

जनिी

सरकारी

वन

ृटका ेड़ी

सावनेर

नागृुर

16.33

0.47

0.00

16.80

भाग

कुल :-

16.33

0.47

0.00

16.80

कुल क्षेत्र (भाग - I + भाग - II + भाग - III) : 321.13 िेक् टर (लगभग)

ा 793.51 एकड़ (लगभग)

भाग - I

(1) ग्राम कोटोडी में अर्िित दकए िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ ांक :

137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144/1-144/2, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154,

155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169/1- 169/2, 170,

171, 172, 173, 174/1- 174/2, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184/1अ -184/1ब -

184/2- 184/3, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193/1-193/2, 210/1- 210/2- 210/3 अ -

210/3ब, 211, 212/1/अ- 212/1/ब- 212/2अ-212/2ब - 212/3/अ- 212/3/ब, 213/1- 213/2, 214, 215,

216/1-216/2-216/3, 217, 218, 219/1/अ- 219/1/क- 219/1/ब- 219/2, 220/1अ- 220/1ब, 221, 222,

223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 237, 238, 239, 240, 252, 261, 262/1-

262/2-262/3, 263/1- 263/2- 263/3- 263/4- 263/5, 263/6- 263/7- 263/8- 263/9, 264, 1, 136,

सड़क.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2885

(2) ग्राम ृंढ़रा ेड़ी में अर्िित दकए िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ ांक :

76/1- 76/2, 77, 78, 79, 91/1- 91/2- 91/3, 92, 93, 95/अ- 95/ब, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,

108/अ- 108/ब, 109, 110, 111/अ/1- 111/अ/2- 111/ब, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119,

120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125/1- 125/2, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135/1-

135/2, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140/1- 140/2, 141/1- 141/2अ -141/2ब -141/3, 142/1- 142/2- 142/3-

142/4, 143, 144/1- 144/2, 145, 147, 148/अ- 148/ब, 151, सड़क.

(2)

ग्राम ेरंडगांव में अर्िित दकए िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ ांक :

10, 11/1- 11/2, 12, 14, 15.

भाग - II

(1)

ग्राम ृटका ेड़ी में अर्िित दकए िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ ांक :

131, 136, 138/3, 139, 140, सड़क.

(2)

ग्राम ेरंडगांव में अर्िित दकए िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ ांक :

3/1- 3/2, 4, 5, 49/1- 49/2- 49/3, 50, 51, 52/1, 53, 54, 101, 102, 103, 104/1- 104/2, 173/ब, 174,

175, 177/1- 177/2, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 208/अ/1-208/अ/2- 208/क-

208/ब, 209, 1, 2, 52/2, नाला, सड़क.

(3)

ग्राम कोटोडी में अर्िित दकए िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ ांक :

45/1- 45/2, 47, 48/1-48/2, 49, 50, 51/1-51/2, 52, 53/1- 53/2, 54, 55/1- 55/2, 56, 57, 61/1/अ-

61/1/ब- 61/2/अ- 61/2/ब, 62, 63/1- 63/2/अ-63/2/ब, 84, 85/1- 85/2, 86/1- 86/2, 91/1-91/2-91/3-

91/4-91/5-91/6, 92/1/1-92/1/2- 92/2, 93, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110/1- 110/2, 267, नाला.

भाग - III

(2) ग्राम ृटका ेड़ी में अर्िित दकए िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ ांक :

121, 122/1, 151, 189/अ/1- 189/क- 189/ब- 189/ब/1- 189/ब/2, 190, 191/1- 191/2, 192/1- 192/2-

192/3- 192/4- 192/5, 194, सड़क.

सीमा वणिन :

भाग - I

ग – घ :

रे ा ग्राम कोटोड़ी और ृटका ेड़ी की सजम् मजलत ग्राम सीमा ृर जबन् िु ‘ग’ से आरंभ िोकर ृूवि

दििा में ग्राम कोटोड़ी में प् लाट सं्‍ ा 136 के मध् से िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 137 के ृजश् चमी

सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन् िु ‘घ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

2886 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

घ – ड. :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘घ’ से आरंभ िोकर उत् तर दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 138, 139 की बाह्य सीमा से िोती

हुई जबन् िु ‘ड.’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ड. – च :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ड.’ से आरंभ िोकर उत् तर दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 145, 147, 151 की ृजश् चमी सीमा

से िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 148/ब के उत् तर-ृजश् चम कोने ृर जबन् िु ‘च’ ृर जमलती िज ।

च – छ :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘च’ से आरंभ िोकर ृूवि दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 102, 104, 105, 106 की उत् तरी

सीमा से िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 91 की उत् तर-ृूवी कोने ृर जस्ट् त जबन् िु ‘छ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

छ – ि :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘छ’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण-ृूवि दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 120, 122, 127, 78, 79 और

76 की बाह्य सीमा से िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 76 के उत् तर-ृूवी कोने ृर जबन् िु ‘ि’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ि - त :

रे ा ग्राम ृंढ़रा ेड़ी में जबन् िु ‘ि’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण-ृूवि दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 76, 77 की

बाह्य सीमा से िोकर दफर ग्राम कोटोड़ी में प् लाट सं्‍ ा 193 की बाह्य सीमा से िोती हुई ग्राम

कोटोड़ी में कच् ची सड़क से जमलती िज, तत्ृिातउ रे ा कच् ची सड़क से लगकर ृूवि दििा में प् लाट

सं्‍ ांक 215, 210 की बाह्य सीमा से िोती हुई जबन् िु ‘त’ ृर जमलती िज ।

त – ञ :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘त’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ा 210 की ृूवी सीमा से लगकर िोती

हुई दफर ग्राम ेरंडगांव में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 10, 11, 12, 14 और 15 की ृूवी सीमा से िोती हुई

जबन् िु ‘ञ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ञ – ट :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ञ’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजश् चम दििा में अिासा िान के जल े ृूवि में अजिग्रजित भूजम की

उत् तरी सीमा से िोती हुई ग्राम कोटोड़ी में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 219 और 220 में से िोती हुई प् लाट

सं्‍ ा 240 के िजक्षण-ृजश् चम कोने ृर जबन् िु ‘ट’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ट – :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ट’ से आरंभ िोकर उत् तर दििा में ग्राम कोटोड़ी में कच् ची सड़क से जमलती िज दफर

कच् ची सड़क को लगकर ृजश् चम दििा से िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 263/9 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर

िोती हुई जबन् िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

– ड :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजश् चम दििा में अिासा िान के जल े ृूवि में अजिग्रजित भूजम की

उत् तरी सीमा से लगकर िोती हुई कोटोड़ी ग्राम की गाव ान भूजम की सीमा से जमलती िज

तद्ृश् चातउ िजक्षण दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ा 263/1 की सीमा से लगकर िोती हुई जबन् िु ‘ड’ ृर

जमलती िज ।

ड – ढ :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ड’ से आरंभ िोकर कोटोड़ी गाव ान की ृजश् चमी सीमा से लगकर िोती हुई जबन् िु ‘ढ’

ृर जमलती िज ।

ढ – ण :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ढ़’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजश् चम दििा में अिासा िान के जल े ृूवि में अजिग्रजित भूजम की

बाह्य सीमा से लगकर, प् लाट सं्‍ ा 136 में से िोती हुई ग्राम कोटोड़ी में कच् ची सड़क से जमलती िज

तद्ृश् चातउ ृजश् चम दििा में सड़क से लगकर िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 134 की सीमा ृर जबन् िु ‘ण’

ृर जमलती िज ।

ण – ग :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ण’ से आरंभ िोकर प् लाट सं्‍ ा 136 की ृजश् चम सीमा से िोती हुई सीमा ृर जस्ट् त

और प् लाट सं्‍ ा 136 की ृजश् चम सीमा से प्रारंजभक जबन् िु ‘ग’ ृर समाप् त िोती िज ।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2887

भाग - II

ि – ि :

रे ा ग्राम ृटका ेड़ी में प् लाट सं्‍ ा 139 की सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन् िु ‘ि’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण-

ृूवि दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 139, 138, 183/3, 136 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर िोती हुई ग्राम

ृटका ेड़ी में कच् ची सड़क से िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 130/2 की िजक्षण-ृजश् चम कोने ृर जस्ट् त

जबन् िु ‘ि’ ृर जमलती िज।

ि – न :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ि’ से आरंभ िोकर ृूवि दििा में ग्राम ृटका ेड़ी और ग्राम कोटोड़ी की सम् मजलत सीमा

को ृार करती िज दफर ग्राम कोटोड़ी में नाले को ृार कर प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 99, 95, 94, 43, 44 की

बाह्य सीमा से िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 45 के उत् तर-ृूवि कोने ृर नाले के समीृ जबन् िु ‘न’ ृर

जमलती िज ।

न – ृ :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘न’ से आरंभ िोकर नाले के िजक्षण दकनारे से लगकर िोती हुई ग्राम कोटोड़ी और ग्राम

ेरंडगांव की सजम् मजलत सीमा ृर जस्ट् त प् लाट सं्‍ ा 8 के िजक्षण कोने ृर जबन् िु ‘ृ’ ृर जमलती

िज।

ृ – फ :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ृ’ से आरंभ िोकर अिासा िान के जल े ृूवि में अजिग्रजित भूजम की िजक्षणी सीमा से

लगकर िोती हुई, दफर नाले से िोकर गुिरती हुई ग्राम ेरंडगांव में सड़क से लगकर जस्ट् त जबन् िु

‘फ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

फ – ब :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘फ’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजश् चम दििा में सड़क से लगकर िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 49 के

िजक्षणी ृूवि कोने ृर जमलती िज तद्ृश् चात नाले से लगकर िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 54 के िजक्षण

ृजश् चम कोने ृर जबन् िु ‘ब’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ब – भ :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ब’ से आरंभ िोकर प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 54, 101, 103, 104 की बाह्य सीमा से िोती हुई

ग्राम ेरंडगांव में सड़क से जमलती िज तद्ृश् चातउ रे ा प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 177, 175, 174, 173 की

बाह्य सीमा से िोती हुई नाले के िजक्षणी तट ृर जबन् िु ‘भ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

भ – म :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘भ’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजश् चम दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 56, 57, 61 और 63, 84, 86,

92/1- 92/2, 267, 91, 105 की बाह्य सीमा से िोती हुई नाले को ृार करती िज तद्ृश् चातउ ग्राम

ृटका ेड़ी और ग्राम कोटोड़ी की सजम् मजलत सीमा से िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 131 के िजक्षण-

ृजश् चम कोने ृर जबन् िु ‘म’ ृर जमलती िज ।

म – :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘म’ से आरंभ िोकर उत् तर दििा में ग्राम ृटका ेड़ी में कच् ची सड़क से लगकर िोती हुई

दफर सड़क ृार कर प् लाट सं्‍ ा 135 की ृूवी सीमा से जमलती िज और ृजश् चम दििा में प् लाट

सं्‍ ांक 136, 139, 140 की बाह्य सीमा से िोती हुई प् लाट सं्‍ ा 140 के िजक्षण- ृजश् चम कोने

ृर जबन् िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

– ि :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोकर उत् तर दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 140 और 139 की बाह्य सीमा से

िोती हुई आरंजभक जबन् िु ‘ि’ ृर समाप् त िोती िज ।

भाग - III

क – :

रे ा ग्राम ृटका ेड़ी में प् लाट सं्‍ ा 189 के उत् तर-ृजश् चम कोने ृर जस्ट् त जबन् िु ‘क’ से आरंभ

िोकर ृूवि दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 192,194 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर िोकर कच् ची सड़क से

जमलती िज तद्ृश् चातउ प् लाट सं्‍ ा 121 की बाि सीमा से िोती हुई जबन् िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

2888 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

– त :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोकर प् लाट सं्‍ ा 121 की ृूवी सीमा से लगकर िोती हुई प् लाट

सं्‍ ांक 192/1-192/2–192/3-192/4-192/5 की िजक्षण-ृजश् चम सीमा से िोती हुई कच् ची

सड़क ृर जस्ट् त जबन् िु ‘त’ ृर जमलती िज ।

त – :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘त’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजश् चम दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ांक 153, 154, 155, 156, 159,

160 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर िोती हुई जबन् िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

– क :

रे ा जबन् िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोकर उत् तर दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ ा 189 की ृजश् चमी सीमा से िोती हुई

आरंजभक जबन् िु ‘क’ ृर समाप् त िोती िज ।

[फा. सं. 43015/02/2020-एलए एण् ड आईआर]

मुकेि, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 17^th November, 2020

S.O. 1021.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number

S.O. 409, dated the 11^th May, 2020 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

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

the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 16^th May, 2020, the Central Government gave

notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 321.13 hectares (approximately) or 793.51 acres (approximately) of

the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification ;

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

prescribed in the Schedule appended hereto;

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

Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 321.13 hectares

(approximately) or 793.51 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over the said lands described in the

Schedule appended hereto:

Note 1: The plan bearing number C-I(E)III/FR/0920/962, dated the 04^th September, 2020 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District -Nagpur (Maharashtra) or in the office

of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700 001 or in the office of the Head of Department or

Chief Manager, Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001

(Maharashtra).

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

“8. Objections to acquisition.— (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under

section 7 has been issued, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the

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

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

desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not

be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2)

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

competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal

practitioner and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks

necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7

or of rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights

in or over such land, to the Central Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together

with the record of proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government.

(3)

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

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

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2889

Note 3: The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700 001 has been appointed by the Central

Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S. O. 2519,

dated the 27^th May, 1983, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 11^th

June, 1983.

SCHEDULE

Adasa Underground to Opencast Mine

Nagpur Area

District Nagpur (Maharashtra)

( Plan bearing number C-I(E)/III/FR/0920/962, dated the 4^th September, 2020)

Part – I

All Rights :

Sl.

No.

Name of Village Patwari

Circle

number

Tahsil

District

Area in hectare

Total Remarks

Tenancy Government Forest

Kotodi

Saoner

Nagpur

95.68

28.93

0.00

124.61

Part

Yerandgaon

Saoner

Nagpur

4.46

0.00

4.46

Part

Pandhrakhedi

Saoner

Nagpur

78.06

1.38

0.00

79.44

Part

Total :

178.20

30.31

0.00

208.51

Part - II

All Rights :

Sl.

No.

Name of Village Patwari

Circle

number

Tahsil

District

Area in hectare

Total Remarks

Tenancy Government Forest

Kotodi

Saoner

Nagpur

45.52

0.86

0.00

46.38

Part

Yerandgaon

Saoner

Nagpur

34.91

7.64

0.00

42.55

Part

Patkakhedi

Saoner

Nagpur

6.79

0.10

0.00

6.89

Part

Total :

87.22

8.60

0.00

95.82

Part - III

All Rights :

Sl.

No.

Name of Village Patwari

Circle

number

Tahsil

District

Area in hectare

Total Remarks

Tenancy Government Forest

Patkakhedi

Saoner

Nagpur

16.33

0.47

0.00

16.8

Part

Total :

16.33

0.47

0.00

16.8

Total Area (Part – I + Part – II + Part – III) : 321.13 hectares (approximately)

or 793.51 acres (approximately)

2890 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Part – I

(1) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kotodi :

137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144/1-144/2, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159,

160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169/1- 169/2, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174/1- 174/2, 175, 176, 177, 178,

179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184/1A-184/1B - 184/2- 184/3, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193/1-193/2,

210/1- 210/2- 210/3/A-210/3B, 211, 212/1/A- 212/1/B- 212/2A-212/2B- 212/3/A- 212/3/B, 213/1- 213/2, 214,

215, 216/1-216/2-216/3, 217, 218, 219/1/A- 219/1/C- 219/1/B- 219/2, 220/1A-220/1B, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225,

226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 237, 238, 239, 240, 252, 261, 262/1-262/2-262/3, 263/1- 263/2- 263/3- 263/4-

263/5, 263/6- 263/7- 263/8- 263/9, 264, 1, 136, Road.

(2) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Pandhrakhedi :

76/1- 76/2, 77, 78, 79, 91/1- 91/2- 91/3, 92, 93, 95/A- 95/B, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108/A- 108/B, 109,

110, 111/A/1- 111/A/2- 111/B, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125/1- 125/2,

126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135/1- 135/2, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140/1- 140/2, 141/1- 141/2A-

141/2B-141/3, 142/1- 142/2- 142/3- 142/4, 143, 144/1- 144/2, 145, 147, 148/A- 148/B, 151, Road.

(3) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Yerandgaon :

10, 11/1- 11/2, 12, 14, 15.

Part – II

(1) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Patkakhedi :

131, 136, 138/3, 139, 140, Road.

(2) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Yerandgaon :

3/1- 3/2, 4, 5, 49/1- 49/2- 49/3, 50, 51, 52/1, 53, 54, 101, 102, 103, 104/1- 104/2, 173/B, 174, 175, 177/1- 177/2,

178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 208/A/1-208/A/2- -208/B -208/C, 209, 1, 2, 52/2, Nallah, Road.

(3) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kotodi :

45/1- 45/2, 47, 48/1-48/2, 49, 50, 51/1-51/2, 52, 53/1- 53/2, 54, 55/1- 55/2, 56, 57, 61/1/A- 61/1/B- 61/2/A-

61/2/B, 62, 63/1- 63/2/A,-63/2/B, 84, 85/1- 85/2, 86/1- 86/2, 91/1-91/2-91/3-91/4-91/5-91/6, 92/1/1-92/1/2-

92/2, 93, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110/1- 110/2, 267, Nallah.

Part – III

(1) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Patkakhedi:

121, 122/1, 151, 189/A/1- 189/C- 189/B- 189/B/1- 189/B/2, 190, 191/1- 191/2, 192/1- 192/2- 192/3- 192/4-

192/5, 194, Road.

Boundary description:

Part – I

C – D :

Line starts from Point ‘C’ on common boundary of village Kotodi and Patkakhedi, passes in

East direction through the centre of Plot number 136 and meets at Point ‘D’ on west boundary

of Plot number 137.

D – E :

Line starts from point ‘D’ passes in North direction along the outer boundary of Plot numbers

138, 139 and meets at Point ‘E’.

E – F :

Line starts from Point ‘E’ passes in North direction along the west boundary of Plot numbers

145, 147, 151 and meets at Point ‘F’ the North-West corner of Plot number 148/B.

F – G :

Line starts from point ‘F’, passes in East direction along the North boundary of Plot numbers

102, 104, 105, 106 and meets at Point ‘G’ at the North-East corner of Plot number 91.

G – H :

From Point ‘G’ line Passes in South-East direction along the outer boundary of Plot numbers

120, 122, 127, 78, 79 and 76 and meets at point ‘H’ on North-East corner of Plot number 76.

H – I :

Line starts from Point ‘H’ in village Pandhrakhedi, passes in South-East direction along the

outer boundary of Plot Numbers 76, 77, then passes along the outer boundary of Plot Number

193 in village Kotodi and meets at the side of the road, then passes in east direction along the

side of the road and along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 215, 210 and meets at Point ‘I’.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2891

I – J :

Line starts from Point ‘I’ line passes in South direction along the east boundary of Plot

number 210, then passes along eastern boundary of Plot numbers 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of

Village Yerandgaon and meets at Point ‘J’.

J – K :

Line starts from Point ‘J’ passes in west direction along the North boundary of land acquired

for Adasa Underground Mine, further passes along the North-West direction through Plot

numbers 219 and 220 and meets at Point ‘K’ on South-West corner of Plot number 240.

K – L :

Line starts from Point ‘K’ and passes in North direction and meets at the side of the then

passes along the side of the road in West direction passes along the outer boundary of Plot

number 263/9 and meets at Point ‘L’.

L – M :

Line starts from Point ‘L’ passes in West direction along the North boundary of land already

acquired for Adasa Underground Mine, then meets at boundary of Kotodi Gaothan land,

passes along the outer boundary of Plot number 263/1 and meets at Point ‘M’

M – N :

Line starts from Point ‘M’ and passes through the West boundary of Gaothan land and meets

at Point ‘N’.

N – O :

Line starts from Point ‘N’ and passes in West direction along the boundary of land already

acquired for Adasa Mine, passes thought Plot number 136 and meets Kotodi village Road.

Then line passes along the road towards west direction and meets at Point ‘O’ at the outer

boundary of Plot number 134.

O – C :

Line starts from Point ‘O’ and passes along the West boundary of Plot number 136 and ends at

starting Point ‘C’ on the West boundary of Plot number 136.

Part – II

R – S :

Line starts from Point ‘R’ on Boundary of Plot number 139 in village Patkakhedi and passes

in South- East direction along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 139, 138, 183/3, 136 then

passes along the Patkakhedi village road and meets at Point ‘S’ at South-West corner of Plot

number 130/2.

S – T :

Line starts from Point ‘S’ and passes in the East direction crossing the common boundary of

Villages Patkakhedi and Kotodi and reaches the Seasonal Nallah. After Crossing the Nallah

line travels along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 99, 95, 94, 43, 44 and meets Point ‘T’

on North East Corner of Plot number 45 near the Seasonal Nallah.

T – U :

Line starts at Point ‘T’ and passes along the south bank of Nallah and meets Point ‘U’ at the

common boundary of village Yerandgaon and Kotodi at South corner of Plot Number 8 of

village Kotodi.

U – V :

Line starts from Point ‘U’ Passes in East direction along the south boundary of land already

acquired for Adasa Mine then passes through the centre of the Seasonal Nallah and meets

Point ‘V’ at the road of village Yerandgaon.

V – W :

Line starts from Point ‘V’ and passes in West direction along the road and meets at south east

corner of plot number 49. Then the line passes along the Nallah and meets point ‘W’ on the

South West of Plot number 54 of Village Yerandgaon.

W – X :

Line starts from Point ‘W’ and passes along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 54, 101, 103,

104 and meets at the side of the road in village Yerandgaon then passes along the outer

boundary of Plot numbers 177, 175, 174, 173 and meets at Point ‘X’ and the South bank of

Nallah.

X – Y :

Line starts from Point ‘X’ and passes in West direction along the outer boundary of Plot

numbers 56, 57, 61 and 63, 84, 86, 92/1-92/2, 267, 91, 105 then crosses Nallah and passes

along the common village boundary of Kotodi and Patkakhedi and meets at Point ‘Y’ at

South-West corner of Plot number 131.

Y – Z :

The line starts from Point ‘Y’ and passes in North Direction along the road in village

Patkakhedi, then crosses the road and meets at East side of Plot number 135, then passes in

West direction along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 136, 139, 140 and meets at Point ‘Z’

on South-West corner of Plot number 140.

Z – R :

Line starts from Point ‘Z’ passes in North direction along the outer boundary of Plot numbers

140 and 139 and ends at Starting Point ‘R’.

2892 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Part – III

A – B :

Line starts from Point ‘A’ on North-West corner of Plot number 189 in village Patkakhedi,

passes in East direction along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 192, 194 and meets at side

of village road, then passes along the outer boundary of Plot number 121 and meets at Point

‘B’.

B – P :

Line starts from Point ‘B’ passes along the East boundary of Plot number 121 and passes

along the South-West boundary of Plot numbers 192/1-192/2- 192/3- 192/4- 192/5, 151 and

meets at Point ‘P’ on the side of the road.

P – Q :

Line starts from Point ‘P’ and passes in West direction along the outer boundary of Plot

numbers 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 160 and meets at Point ‘Q’.

Q – A :

Line starts from Point ‘Q’ passes in North direction along the West boundary of Plot number

189 and ends at starting Point ‘A’ .

[F. No. 43015/02/2020-LA&IR]

MUKESH, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1022

—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससि मु्‍ प्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड ृटना, और अन् एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और उनके कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में श्रम न् ा ाल , ृटना के ृंचाट

(संिभि सं्‍ ा 01 (C) of 2019, 09(C) of 2014, 02 of 2011) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

08.10.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2020

S.O. 1022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01 (C) of 2019, 09 (C) of 2014, 02 of 2011) of the Labour

Court, Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Patna & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 08.10.2020.

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

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No. 01 (C) of 2019

09 (C) of 2014

02 of 2011

Between the management of (1) The Chief Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Meghdoot Building,

G.P.O Complex, Patna-800001 (2) Pradhan Mahaprabandhak, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telephone Bhawan,

‘R’ Block, Patna-800001 and Their workman Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, S/O- Sri Indrajit Singh, Vill.-

Nijampur, P.S- Dulhin Bazar, Dist.- Patna.

For the management:

Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2893

For the workman :

Sri B. Prasad, Joint Convener of Coordination Committee of Trade Unions and

Associations, Bihar.

Present : Vishweshwar Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt. 14^th September , 2020

Earlier this case was disposed of by award dated- 03.06.2016 by this tribunal, in which the tribunal

directed the management to regularize the services of the workman with immediate effect after reinstating him

w.e.f 01.07.2009 with half back wages.

The aforesaid award passed by the this tribunal was challenged by the management before the Hon’ble

Court. The Hon’ble Court by its order dated- 11.02.2019 passed in C.W.J.C No.:- 17133 of 2016 quashed the

aforesaid award of the tribunal and remanded the matter back to this tribunal to pass a fresh award in

accordance with law.

After receipt of the order of the Hon’ble Court notices were issued to the parties concerned pursuant to

which they appeared before the tribunal and hearing in the matter started and as per direction of the Hon’ble

Court the management produced his witness before this tribunal.

Workman has filed the case u/s-2A (1) & (2) of the Industrial dispute (Amendment ) Act, 2010 for

seeking relief against wrongful termination from the service of B.S.N.L while working as a full time class IV

employee under group ‘D’ and denial of regularization of his service.

Question for determination is:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd in terminating the services of

Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, A Lineman (Peon) under Group ‘D’ Telephone Exchange, Dulhin Bazar

and and not regularizing his services while regularizing the services of other Junior Co- Workmen, is

legal and justified? If not, what relief (S) the workman is entitled to?”

It is worth to mention here that earlier one I.D. Case No.- 2 of 2011 was filed by this workman before

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (No.-2) Labour Court at Dhanbad on 12.05.2011. During pendency

of the I.D. Case the same matter was referred by the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India before the tribunal at

Dhanbad vide Notification No.- L-40012/53/2011-IR (DU) dated- 24.01.2012 with following schedule:-

“Whether action of the management of PGM, BSNL, Patna is not regularizing the services of the

workman Sri Krishna Kumar Singh and regularizing the services of his junior workmen is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

Accordingly Reference Case No.- 11 of 2012 was instituted. Later on by order dated- 24.05.2012

Reference Case No.- 11 of 2012 was tagged with earlier instituted I.D.Case No.- 02 of 2011.

Later on by order dated 18.09.2014 on the petition filed by the workman Sri Krishna Kumar Singh the

case was transferred to this tribunal by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (No.-2) Labour Court at

Dhanbad. The record was received in this tribunal on 20.11.2014 and the same was disposed by this tribunal on

03.06.2016 as aforesaid.

The case of the workman Sri Krishna Kumar Singh is to the effect that he was orally appointed to

discharge the duties of Lineman, Peon under Group-D at Telephone Exchange, Dulhin Bazar, Main Office

under SDO, Danapur Rural. He was engaged as Lineman from 01.01.1992, and used to discharge the following

duties of (a) Repair of Telephone Line, (b) Cable repair, (C) Charging of battery in Telephone Exchange, (d)

Bringing Diesel Oil from Petrol Pump through Thela on the basis of coupon supplied by the Incharge of the

Exchange and other sundry jobs of a Class IV employee and used to discharge the duties for 8 hours daily and

for more time as per instruction of his superiors. He was paid wages @ Rs. 2,000/- per month from 01.01.1992

to 31.12.2000 and thereafter, wage was reduced. He was paid wages @ Rs. 1000/- from 01.01.2001 to

31.12.2005 and @ Rs. 500/- per month from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008. The payment was made through

ACG17 Bill. After opening of Sub Divisional Office at Bikram, the control of Dulhin Bazar Telephone

Exchange was shifted from Danapur Rural to Bikram. He has further claimed that Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited formulated the schemes for regularization of the services of daily rated / temporary workers on

different occasions and the workers were required to submit their applications. This workman also submitted his

application for regularization / permanent absorption in the services of the Corporation. His name was

forwarded to the higher authorities by the SDO, Telephone, Danapur along with other applications. The

workman worked for over 10 years continuously. The case of the workman was not considered for

regularization. The juniors or contemporary to the workman were considered for regularization. It has been

claimed that uninterruptedly the workman had worked from 01.0.11992 to 31.12.2008 and he was made to stop

2894 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

working from 01.01.2009. He represented to the management for his reinstatement, but no positive step was

taken by the management. Claim has been made for reinstatement with back wages and other reliefs.

Management filed its written statement wherein a plea has been taken that the workman, namely,

Sri Krishna Kumar Singh never worked against permanent vacancy as a permanent workman. The conciliation

proceeding was conducted between the management and the workman, but as the workman was never

appointed against permanent vacancy, the said conciliation proceeding failed. It has been stated in paragraph 6

that the scheme from time to time was formulated by the Government. Sone workmen, who fulfilled the

requirement were regularized but as the alleged, workman did not worked regularly and failed to satisfy the

requirement for regularization, hence his services was not regularized, inasmuch as the workman was never

appointed as regular staff under sanctioned post, hence there is no question for his termination and the statement

regarding his termination is totally false.

Rejoinder to the written statement of the management has been filed by the workman stating therein

that workman has worked at Telephone Exchange, Dulhin Bazar, Patna from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.2008. He was

terminated from the service w.e.f 01.01.2009. Workman worked with the management for 17 years and has

become over aged while working with the management. Management regularized the services of junior

workmen as a class IV employee under group ‘D’ and discriminated with the workman while not considering

his regularization although workman fulfilled all the criteria and was eligible for regularization.

Initially the workman was paid Rs. 2000/- per months for the worked done by him. Later on the said

amount was reduced to Rs. 1000/- per months and at the time of alleged removal from service the workman was

getting only a sum of Rs. 500/- per months.

10.

It appears that the workmen Krishna Kumar Singh is the single witness who has stated that he was

working in telephone exchange Dulhin Bazar, Patna as temporary mazdoor from 1992 to December 2008. He

was installing connection and removing the fault. He also used to charge battery from generator. He has done

duty from 9.00P.M to 5.00 P.M. At the time of his engagement he was paid Rs. 2000/- per month. After two to

three years he was paid Rs. 1000/- only and thereafter he was paid only Rs. 500/- P.M. When he was removed

from service then he was getting Rs. 500/- P.M only. He has proved Ext.-W series in support of his work done.

This witness further stated that during his duties anti-social elements used to disturb and for this, he informed

his officers and officers sent his complaint to Dulhin Bazar, police station. This documents has been marked as

Ext.-W/1. He has also proved Extd.- W/2 series in proof of running generator. Prior to his removal neither

notice, nor compensation was paid. Services of Sri Sanjay Kumar, Binod Kumar, Bhushan working with him

were regularized. His claim is correct.

11.

This witness was discharged as no body appeared on behalf of the management for his cross-

examination.

12.

Initially no witness was examined on behalf of the management but after remand of the case from the

Hon’ble Court and as per the direction of the Hon’ble Court the management examined only one witness Sri

Sunil Kumar Dy. Divisional Engineer in support of his case.

13.

This witness in his deposition has stated that from the records of the company lying in the office

Sri Krishna Kumar was never appointed on a permanent sanctioned post and as he was not appointed on

sanctioned permanent post therefore there was no question of terminating his services and he was also not paid

any amount by the company which is apparent from the record lying in the office. This witness has further

stated that the workman was not appointed by a competent authority and casual work done by him were against

the rules of Govt. order. This witness has further stated that one Reference Case No.- 11 of 2012 was registered

in the court of Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (No.-2) Labour Court at Dhanbad but the workman

never appeared before that tribunal and lastly the case was closed and no dispute award was passed by the

tribunal on 06.02.2013. Certified copy of the order sheet of Reference Case No.- 11 of 2012 has been marked as

Ext.-M in this case.

This witness was cross-examination by the representative of the workman. In his cross-examination

this witness has stated that from 1992 to 2008 he was never posted at Bikram, Pali and Danapur telephone

exchange. He also does not know the workman Sri Krishna Kumar Singh. He has further stated that he has no

knowledge about the any circular of the Govt. by which the Govt. of India directed the BSNL to regularized the

services of daily wages employee. He has further stated that he has no knowledge that on the basis of that very

circular several persons filed their applications for their regularization. This witness has further stated that he

has no knowledge about the fact that matter of Krishna Kumar Singh for regularization of his services was

forwarded by SDO, Danapur. He has also no knowledge that many other workmen such as Sanjay Kumar,

Bhushan Kumar, Arun Kumar, Anil Bhagat and Binod Kumar had also filed application along with Krishna

Kumar Singh and their services were regularized and they are working in different telephone exchange at Bihta,

Maner and Walmi. This witness has further stated that he has no knowledge as to when the workman Sri

Krishna Kumar Singh was terminated from the service.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2895

14.

The learned representative of the workman submitted that the workman was illegally terminated from

service by the management although he served the management for about 17 years and before termination no

notice or compensation was paid to him. Similarly situate some other persons who were either junior or

contemporary to this workmen were regularized in the service ignoring the claim of this workman. Now the

workman has become over age and he cannot get any other employment any where else. Exts. which have been

brought on record prove the case of the workman that he continuously worked in the management. The

workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with back wages.

15.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that the workman was never

appointed by the management against permanent vacancy as a permanent workman. From the record available

in the office of the management it does not appear that this workman was ever engaged by any officer of BSNL.

The claim of the workman that he was orally appointed in the year 1992 is totally false and is only a concocted

story. It was further submitted that the workman was never appointed as a regular staff under sanctioned post

hence there is no question for his termination and statement regarding his termination is totally false and hence

the claim of the workman is not maintainable at all. The learned counsel for the management further submitted

that earlier there was one Reference Case No.- 11 of 2012 between the same parties and with regard to the same

relief but the same was closed due to none appearance of this workman and therefore the present I.D. Case

cannot continue.

16.

After hearing both the parties and going through the materials available on the record, one thing is

apparent that workman failed to bring any paper on the record regarding his appointment in the management.

The consistent case of the workman is that he was orally appointed by the authority concerned which was

denied by the management. The workman in his statement of claim as well as in his evidence has stated that he

worked under the management from 1992 to December 2008 but the Ext-W and Ext.-W/1 show that workman

worked till 30.06.2009. Both the Exts are falsified itself because they are contrarary to the consistent case of the

workman that he worked only till 30.06.2008. Ext.-W/1-2 and Ext.-W/1-3 show that the authorities concerned

gave certificate regarding the work done by the workman till 15.04.2002 only. Although he has submitted chart

showing that he work till December-2008 but no letter such as Ext.- W/1-2 and Ext.- W/1-3 have been brought

on the record regarding the working of the workman. The consistent case of the workman is that initially he was

paid Rs. 2000/- per month which was later on reduce to Rs. 1000/- per month and at the time of his alleged

termination he was getting Rs. 500/- per month only. This facts throw a great suspicion regarding the working

of the workman in the management. The salary/emoluments of a person increases due to passage of time but in

the present case surprisingly same is reduced from the passage of time. This facts shows that the workman was

not regularly engaged by the management but he might have been called by the management when the need

arises. The workman has also failed to bring on record even a single payment voucher issued by the

management for his work done. This workman has claimed that he submitted his application form for

regularization and the same was forwarded to the higher authorities by the SDO Telephone, Danapur but no

copy of such application has been brought on record by the management. He also failed to bring on record the

notification regarding the regularization of some other workmen who were junior or contemporary to him. Ext.-

W/2 series which are with regard to the operation of generator in the office shows that the workman worked in

the office only in the year 1993 to 1995 and that also not continuously. Some other persons were also operated

the generator which is apparent from the Ext.-W/2 series.

17.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts it appears that the workman was not in regular service of

the management even as a daily wage work but his services might have been taken by the management from

time to time for which he would have been paid. There is nothing on the record to show that he was appointed

by competent authority. In this view of the matter as such there is no question of the regularization of service of

the workman but as he has worked under the management for a long period therefore he is entitled for some

relief which will subserve the ends of justice. Even if it is assumed that alleged termination of the workman was

illegal even then the relief of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and it may be wholly inappropriate

in a given facts situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed

procedure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases has held that in such type of cases compensation

instead of reinstatement be allowed to meet the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Patna High Court recently in its

full bench judgement reported in 2019 LIC Page-1 has also held that even in case termination of daily

wager is found to be in violation of provisions of Section 25F of I.D.Act in that case also there may not be

automatic reinstatement and back wages and in given case Labour Court may award compensation in

lieu of reinstatement and back wages which depends on facts and circumstances of each case, more

particularly considering nature of employment, duration of employment etc.

2896 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Taking into account all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of work

and the period of work of the workman, I am also of the view that in this case monetary compensation in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages would sub serve the ends of justice. In my considered view, the compensation of

Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) only to the workman Sri Krishna Kumar Singh in lieu of reinstatement shall be

appropriate, just and equitable and shall meet the ends of justice. Such payment shall be made within 02 (Two)

months from the gazette publication of award failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. This

award is effected after gazette notification / publication of award.

Accordingly, this is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1023.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससि रजिस्ट्रार, मजणृाल जवश् वजवद्याल , मजणृाल बैंगलोर, और अन् एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमिकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , बैंगलोर के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 16/2011) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार

को 04.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42012/260/2010-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2020

S.O. 1023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2011) 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 Registrar, Manipal University, Manipal Bangalore & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 04.11.2020.

[No. L-42012/260/2010-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 13^TH OCTOBER, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 16/2011

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

Manipal University

Mazdoor Union (R),

C/o B.M.S Office,

Felix Pai Bazar,

Mangalore - 575001.

The Registrar,

Manipal University,

Madhava Nagar,

Manipal - 576104.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. K. B. Arasa

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Latha C. S. Holla

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2897

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-42012/260/2010-IR(DU) dated 05.05.2011 in exercise of

the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

‘Whether Sh. Manjunath Prabhu, Junior Engineer (Bio-Medical), is a workman as defined

under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? If yes, whether the action of Management

of Manipal University is justified in retrenching the services of Sh. Manjunath Prabhu w.e.f.

31.07.2003? What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?’

The 1^st Party Union has espoused the cause of its member Sh. Manjunath Prabhu, a former employee of

the 2^nd Party, whose service is retrenched w.e.f. 31.07.2003.

It is stated in the claim statement that, the workman challenged the order of retrenchment before the

Hon’ble Labour Court, Mangalore in IDA (LCM) No. 02/2004, an Award was passed in his favour holding that

the retrenchment is not justified; 2^nd Party challenged the said Award before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P

No. 12997/2005, the Award was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the appropriate

Government is the Central Government; liberty was given to the 1^st Party to approach the appropriate Central

Government for a reference.

It is further stated that the member / workman was appointed as Bio-Medical Technician and was

entrusted with the work of machine repairing, attending and repairing all the medical equipments of the Hospital

attached to the 2^nd Party Management; he was not entrusted with the work of Supervisory or he had no Authority

to appointments and he is only a skilled workmen. Vide letter dated 31.07.2003 the 2^nd Party issued a notice of

retrenchment / terminating the services of the workman: under protest he has received the notice. The notice is

illegal, said work still exists and his juniors are working; the post of the workman is abolished only to victimise

him. He was asked to go and work at MNE Technology Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore, which is not a part of 2^nd Party

Management, the workman requested not to do so; the reasons given by the 2^nd Party amounts to change in

Service Condition for which workman ought to have been given notice under Sec 9-A, but no notice is given

since various cases are pending before the District Labour Court, Mangalore and Industrial Tribunal at Mysore,

the 2^nd Party ought to have taken approval by filing application under Sec 33-2(b); he has undergone hardship

because of the illegal action of the 2^nd Party and he is unemployed.

The claim is contested on following lines, the member of the 1^st Party Union was employed as a Junior

Engineer (Bio-medical) under the 2^nd Party and his post was independent and he had supervisory duties; he is

not a workman within the meaning of Sec 2(s) of ‘the Act’. Initially he was carrying out his duties at TMA Pai

Rotary Hospital, Bejai, Mangalore; said hospital which was a unit of 2^nd Party closed w.e.f 31.12.2000 and

merged with Attavar KMC Hospital, Mangalore, which is another unit of 2^nd Party. While closing the hospital

he was transferred to University Medical Centre (UMC), near Jyothi Circle, Mangalore; his service is lawfully

retrenched as per the Retrenchment Order dated 31.07.2003; the UMC, Mangalore, ceased to be the unit of 2^nd

Party University w.e.f. 02.06.2006, since the management of the said hospital was handed over to Manipal

Health System Pvt. Ltd., Manipal Towers, Airport Road, Bangalore-8 as per the License agreement dated

02.06.2006. The name of the said Management is now changed to Manipal Health Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,

Bangalore. Said Management is not made Party in the present proceedings. There was no obligation or

requirement for the 2^nd Party to comply with Sec 9-A / Sec 33-2(b) of ‘the Act’. The 2^nd Party is not required to

take permission from the Government for retrenching any of its employees since it is not an Industrial

Establishment under Sec 25-L of ‘the Act’. Bio-Medical Engineering Service and the work in the 2^nd Party

Institutions are not perennial in nature; a Bio-Medical Engineering Services and the work of Multi Vendor

Maintenance and Repair Works had been entrusted to M/s MNE Technologies Pvt. Ltd., from 10.04.2000

onwards. In view of the same, the workman had no work from 2001 till the date of his retrenchment. Besides

2^nd Party do not require the service of Junior Engineer (Bio-Medical), therefore it was constrained to abolish the

post of Junior Engineer (Bio-Medical) and accordingly the order of Retrenchment dated 31.07.2003 was issued,

he has received one-month notice pay and retrenchment compensation without demur. Retrenchment

compensation was offered without prejudice to the contention that he is not a workman within the meaning of

Sec 2(s) of ‘the Act’. The action of the 2^nd Party is justified and he is not entitled for any relief.

On completion of pleading both parties have adduced evidence. Documents for the 1^st Party are

marked as Ex W-1 to Ex W-14. Document Ex M-1 is marked for the 2^nd Party.

Both parties have submitted their respective written argument.

The original record pertaining to the Industrial Dispute between the very same parties in IDA

No. 02/2004 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore is summoned.

2898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Evidence was adduced by Legal Officer of the 2^nd Party reiterating counter statement averments.

During his cross examination it was elicited that 2^nd Party has four hospitals and they have power to

inter transfer employees from one hospital to another hospital: accordingly, 1^st Party workman was also

transferred; no permission was taken from the Government to close Bio-Medical Department; before the closure

of Bio-Medical Department 2^nd Party has not issued notice either to the union or to the workman, but a circular

was issued in that regard to all the departments… he had no Appointing Authority… he was provided with

Employee Code Number.

During the rebuttal evidence the 1^st Party in his affidavit evidence averred that Bio-Medical

Department is not closed; the post of junior engineer is a skilled workmen; he is given increment as an employee

in November 2002… notice of retrenchment does not disclose the case of the 2^nd Party.

It is a de-novo trial before this Tribunal on the very same dispute which was once adjudicated by

Labour Court, Mangalore (State) in IDA No. 02/2004, the original record of IDA No. 02/2004 is available for

perusal. The certified copy of the Award passed in the said case is marked as Ex W-7 in the present case.

10.

The basic challenge to the dispute is on the status of the 1^st Party member – whether or not he is a

workman as defined under Sec 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act?

11.

2^nd Party contend that, he was in-charge of Bio-Medical Section, was employed in Supervisor capacity

and was not doing the repairs works as contended by him; before the Labour Court, Mangalore 1^st Party

workman had contended that he was working as a Junior Engineer (Bio-Medical) but in the present proceedings

he claims to be a Bio-Medical Technician. It is further contended that no evidence is produced before this Court

by him to demonstrate that nature of the duties performed by him was not that of a Supervisory Cadre but of a

workman.

12.

Reliance is placed on the following judgments by the 2^nd Party:

1992 LLR 155 Bom HC - Shrikant Vishnu Palwankar vs Presiding Officer of First Labour Court

and others.

1994 LLR 440 Bom HC - Narsinha Anand Joshi vs M/s Century Shipping and others

1999 LLR 581 Bom HC - German Remedies Ltd. vs Michael Gabriel Lopes and another.

In the first cited judgment the dispute pertains to the employee who was appointed as Foreman and was

assigned Supervisory duties of checking, indenting of materials, recommendation of leave / workman, appraisal

of the work of the workman and determination of suitability for promotion of the workman. On facts, the

Hon'ble High Court did not appreciate his contention that, he is a workman under ‘the Act’.

In the second cited judgment the writ petitioner appointed as a Technical Officer, was working in

Administrative Capacity. His duties were to ensure proper filing of papers and maintenance of filing papers.

There was enough evidence on record that as a Technical Officer he was scrutinising the bills, recommending

them for payment, selecting the material to be purchased and supplied. In the absence of the Manager he used

to perform the managerial functions. His Service Condition was that of the officers distinguishable from the

staffs. He enjoyed the Service Conditions given to the officers like free lunch and separate cabin etc. Prior to

joining the respondent company he had worked in executive posts in other companies. His rank was next to the

Technical Manager in his department. The Industrial Tribunal had held that he was not a workman and the said

finding was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court.

In the third cited judgment the employee was working as an officer on promotion. There was change in

the nature of his duty consequent upon his promotion; on a scrutiny of the documentary proof like the agreement

which the employee had executed on being promoted to the post and his authority to certify the temporary

advances made by different workers, sanctioning the leave application of the workers, issue of gate pass to the

workers, authority to certify overtime done by the workers etc., the Hon'ble High Court held him not a

workman.

13.

But the circumstances in the case on hand differ. The 1^st Party workman is not shown to have

performed any such Administrative or Supervisory Work. Not even a scrap of document is produced by 2^nd

Party to demonstrate the nature of the work performed by the employee. His evidence that he was entrusted

with the work of repairing all the medical equipments of the Hospitals attached to the 2^nd Party Management is

not successfully countered by the 2^nd Party. He has produced a letter dated 23.04.2001 Ex W-4 whereby he was

directed by 2^nd Party to take part in the process of identification, listing tagging of Bio Medical equipments by

M/s MNE Technologies Pvt. Ltd., to maintain register of progress in which day to day developments in this

regard are to be entered. This letter sufficiently corroborates his contention that his work was not that of a

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2899

supervisory or managerial. It is not their case that at any point of time he had Administrative or Supervisory

control over any of his Sub-ordinate Official. He had applied for the Post of Junior Engineer (Bio-Medical). It

is the rule of law that it is not the designation but the nature of work performed by the employee that decides

whether or not he is a workman under Sec 2(s) of ‘the Act’. The 2^nd Party having failed to counter his case that

he was doing the work of repairing all the medical equipments and was without any administrative, supervisory

or disciplinary power definitely he is a workman under Sec 2(s) of ‘the Act’.

14.

Now comes the question of legality or otherwise the action taken by retrenching his services w.e.f.

31.07.2003. To substantiate their bona-fides 2^nd Party has produced the Licence Agreement dated 02.06.2006

entered between Manipal Academy of Higher Education (Licensor) and Manipal Health Systems Private

Limited (Licencee) (Ex M-1) it is an agreement in respect of management use and operation of the Hospital on

the terms and conditions stipulated therein. It is stated by the Management witness that the 1^st Party member

was working at TMA Pai Rotary Hospital, Bejai which is a unit of 2^nd Party; the hospital was closed w.e.f

31.12.2000 and merged with Attavar KMC Hospital, Mangalore which is also another unit of 2^nd Party. On

closing down TMA Pai Rotary Hospital, he was transferred to University Medical Centre (UMC) Mangalore;

UMC, Mangalore, which ceased to be the unit of 2^nd Party University w.e.f. 02.06.2006 and the Management

was handed over to Manipal Health Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vide Ex M-1. The above piece of

evidence even if were to be actual state of affairs as on today would fail to non-suit the workman if his

retrenchment is found otherwise illegal. Merger of the units, transfer of management has least impact so long as

an employee continues to be in service under an establishment. The Retrenchment Order was issued to the

workman vide letter dated 31.07.2003 on the ground that they closed the Bio-Medical Department after they

entrusted the work to M/s MNE Technologies Pvt. Ltd., surprisingly no document about closure of the Bio-

Medical Department or entrustment of the work to M/s MNE Technologies is produced.

15.

While it is stated in the counter statement that the entrustment to M/s MNE Technologies Pvt. Ltd., was

w.e.f 10.04.2001, the Retrenchment Order is dated 31.07.2003 and he was asked to assist M/s. MNE

Technologies vide letter dated 23.04.2001 (Ex W-4). The very tone of the letter would suggest that the 1^st Party

member continued to be in service till his retrenchment, performing the work of a workman category. The

retrenchment is assailed for violation of the mandatory requirement of Sec 25-M of ‘the Act’. The unit is still

functioning in the name of Bio-Medical Department / TBS India Pvt. Ltd., as revised by an internal circular

dated 01.04.2013 / Ex W-12. Admittedly no closure notice was issued to the workman; two cases in CR No.

05/2009 and CR 15/2011 are pending in respect of pay anomaly. According to 1^st Party before retrenching him

permission ought to have been obtained from this Tribunal by the 2^nd Party under Sec 33-2(b) of ‘the Act’.

That apart a mandatory notice under Sec 9-A of ‘the Act’ since not issued about the change of service condition,

the retrenchment is vitiated.

16.

In respect of the above challenges to the validity of retrenchment we have to firstly remind our-self that

the 1^st Party member was working as a Junior Engineer (Bio-Medical) with the 2^nd Party University Medical

Centre, Mangalore; it is nowhere stated to the effect that he was appointed in the Bio-Medical Section, he was

only a Junior Engineer (Bio-Medical); increment was granted to him on 01.11.2002 by University Medical

Centre in the Employee No. 1051, designation Junior Engineer (Bio-Medical). Hence, the existence or non-

existence of Bio-Medical Section is of no consequence for adjudication of this dispute and violation of Sec 25-N

of ‘the Act’ is immaterial. Though it is forcefully urged by the 1^st Party that the 2^nd Party could not have

terminated his service without obtaining the permission from this Tribunal under Sec 33-2(b) of ‘the Act’, said

contention holds no water since his termination was on 31.07.2003; as the very case number suggests CR

05/2009 and CR 15/2011 are of subsequent origin.

17.

As contended by the 2^nd Party he was retrenched since it was not necessitated to engage his services

anymore and the work of Multi Vendor Maintenance and Repair Works was assigned to M/s MNE

Technologies Pvt. Ltd., from 10.04.2001 onwards. Though it is contended that Bio-Medical Engineering Service

and work in the 2^nd Party Institution is not perennial in nature, no evidence is adduced as to the frequency of

repair works concerning machine and medical equipments in the Hospital attached to the 2^nd Party; no

documentary proof is produced to demonstrate the bona-fides of the 2^nd Party in entrusting the work of Multi-

Vendor Maintenance and Repairs Works to M/s MNE Technologies. To enter into an agreement w.e.f

10.04.2001 for entrustment of the above work literally amounted to change of Service Condition of the 1^st Party

workman, who so far was attending the said work single handedly.

18.

Sec 9-A of ‘the Act’ is the relevant statutory provision for our purpose:

9A. Notice of change - No employer, who proposes 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,--

2900 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(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 of any 1 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

in Defence Services (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.

19.

Further THE FOURTH SCHEDULE to ‘the Act’ contemplates 11 CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FOR

CHANGE OF WHICH NOTICE IS TO BE GIVEN. Among them item 10 is relevant for our purpose which

reads thus:

10. Rationalisation, standardisation or improvement of plant or technique which is likely to lead to retrenchment

of workmen.

20.

In the considered opinion of this Tribunal entrustment of repair work which so far was performed by

the regular employees, to an outsider agency falls within the above category of rationalisation. As per the

Dictionary meaning Rationalisation is ‘an attempt to find reasons for behaviour, decisions, etc.,

especially your own.’ While taking the decision to change the working hands of Multi-Vendor Maintenance and

Repair Works, the 2^nd Party must be conscious that said decision is likely to lead to retrenchment of the

workman. Hence, the circumstances warranted a statutory notice under Sec 9-A of ‘the Act’ which is not

complied. The 1^st Party has made attempt to press into service the provisions of Sec 33 of ‘the Act’, in not

obtaining prior permission from the Tribunal where the dispute is pending adjudication before terminating him.

Said contention is misconceived since it is a Retrenchment but not a Disciplinary Action but Alteration of

Condition of Service. Thus, the retrenchment since not preceded by a statutory notice under Sec 9-A of ‘the Act’

is illegal, hence not justified.

21.

So much is stated by the 2^nd Party about the propriety of the Union in espousing the cause of the

concerned workman Sh. Manjunath Prabhu. As such illegal Retrenchment would amount to illegal Termination

and an aggrieved workman is entitled to battle against illegal termination, discharge or dismissal on his own

without espoused by a Trade Union. Though it is stated that the work which was performed by Sh. Manjunath

Prabhu is not in existence that is not a ground to set right the illegality committed against him by illegal

retrenchment. It is the look out of the 2^nd Party or Licensee of the 2^nd Party to redo the things by reinstating him

to the original post which he was holding on the date of his retrenchment. It is not shown that the workman is

employed anywhere for gain, hence he needs to be reinstated with 50% of the back wages less the retrenchment

compensation received with continuity of service.

AWARD

The Reference is accepted.

The 1^st Party workman / Sh. Manjunath Prabhu, Junior Engineer (Bio-Medical) is a workman as

defined under Sec 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

The 2^nd Party / Management of Manipal University is not justified in retrenching the service of

Sh. Manjuanth Prabhu w.e.f 31.07.2003.

The 2^nd Party is directed to reinstate the workman to the original post which he held on 31.07.2003

with 50% of the back wages less retrenchment compensation received, with continuity of service.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 13^th October, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2901

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1024.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्री

सरकार मेससि मिाप्रबंिक, हिंिुस्ट्तान एरोनॉरटक्स जलजमटेड, बैंगलोर, और अन् एवं उनके कमिचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , बैंगलोर के ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 02/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार

को 04.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2020

S.O. 1024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2017) 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 General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore & Others, and their workmen

which were received by the Central Government on 04.11.2020.

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

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 27^TH OCTOBER, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ID 02/2017

I Party

II Party

Sh. Vasu K V,

R/at, No. 120, Venkatadri Nilaya,

Opp. Vidya School, 2^nd Cross,

Sharavathi Road, CM Extension,

Kyathasandra,

Tumkur - 572 104.

The General Manager,

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

Over haul Division,

Bangalore - 560 017.

2. The Chairman,

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

No. 15/1, Cubbon Road,

PB No. 5150,

Bangalore - 560 001.

3. The Director (HR),

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

No. 15/1, Cubbon Road,

PB No. 5150,

Bangalore - 560 001.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Self

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Pradeep S. Sawkar

AWARD

It is a petition filed under the provisions of Sec 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity

‘the Act’) by the former employee of HAL (1^st Party) against the Authorities of the Respondents (2^nd Party).

2902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The claim petition runs into 25 pages. To epitomise the relevant facts, the 1^st Party workman joined the service

of the 2^nd Party in the year 2007; after completion of training period his service was confirmed w.e.f.

02.11.2009; after obtaining permission from the employer he prosecuted his B.E studies in the Evening College.

He was kept under suspension w.e.f 19.08.2015 on the allegation that during the duty hours he went to the

Police Station and lodged complaint against a Superior Official; after six months his suspension order was

revoked by withholding his six months’ salary and cutting his two increments. When he went to collect his ID

card for the purpose of reporting to duty same was not issued to him, he was told to go to Yelahanka Base by

signing the Assignment letter. Since, 11.02.2016 he is not given entry to Overhaul Division. Ten days

thereafter they terminated him from service in the name of ‘Loss of Lien’. He did not agree to report to

Yelahanka since his concerned Department is not in Yelahanka; there is no Hospital or quarter facility at

Yelahanka. The M.S.D Department where he was working is not available in the said Division. After

termination he is facing financial problem along with his family members and he has no any other source of

income.

The claim is contested by the 2^nd Party on the following lines:

the Dismissal Order dated 05.08.2016 passed against the 1^st Party by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the

punishment of confirming Loss of Lien over his appointment in HAL w.e.f. 22.02.2016 under Clause 18 (ii) of

the Certified Standing Order of the Company is challenged in this proceedings; while working in overall

Division as Work Study Assistant – B of the 2^nd Party Company, he remained absent for duty without leave or

permission w.e.f 11.02.2016 for more than 10 days; the 2^nd Party issued a notice of Loss of Lien dated

07.03.2016 informing that he has lost lien on his appointment under clause 18(ii) of the Certified Standing

Order of the 2^nd Party w.e.f 22.02.2016. He was requested to return for duty within 10 days from the date of

issue of letter of Loss of Lien and to explain to the satisfaction of the Management giving reasons for his

absence, failing which the Loss of Lien on his appointment will be confirmed. The explanation dated

12.03.2016 given by him to the letter of Loss of Lien issued by Chief Manager (MS) was not satisfactory. The

matter was referred to Departmental Enquiry committee; Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the

allegation contained in Loss of Lien notice: Presenting Officer was also appointed. The 1^st Party participated in

the enquiry, after completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report holding that the 1^st Party is

guilty of the allegations made in the notice of Loss of Lien, copy of the Enquiry Report was marked to him

along with proposed punishment of Loss of Lien over his appointment in HAL w.e.f 22.02.2016. He submitted

his written representation dated 02.07.2016 to the Disciplinary Authority. By considering his representation

both on the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the documents available on record, by examining the case

from all aspects, his past records and gravity of misconduct the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order on

05.08.2016 confirming the Loss of Lien over the appointment of the 1^st Party in HAL w.e.f 22.02.2016. The

punishment order is imposed after careful analysis of the evidence on record and taking into consideration the

representation of the 1^st Party; the charges / allegation are grave in nature and the 1^st Party is guilty of

misconduct. The order is not excessive, the other allegations made in the claim petition are all denied.

Though the 1^st Party had not pleaded in his claim statement anything against the procedure of enquiry,

the 2^nd Party was directed to adduce evidence on the Domestic Enquiry; the 1^st Party examined the Enquiry

Officer and marked the Enquiry Records as Exhibits M-1 to M-11. The 1^st Party workman gave his rebuttal

evidence. After giving audience to both vide order dated 25.02.2020 it was held as follows:

“I endorse that enquiry was held against the workman by affording opportunity to him to defend

himself against the letter Ex M-1 / in respect of the subject of Loss of Lien”.

Thereafter one witness was examined for the 2^nd Party pertaining to the past records of the workman,

in this regard documents Ex M-12 to Ex M-28 were marked.

1^st Party workman gave his rebuttal evidence.

Both parties have submitted their respective written argument.

In the back drop of the above all, the point that arises for my consideration is,

Whether the final order passed by the 2^nd Party against the 1^st Party workman under Ex M-11

dated 05.06.2016 confirming Loss of Lien over his appointment w.e.f 22.02.2016 under clause

18(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company thereby intimating him “Accordingly,

you lost your lien over your appointment in HAL w.e.f 22.02.2016” is legal and justified?

In the claim statement the 1^st Party workman made allegations against the Trade Union leaders and

Superior Officials. The pith of his contention was –

he was kept under suspension on certain allegations w.e.f 19.08.2015 - his I.D card was seized after revocation

of the suspension - he was transferred to Yelahanka for which he was not agreeable - without the I.D Card he

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2903

could not enter the premises of the 2^nd Party to approach the Superior Officers to request for retransfer,

exploiting his situation they have passed the order of Loss of Lien.

It was brought through the evidence of MW-1 / Senior Manager (HR) / Enquiry Officer that 1^st Party

was issued the letter of Loss of Lien Ex M-1 which indicated - he is absenting for duty without leave or

permission w.e.f. 11.02.2016 for more than 10 days - he has lost lien on his appointment under clause 18(ii) of

the Certified Standing Orders of the Company w.e.f 22.02.2016. The letter further called upon him to return

within 10 days from the date of issue of the letter and explain to the satisfaction of the Management, the reasons

for his absence, failing which the loss of lien on his appointment will be confirmed.

The 1^st Party gave his explanation dated 12.03.2016 which was marked as Ex D-1 during the Domestic

Enquiry (Ex M-2 before this Tribunal), it is a handwritten letter addressed to the Chief Manager (MSD)

Overhaul Division, HAL, (BC), the workman received the letter on 09.02.2016 came to work on 10.02.2016

with one day pass – he went to the HR Department to receive his ID Card, the HR staff demanded him to sign to

the Yelahanka transfer letter .......… if he want ID Card. He consulted with his representative leaders - and the

Chief Manager (MSD) was not on his seat - then he left the place and gave reply through registered post

requesting for ID Card. From that day onwards Security people did not allow him to come inside - everyday he

was coming to the gate and returning, on his suspension he was ordered to surrender his ID card to Security

Officer but on revocation they are not returning the ID card at the security gate.

The language employed in the letter is scornful and teases the authority for not returning ID card, to

facilitate him to join duty: 2^nd Party is also alleged of blackmail.

The Deputy Manager (HR) of the 2^nd Party was examined as the witness for the Management during

enquiry. As per her statement -

the 1^st Party was placed under suspension pending enquiry on certain misconduct under the Standing

Orders vide memo dated 02.02.2016 (Ex P-2). The suspension pending enquiry was revoked and he was

directed to report to duty with immediate effect - on 10.02.2016 he reported to HR Department for the purpose

of reporting to duty - as decided by the Competent Authority vide memo dated 10.02.2016 (Ex P-3) he was

assigned to work at HAL, Yelahanka Base and he was directed to report to duty at HAL, Yelahanka Base with

immediate effect - he refused to accept the assignment order and refused to report at HAL, Yelahanka Base,

despite repeatedly advising him; the memo with due endorsement of ‘refusal to accept the notice’ in the

presence of a witness is marked as Ex P-4. Thereafter he left the spot and did not report to Yelahanka base - the

Officer in-charge HAL, Yelahanka Base vide memo dated 25.02.2016 (Ex P-5) intimated that 1^st Party has not

reported at HAL, Dett, Yelahanka Base as per the terms of the memo dated 10.02.2016 - on his absence for

more than 10 days w.e.f 11.02.2016 a loss of lien notice dated 07.03.2016 (Ex M-1) was issued - his

explanation (Ex D-1) is unsatisfactory.

The 1^st Party cross examined the witness questioning the procedure of return of the ID card on

revocation of the suspension order. His defence was, without the ID card he could not report on 11.02.2016.

He was seeking opportunity to meet his higher ups / boss / superiors from 11.02.2016 onwards. The witness

clarified that if he had accepted the transfer order necessary arrangements would have been made to issue ID

card and Air Force Base Pass for entering Yelahanka Base.

The 1^st Party opted not to adduce defence evidence; both parties gave their final statement.

The 1^st Party gave statement to the effect that –

on revocation of suspension order, he was directed to report to work vide Ex P2; accordingly he reported for

joining duty on 10.02.2016; instead of issuing his ID card and permitting him to resume work at HAL, Overhaul

Division he was served with a memo by Sh. N C Das, Assistant Officer (HR) directing him to report to work at

HAL Dettachment, Yelahanka Base; 1^st Party insisted for the ID Card but he refused to issue the same stating

that on accepting the assignment only he will be issued with the ID Card; he could not report to Yelahanka Base

due to his family and personal problems; his parents need treatment at HAL Hospital frequently, he wanted to

approach higher authorities to make request for considering his case on humanitarian grounds, but he was not

allowed / permitted to meet any higher authorities etc. From 11.02.2016 onwards he was not allowed to enter

the factory even for giving application for payment of subsistence allowance, he was not issued one day pass for

the purpose of entering the factory because of which he could not report to work from 11.02.2016; after

receiving the memo of loss of lien he reported to the Company gate but the Security personnel did not allow

him inside….. the circumstances forced him to remain absent and the same was not intentional. With the above

statement he produced copies of previous representations given by him to the 2^nd Party including his reply to the

Loss of Lien which was sent through post.

The Enquiry Officer on scrutiny of the evidence held that he has not disputed the evidence of MW-

1…his contention that because of his personal / family problems he is not able to accept the assignment to HAL

Dettachment at Yelahanka Air base appears to be unreasonable, unjustified and unacceptable…. first he should

2904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

have received the memo and then taken up the issue with higher ups / concerned authorities subsequently.

There is a laid down grievance procedure also to take up such issues. Even though, he reported on 10.02.2016

for reporting to work, the very fact of his refusal to accept the assignment memo itself constitute misconduct

warranting initiation of Disciplinary Action..... Under the circumstances, the absence of Sh. K V Vasu from

11.02.2016 has been treated as unauthorised and the management is justified in invoking the loss of lien

provisions under Clause 18(ii) of the Standing Orders of HAL ,(BC).

A copy of the above Enquiry Report was marked to the 1^st Party along with the second show cause

notice proposing to confirm the loss of lien over his appointment in HAL w.e.f 22.02.2016. He was called upon

to submit his representation on or before 09.07.2016 but his representation was received by 2^nd Party only on

11.07.2016 (Ex M-10). In the said representation he made several unfounded allegations against the Enquiry

Officer and the Union leaders, he also produced copies of his representation to the Management which he had

produced before the Enquiry Officer and contended that he is in touch with the Management continuously and

trying to report back to work but not allowed to report and he is not at fault. He requested the Disciplinary

Authority to permit him to resume work, the Disciplinary Authority in the final order held that, 1^st Party did not

bring out any fresh points for consideration in his representation dated 02.07.2016. Considering all aspects of

the case and his past records and gravity of misconduct the Loss of Lien over his appointment in HAL w.e.f

22.02.2016 was confirmed under Clause 18(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company.

10.

Before this Tribunal he has submitted written argument twice, he has brought extraneous materials

outside the scope of the present proceedings. According to him his concern Department is not there in

Yelahanka; there is no hospital and quarter facility at Yelahanka, in view of his father’s health it is highly

inconvenient for him and for his activities. M.S.D Department (where he has experience) is not available in the

said Base, they have done like this for him to spoil his life, their plan is that he should stay far away without

assisting in Police investigations.

11.

The 2^nd Party has brought his past records through Ex M-12 to Ex M-22. Vide Ex M-12 dated

27.09.2008 his training period was extended since his performance was not satisfactory during the training

period; his performance during his absorption interview was also not satisfactory, for the said reasons his

training was extended by six months. Assistant Engineer (MS) had given a complaint as per Ex M-13 dated

04.04.2015 alleging that the 1^st Party behaved inappropriately with him on 04.04.2015 by using unparliamentary

language over phone etc. Ex M-14 is the forwarding letter of the Chief Manager to Ex M-13 in the said letter

the Chief Manager has mentioned as below:

“.....To counsel Mr. Vasu, I called Mr. Vasu to Chief Manger’s Office (MSD office). I tried my level

best to control his anger. He was not in a mood to listen anything. His behaviour was not appropriate.

He was very much angry and raised his voice.

I request you to take appropriate action against Mr. K. V. Vasu”.

Ex M-15 is the charge sheet dated 20.04.2015 issued on the basis of Ex M-13 and Ex M-14. Ex M-16

is the further charge sheet dated 25.04.2015 on the allegation that he refused to accept the Charge Sheet Ex M-

15 and the said Act if proved constitutes to misconduct under Clause 25(9) and 25(25) of the Certified Standing

Orders of the Company. Ex M-17 is the confirmation of the punishment order dated 19.09.2015 imposing

punishment of “Stoppage next one API with cumulative effect”; Ex M-18 is the order of suspension pending

enquiry dated 19.08.2015.

12.

Ex M-19 is the charge sheet dated 25.08.2015 in continuation of Ex M-18 on the allegation that on

30.07.2015 the 1^st Party workman obtained Movement Pass from the Chief Manager (Customer Service)

Overhaul Division for the purpose of going to HAL Hospital for his treatment without the knowledge of his

Department Head. He left the office at 8.45 hours and returned at 13.00 hours: he has not taken treatment in

HAL Hospital, but had gone to HAL Airport Police Station, Bangalore to lodge false complaint against

Sh. C. Keshava Murhty, Manger (MSD), Overhaul Division and Sh. M. Harish, Assistant Engineer, (MSD),

Overhaul Division. Again on 04.08.2015 he obtained Movement Pass for taking treatment at HAL Hospital, did

not go to the Hospital but misused the Movement Pass and went to the HAL Airport Police Station to enquire

about the status of Complaint made on 30.07.2015 against his superiors / co-employees. Ex M-20 is the

punishment order dated 02.02.2016 imposing the punishment of “Stoppage of 2 APIs without cumulative effect”

under Rule 27(a)(iii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. Ex M-21 is the charge sheet issued to

him for making false complaints directly to the higher authorities without following the procedure of proper

channel. Ex M-22 is the punishment order dated 24.06.2016 confirming the punishment of “Demotion to Lower

Scale” under clause 27(a)(iv) of the Certified Standing Order’s of the Company.

Thus, it is clear that ever since he joined the 2^nd Party the 1^st Party did not have a smooth sail in his

career. In the claim petition itself he cites an untoward incident of 21.07.2007.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 21, 2020/कार्तिक 30, 1942

2905

13.

Vide order (Ex M-11) dated 05.08.2016, the Disciplinary Authority confirmed Loss of Lien over his

appointment in HAL w.e.f 22.02.2016 under Clause 18(ii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. A

look into the above provision i.e. (ii) of Clause 18 defines Loss of Lien thus:

“If a workman remains absent for more than 10 days and / or absents himself beyond the period of

leave originally granted, or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment, unless he

returns within 10 days of the expiry of the notice of termination and explains to the satisfaction of the

Management the reasons for his inability to return before the expiry of the leave.

In case the explanation of the workman is found not satisfactory or the workman does not submit any

explanation before the specified date, in order to afford one more opportunity to the workman before

confirmation of loss of lien, the Management or an Officer of the Company authorised in this behalf

shall refer the matter to a departmental enquiry committee consisting of one or more persons. Based

on the findings of the departmental enquiry committee, the Manager shall pass appropriate orders”.

14.

There is no dispute to the fact that the 1^st Party had reported at the Gate of the 2^nd Party on revocation

of his suspension order on 10.02.2016. Unfortunately, for him by that time his transfer order was ready and he

was required to report at HAL Detachment at Yelahanka Air base. He had surrendered his I.D card on his

suspension and needed an I.D card to enter the premises which was not provided by the Assistant Officer (HR).

He was not prepared to receive the transfer order and report at the transferred place, thus was deprived of the

I.D card, thereby could not report to duty at his transferred place i.e. at MSD Department. Transfer of an

employee is the Condition of Service and the employees have no choice to exercise their option.

In the matter of Gujarat Electricity Board and another Vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, 1989-II- LLJ-

SC 470. The Apex Court observed thus:

“Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place

to the other is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has

legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a

condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is

necessary in public interest and efficiency in the Public administration. Whenever, a public servant is

transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer

it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation

of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public

servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay the transfer order a public servant

has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a

representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to

proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action

under the relevant Rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he

refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other”.

15.

Of course, as on 10.02.2016 he had no ID card to meet the Higher Officers to make request for

cancellation of his transfer on the ground of personal / family problems but before the Enquiry Officer he had

ample opportunity to present his case and explain why he was averse to report at the transferred place. The

reasons assigned by him that his parents need treatment at HAL Hospital frequently was insufficient ground for

the Enquiry Officer to accept the bonafides of his resistance to the transfer order. Rightly the Enquiry Officer

has observed that “the transfer was not ....to work outside the State and Yelahanka is very much in the

Bangalore City. Even if he had any issues with regard to his assignment to Yelahanka, first he should have

received the memo and then taken up the issue with the higher ups / concerned authorities subsequently....”

16.

On his own showing the 1^st Party was residing alone at Bangalore without his parents. It is nowhere

said that because of his transfer his family would be deprived of medical facilities at HAL. HAL being a State-

owned Aerospace and Defence Company strict abidance of the employees to the Disciplinary Rules is required.

He was given opportunity in a duly held Departmental Enquiry and all the procedures contemplated by Rule

18(ii) are complied by the 2^nd Party before confirming the Loss of Lien of the workman on his appointment.

His past records are also not impressive to exercise the jurisdiction of Sec 11-A of ‘the Act’ to interfere with the

said order. There is no merit in his claim for reinstatement with consequential benefit.

AWARD

The petition filed by the 1^st Party workman Sh. Vasu K. V. under Sec 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act,

1947 is dismissed.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 27^th October, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

2906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 21, 2020/KARTIKA 30, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2020

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

ljdkj ykbQ ba'kksjsal dksjiksjs'ku vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼14@2018½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-11-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- tsM-16025@4@2020-vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

uohu oS/k] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2020

S.O. 1025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Life Insurance

Corporation of India .and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.11.2020.

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

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 03^RD NOVEMBER, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ID 14/2018

I Party

II Party

Sh. H. Sukhesha,

S/o H. Hanumantappa,

1164, 5^th Cross, Gandhinagar,

Davanagere - 577 001.

Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100^th Ft Road, Gopalgowda Road,

Shivamogga - 577 205.

Appearance

Authorised Representative for I Party : Mr. M. Rama Rao

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Vijayendra D Joshi

AWARD

This petition is filed under Sec 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against

the order passed by the 2^nd Party Management / LIC of India in retrenching him from service w.e.f. 16.12.2017.

The petition is contested by the 2^nd Party.

After completion of evidence of 1^st Party workman, on 15.10.2020 1^st Party filed an application seeking

permission to withdraw the petition, in the supporting affidavit he has averred that his father late

Sh. H Hanumantappa was working in the 2^nd Party as Care Taker and expired on 26.08.2020; he is to be

appointed by the 2^nd Party on Compassionate ground. Hence, he is withdrawing the petition voluntarily.

Accordingly, permission was granted on 15.10.2020 to the 1^stParty workman to withdraw the petition.

AWARD

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 03^rd November, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

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: 2020.11.26 14:42:55 +05'30'