5963 GI/2020

(3101)

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. 47]

नई दिल् ली, दिसम् बर 13—दिसम् बर 19, 2020, िजनवार/ अग्रिायण 22— अग्रिायण 28, 1942

No. 47] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 13 – DECEMBER 19, 2020, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 22–AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष्‍ सं्‍ या िी िाती िज जिससे दक यि ृ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 मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय 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)

जविेि मंत्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1069.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2

के ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के िूतावास, अबु िाबी में श्री नरेंद्र कुमार राय, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

को दिनांक 08 दिसंबर 2020 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के जलए

प्राजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

जव्‍णु कुमार िमाव, जनिेिक (सी.ृी.वी.)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-28122020-223960

CG-DL-W-28122020-223960

3102 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1069.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and

Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri

Narender Kumar Rai, Assistant Section Officer in Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi as Assistant Consular Officer

to perform the consular services with effect from 08 December 2020.

[F. No. T-4330/01/2015]

VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)

इलेक्‍ट रॉजनकी और सूचना प्रौगिकोजगकी मंत्रालय

(इलेक्‍टरॉजनक्‍टस जनकेतन)

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1070.—केन्द्र सरकार एतिद्वारा रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग)

जनयम,1976 के जनयम 10 के उृ जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, इलेक्‍ट रॉजनकी और सूचना प्रौगिकोजगकी मंत्रालय के

प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अंतगवत आने वाली सॉफ्टवेयर टेक्नोलोिी ृाक्‍टसव ऑफ इंजडया (एसटीृीआई) नामक स्ट्वायत्त

संस्ट् ा के जनम्नजलज त उृकेन्द्रों, जिनके इनके 80% से अजिक कमवचाररयों ने जिन्िी का कायवसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर

जलया िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:

1.

सॉफ्टवेयर टेक्नोलोिी ृाक्‍टसव ऑफ इंजडया, 6, जसडको, इलेक्‍टरॉजनक्‍टस कॉम्प्लेक्‍टस, ृुराना एयरृोटव रोड,

रंगरे , जिला- बडगाम, श्रीनगर-191132 (िम्मू और कश्मीर) ।

2.

सॉफ्टवेयर टेक्नोलोिी ृाक्‍टसव ऑफ इंजडया, प्लॉट सी- 184, सजक्‍टटर 75, औगिकोजगक क्षेत्र, फेि-8ए,

मोिाली -160071 (ृंिाब)।

3.

सॉफ्टवेयर टेक्नोलोिी ृाक्‍टसव ऑफ इंजडया, मंगल भवन, नेिप नगर (ृूवव), जभलाई, िुगव-490020

(छतीसगढ़)।

[फा. सं. 7(1)/2020-जि.अ.]

रािीव कुमार, संयुक्त सजचव

MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Electronics Niketan)

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2020

S.O. 1070.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, by the Central Government hereby the following sub-centres of Software

Technology Parks of India (STPI), an Autonomous Society under the administrative control of Ministry of

Electronics and Information Technology, whose more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi:

1. Software Technology Parks of India, 6, CIDCO, Electronics Complex, Old Airport Road, Rangreth,

Dist- Badgam, Srinagar-191132 (Jammu & Kashmir).

2. Software Technology Parks of India, Plot C-184, Sector 75, Industrial Area, Phase 8A, Mohali-160071

(Punjab).

3. Software Technology Parks of India, Mangal Bhavan, Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, Durg - 490020

(Chhattisgarh).

[F. No. 7(1)/2020-H.S]

RAJIV KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3103

जिक्षा मंत्रालय

(उच् चतर जिक्षा जवभाग)

(रािभाषा प्रभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 9 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1071.—केन् द्रीय सरकारज रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयमज 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उृ जनयम 4 के अनुसरण मेंज जिक्षा मंत्रालय (स्ट् कूल जिक्षा एवं साक्षरता जवभाग) के अंतगवत

जनम् नजलज त जवगिकालयों कोज ऐसे जवगिकालय के प ृ मेंज जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमवचारी-वषन् ि ने जिन् िी का

कायवसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िज अजिसूजचत करती िज:-

1. केंद्रीय जवगिकालय, िौलृुर

रेलवे िंक्‍ट िन के ृास, भामतीृुरा, िौलृुर (रािस्ट् ान) – 328001

2. केंद्रीय जवगिकालय, ृाली

वी.डी. नगर, कलेक्‍ट टरेट के ृास, ृाली मारवाड़ (रािस्ट् ान) – 306401

3. केंद्रीय जवगिकालय, जतवरी

रािकीय प्रा जमक जवगिकालय ृररसर, जतवरी, जिला िोिृुर (रािस्ट् ान) – 342306

4. केंद्रीय जवगिकालय, वायु सेना स्ट् ल

सालुआ, जिला : ृजश् चम जमिनाृुर, ृजश् चम बंगाल जृन – 721145

5. केंद्रीय जवगिकालय, समूि केंद्र, सीआरृीएफ, जसलीगुड़ी,

डाक: सुश्रुता नगर, जिला : िार्िवललंग, ृजश् चम बंगाल, जृन – 734012

[फा. सं.11011-2/2018-रा.भा.ए.]

नीता प्रसाि, संयुक्‍ट त सजचव

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(Department of Higher Education)

(OFFICIAL LANGUAGE DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 9th December, 2020

S.O. 1071.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following schools under the

Ministry of Education (Department of School Education & Literacy), as a school, whose more than 80%

members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-

1.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dholpur,

Near Railway Junction, Bhamtipura, Dholpur (Rajasthan) - 328001

2.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pali,

V.D. Nagar, Near Collectorate, Pali Marwar (Rajasthan) - 306401

3.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Tivri,

Govt. Primary School Campus, Tivri, Distt - Jodhpur (Rajasthan) – 342306

4.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Air Force Station,

Salua, Dist : Paschim Midnapur, West Bengal – 721145

5.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Group Center, CRPF Siliguri,

Post : Sushruta Nagar, Dist : Darjeeling, West Bengal, Pin : 734012

[F. No. 11011-2/2018-रा.भा.ए.]

NEETA PRASAD, Jt. Secy.

3104 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जवजि और न्याय मंत्रालय

(जवजि कायव जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1072.—केंद्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976

(य ा संिोजित 1987) के जनयम 10 के उृजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, जवजि और न्याय मंत्रालय, जवजि कायव जवभाग

के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अिीन जनम्नजलज त कायावलय को, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमवचारीवषंि ने लिंिी का

कायवसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िज, अजिसूजचत करती िज:—

1.

आयकर अृीलीय अजिकरण, ल नऊ ृी , ल नऊ

[फा. सं. ई-11011(3)/2020-रा.भा.(जव.का.)]

डॉ. अंिु रा ी राणा, संयुक्त सजचव एवं जवजि सलािकार

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department of Legal Affairs)

New Delhi, the 11th December, 2020

S.O. 1072.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the

following Office under the administrative control of the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and

Justice, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working Knowledge of Hindi :

1.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW.

[F. No. E-11011(3)/2020-O.L.(L.A.)]

Dr. ANJU RATHI RANA, Jt. Secy. & Legal Advisor

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दि ल् ली, 14 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1073.—केन् द्रीय सरकार को यि प्रतीत िोता िज दक, इससे उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में उजल्लज त ृररक्षेत्र

की भूजम से कोयला अजभप्राप् त दकए िाने की संभावना िज ;

और, उक्‍ट त अनुसूची में उजल्लज त भूजम के क्षेत्र के अंतगवत आने वाले रे ांक सं्‍या ओएमसी/कोल

प्रोिेक्‍टट/एसईसी-4/20/04, तारी 09 नवम्बर, 2020, का जनरीक्षण, मु्‍य मिाप्रबंिक ( ोि प्रभाग), केन् द्रीय

ान आयोिना और जडिाइन संस्ट् ान जलजमटेड, गोंडवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, रांची - 834 031, झार ंड के कायावलय

में या कोयला लनंयत्रक, 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट् रीट, कोलकाता - 700 001 के कायावलय में या कलेक्‍ट टर, जिला अंगुल-

751001, ओजडिा के कायावलय में या मिा प्रबंिक ( नन), ओजडिा माइलनंग कारृोरेिन जलजमटेड, ओ.एम.सी.

िाऊस, भुवनेश् वर-751001 (ओजडिा) या क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक, ओजडिा माइलनंग कारृोरेिन जलजमटेड, बजतरनी वेस्ट्ट

कोल प्रोिेक्‍टट, अमलाृाड़ा, 5वीं लेन, डाकघर/जिला अंगुल, ओजडिा के कायावलय में दकया िा सकता िज ।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3105

अत:, अब केन् द्रीय सरकार, कोयला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20)

(जिसे इसमें इसके ृश् चात् उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम किा गया िज) की िारा 4 की उृ-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्‍ट तयों का

प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त अनुसूची में उजल्लज त भूजम से कोयले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आिय की सूचना िेती िज ;

उक्‍ट त अनुसूची में उजल्लज त भूजम में जितबद्ध कोई व् यजक्‍ट त –

(i)

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

कर सकेगा; अ वा

(ii) उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम की िारा 4 की उृ-िारा (3) के अिीन की गई दकसी कारवाई से हुई या िोने वाली

संभाजवत दकसी नुकसान के जलए उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 के अिीन प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा ;

अ वा

(iii) उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम की िारा 13 की उृ-िारा (1) के अिीन ृूवेक्षण अनुज्ञजप् तयों के प्रभाविीन िोने के

संबंि में या उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम की िारा 13 की उृ-िारा (4) के अिीन नन ृट्टे प्रभाविीन िोने के जलए

प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा और उसे उक्‍ट त अजिनयम की िारा 13 की उृिारा (1) के ंड (i) से ंड

(iv) तक में जवजनर्िव्‍ ट मिों की बाबत उृगत व् यय को ििावने के जलए ृूवोक्‍ट त भूजम से संबंजित सभी

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

इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से नब् बे दिन की अवजि के भीतर, मिा प्रबंिक ( नन),

ओ.एम.सी. जलजमटेड, ओ.एम.सी. िाऊस, भुवनेश्वर-751001 (ओजडिा) या क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक, ओ.एम.सी. जलजमटेड,

बजतरनी वेस्ट्ट कोयला ृररयोिना, अमलाृाड़ा, 5वीं लेन, डाकघर और जिला अंगुल, ओजडिा को भेि सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

बजतरनी वेस्ट्ट कोयला ान

तालचेर कोलफील्ड

जिला – अंगुल, ओजडिा

[ रे ांक सं्‍ या ओएमसी/कोल प्रोिेक्‍टट/एसईसी-4/20/04, तारी 09 नवम्बर, 2020]

क्र.

सं.

ग्राम का नाम

ाना

सं्‍या

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्र

(िेक्‍टटेयर में)

रटप्ृजणयां

1.

छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल

75

छेंिीृाड़ा

अंगुल

417.6955

भाग

2.

िांडीगोड़ा

76

छेंिीृाड़ा

अंगुल

238.1869

भाग

3.

माछाकुट्टा

40

छेंिीृाड़ा

अंगुल

51.5388

भाग

4.

माछाकुट्टा िंगल

77

छेंिीृाड़ा

अंगुल

54.1290

भाग

5.

ृोड़ाृाड़ा

42

छेंिीृाड़ा

अंगुल

129.7223

भाग

6.

ृोड़ाृाड़ा िंगल

41

छेंिीृाड़ा

अंगुल

142.5660

ृूणव

7.

तेन्तुलोई

कोड़ासािी

90

छेंिीृाड़ा

अंगुल

153.9855

भाग

3106 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8.

छेंिीृाड़ा आरजक्षत वन

(आर.एफ.)

-

छेंिीृाड़ा

अंगुल

4.4690

भाग

कुल क्षेत्र:

1192.2930

(लगभग)

कुल: 1192.2930 िेक्‍टटेयर (लगभग) या 2946.1560 एकड़ (लगभग)

सीमा वणवन :

(1)

रे ा 1–8 : छेंिीृाड़ा-बागाजडया सड़क की िजक्षण दििा के जनकट कोयला ान के उत्तर-ृजिम कोणे में

जबन्िु -1 से रे ा िुप िोती िज, ृोड़ाृाड़ा ग्राम में िजक्षण-ृूवी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज और िांड़ीगोड़ा ग्राम

के उत् तरी छोर के जनकट जबन् िु-8 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(2)

रे ा 8-13 : जबन्िु -8 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और िांड़ीगोड़ा ग्राम में िजक्षण-ृजश् चम दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज

और िांड़ीगोड़ा ग्राम में जबन्िु -13 तक ृहुंचती िज ।

(3)

रे ा 13-14 : जबन्िु -13 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और िजक्षण - ृजश् चम दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा िांड़ीगोड़ा

ग्राम में जबन् िु-14 ृहुंचती िज।

(4)

रे ा 14-16 : जबन्िु -14 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और िजक्षण-ृूवी दििा में मुड़ती िज त ा िांड़ीगोड़ा ग्राम में

जबन्िु -16 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(5)

रे ा 16-17 : जबन्िु -16 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और िजक्षण-ृजिमी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज, त ा िांड़ीगोड़ा

ग्राम में जबन्िु -17 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(6)

रे ा 17-18 : जबन्िु -17 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और िजक्षण-उत्तरी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा िांड़ीगोड़ा

ग्राम में जबन्िु -18 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(7)

रे ा 18-20 : जबन्िु -18 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और िजक्षण-ृजिमी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा िांड़ीगोड़ा

ग्राम में जबन्िु -20 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(8)

रे ा 20-24 : जबन्िु -20 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और िजक्षण- ृूवी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा िांड़ीगोड़ा

ग्राम में जबन्िु -24 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(9)

रे ा 24-29 : जबन्िु -24 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और िजक्षण-ृूवव दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा तेंतुलोई

कोड़ासािी ग्राम में जबन्िु -29 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(10)

रे ा 29-30 : जबन्िु -29 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और िजक्षण-ृूवव दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा तेंतुलोई

कोड़ासािी ग्राम में जबन्िु -30 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(11)

रे ा 30-33 : जबन्िु -30 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और उत्तर- ृूवी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा तेंतुलोई

कोड़ासािी ग्राम में जबन्िु -33 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(12)

रे ा 33-36 : जबन् िु -33 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और उत् तर –ृजिमी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा तेंतुलोई

कोड़ासािी ग्राम में जबन् िु- 36 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(13)

रे ा 36-53 : जबन्िु -36 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और उत् तर –ृजिमी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा छेंिीृाड़ा

िंगल ग्राम में जबन्िु -53 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(14)

रे ा 53-54 : जबन्िु -53 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और ृजश् चम दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल

ग्राम में जबन्िु -54 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(15)

रे ा 54-56 : जबन्िु -54 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और उत् तर दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा छेंिीृाड़ा आर.एफ.

में जबन्िु -56 तक ृहुंचती िज।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3107

(16)

रे ा 56-59 : जबन् िु-56 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और ृजिम दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल

ग्राम में जबन् िु-59 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(17)

रे ा 59-67 : जबन्िु -59 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और उत् तर-ृूवी दििा की ओर कुम् भीरनाला की ओर

छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल ग्राम में कुम् भीरनाला की ओर जबन्िु -67 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(18)

रे ा 67-70 : जबन्िु -67 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और कुम् भीरनाला की ओर उत् तर-ृूवी दििा की ओर मुड़ती

िज त ा छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल ग्राम कुम् भीरनाला की ओर जबन्िु -70 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(19)

रे ा 70-75 : जबन्िु -70 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और कुम् भीरनाला की ओर उत् तर- ृूवी दििा की ओर टेड़ी-

मेढ़ी मुड़ती िज त ा कुम् भीरनाला की ओर छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल ग्राम में जबन्िु -75 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(20)

रे ा 75-76 : जबन्िु -75 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और कुम् भीरनाला की ओर ृूवव दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा

कुम् भीरनाला की ओर छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल ग्राम में जबन्िु -76 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(21)

रे ा 76-81 : जबन्िु -76 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और कुम् भीरनाला की ओर उत् तर- ृूवी दििा की ओर मुड़ती

िज त ा कुम् भीरनाला की ओर छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल ग्राम में जबन्िु -81 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(22)

रे ा 81-87 : जबन्िु -81 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और कुम् भीरनाला की ओर उत् तर- ृूवी दििा की ओर मुड़ती

िज त ा छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल ग्राम में जबन्िु -87 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(23)

रे ा 87-91 : कुम् भीरनाला की ओर जबन्िु -87 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल ग्राम उत्तरी दििा

की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल ग्राम में जबन्िु -91 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(24)

रे ा 91-95 : जबन्िु -91 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और उत् तर-ृूवी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल

ग्राम में जबन्िु -95 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(25)

रे ा 95-100 : जबन्िु -95 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और उत्तरी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा छेंिीृाड़ा िंगल

ग्राम में छेंिीृाड़ा-बागेजडया सड़क के िजक्षण दििा ृर जबन्िु -100 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(26)

रे ा 100-110 : जबन्िु -100 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और छेंिीृाड़ा-बागेजडया सड़क की िजक्षणी दििा में

उत्तर-ृजिमी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा ृोड़ाृाड़ा ग्राम में जबन्िु -110 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(27)

रे ा 110-117 : जबन्िु -110 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और छेंिीृाड़ा-बागेजडया सड़क के िजक्षणी दििा में

उत्तर-ृजिमी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा ृोड़ाृाड़ा ग्राम में जबन्िु -117 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(28)

रे ा 117-121 : जबन्िु -117 से रे ा िुप िोती िज छेंिीृाड़ा-बागेजडया सड़क के िजक्षण दििा में िजक्षण-

ृजिमी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा ृोड़ाृाड़ा ग्राम में जबन्िु -121 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(29)

रे ा 121-129 : जबन्िु -121 से रे ा िुप िोती िज छेंिीृाड़ा-बागेजडया सड़क के िजक्षण दििा में ृजश् चमी

दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा ृोड़ाृाड़ा ग्राम में जबन्िु -129 तक ृहुंचती िज।

(30)

रे ा 129-1 : रे ा जबन्िु-129 से रे ा िुप िोती िज और छेंिीृाड़ा-बागेजडया सड़क के िजक्षण दििा में

उत् तर- ृजश् चमी दििा की ओर मुड़ती िज त ा ृोड़ाृाड़ा ग्राम में जबन्िु -1 तक ृहुंचती िज।

[फा. सं. 43015/30/2016-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2020

S. O. 1073.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the

land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas, the plan bearing number OMC/Coal Project/Sec-4/20/04, dated the 09th November, 2020

containing the details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the

Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana

3108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi-834031, Jharkhand or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street,

Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the Collector, District Angul-751001, Odisha or at the office of the General

Manager (Mining), Odisha Mining Corporation Limited, OMC House, Bhubaneswar-751001 (Odisha) or at the

office of the Regional Manager, Odisha Mining Corporation Limited, Baitarni West Coal Project, At:

Amalapada, 5th Lane, PO/ District Angul, Odisha.

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

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

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

aforesaid Schedule;

Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedule may--

(i)

objection to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any right in over such land; or

(ii)

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

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

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

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

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

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

of section 13 of the said Act,

to the Office of the General Manager (Mining), OMC Ltd., OMC House, Bhubaneswar-751001 (Odisha) or at

the Office of the Regional Manager OMC Ltd., Baitarni West Coal Project, At: Amalapada, 5th Lane, PO:

Angul, District Angul, Odisha, within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in

the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Baitarni West Coal Mine

Talcher Coalfield

District- Angul, State- Odisha

[Plan bearing number OMC/Coal Project/Sec-4/20/04, dated the 09th November, 2020]

Sl.

No.

Name of village

Thana

number

Tahasil

District

Area in

hectares

Remarks

1.

Chhendipada Jangal

75

Chhendipada

Angul

417.6955

Part

2.

Handigora

76

Chhendipada

Angul

238.1869

Part

3.

Machhakuta

40

Chhendipada

Angul

51.5388

Part

4.

Machhakuta Jangal

77

Chhendipada

Angul

54.1290

Part

5.

Porapara

42

Chhendipada

Angul

129.7223

Part

6.

Porapara Jangal

41

Chhendipada

Angul

142.5660

Full

7.

Tentuloi Korasahi

90

Chhendipada

Angul

153.9855

Part

8.

Chhendipada

Reserved Forest(RF)

-

Chhendipada

Angul

4.4690

Part

Total Area :

1192.2930

(approxi-

mately)

Total: 1192.2930 hectares (approximately) or 2946.1560 acres (approximately)

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :

(1) Line 1-8: The line starts at point-1 in the north-west corner of the coal mine, near the south side of

Chhendipada-Bagadia Road, trends in south-easterly direction in Porapara village and reaches point-8

near the northern end of Handigora village.

(2) Line 8-13: The line starts from point-8 and trends towards south-west direction in Handigora village

and reaches point-13 in Handigora village.

(3) Line 13-14: The line starts from point-13, trends in the south-westerly direction and reaches point-14 in

Handigora village.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3109

(4) Line 14-16: The line starts from point-14, trends in the south-easterly direction and reaches point-16 in

Handigora village.

(5) Line 16-17: The line starts from point-16, trends in the south-westerly direction and reaches point-17 in

Handigora village.

(6) Line 17-18: The line starts from point-17, trends in the west-northerly direction and reaches point-18 in

Handigora village.

(7) Line 18-20: The line starts from point-18, trends in the south-westerly direction and reaches point-20 in

Handigora village.

(8) Line 20-24: The line starts from Point-20, trends in the south-easterly direction and reaches Point-24 in

Handigora village.

(9) Line 24-29: The line starts from point-24, trends in the south-easterly direction and reaches point-29 in

Tentuloi Korasahi village.

(10) Line 29-30: The line starts from point-29, trends in the south-easterly direction and reaches point-30 in

Tentuloi Korasahi village.

(11) Line 30-33: The line starts from point-30, trends in the north-easterly direction and reaches point-33 in

Tentuloi Korasahi village.

(12) Line 33-36: The line starts from point-33, trends in the north-westerly direction and reaches point-36 in

Tentuloi Korasahi village.

(13) Line 36-53: The line starts from point-36, trends in the north-westerly direction and reaches point-53 in

Chhendipada Jangal village.

(14) Line 53-54: The line starts from point-53, trends in the westerly direction and reaches point-54 in

Chhendipada Jangal village.

(15) Line 54-56: The line starts from point-54, trends in the northerly direction and reaches point-56 in

Chhendipada R.F.

(16) Line 56-59: The line starts from point-56, trends in the westerly direction and reaches point-59 in

Chhendipada Jangal village.

(17) Line 59-67: The line starts from point-59, trends in the north-easterly direction along the course of

Kumbhiranalla and reaches point-67 in Chhendipada Jangal village along the same Kumbhiranalla.

(18) Line 67-70: The line starts from point-67, trends in the north-easterly direction along the course of

Kumbhiranalla, and reaches point-70 in Chhendipada Jangal village along the same Kumbhiranalla.

(19) Line 70-75: The line starts from point-70, trends in the north-easterly direction in a zig-zag manner

along the course of Kumbhiranalla, and reaches point-75 in Chhendipada Jangal village along the

course of Kumbhiranalla.

(20) Line 75-76: The line starts from point-75, trends in the easterly direction along the course of

Kumbhiranalla, and reaches point-76 in Chhendipada Jangal village along the course of Kumbhiranalla.

(21) Line 76-81: The line starts from point-76, trends in the north-easterly direction along the course of

Kumbhiranalla, and reaches point-81 in Chhendipada Jangal village.

(22) Line 81-87: The line starts from point-81, trends in the north-easterly direction along the course of

Kumbhiranalla, and reaches point-87 in Chhendipada Jangal village.

(23) Line 87-91: The line starts from point-87 along the course of Kumbhiranalla, trends in the northerly

direction in Chhendipada Jangal village and reaches point-91 in Chhendipada Jangal village it-self.

(24) Line 91-95: The line starts from point-91, trends in the north-easterly direction and reaches point-95 in

Chhendipada Jangal village.

(25) Line 95-100: The line starts from point-95, trends in the northerly direction and reaches point-100 on

the south side of Chhendipada-Bagedia road in Chhendipada Jangal village.

(26) Line 100-110: The line starts from point-100, trends in the north-westerly direction along the southerly

side of Chhendipada-Bagadia road and reaches point-110 in Porapara village.

(27) Line 110-117: The line starts from point-110, trends in the north-westerly direction along the southerly

side of Chhendipada-Bagedia road and reaches point-117 in Porapara village.

3110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(28) Line 117-121: The line starts from point-117, trends in the south-westerly direction along the southerly

side of Chhendipada-Bagedia road and reaches point-121 in Porapara village.

(29) Line 121-129: The line starts from point-121, trends in the westerly direction along the southerly side of

Chhendipada-Bagedia road and reaches point-129 in Porapara village.

(30) Line 129-1: The line starts from point-129, trends in the north-westerly direction along the southerly

side of Chhendipada-Bagedia road and reaches point-1 in Porapara village.

[F. No. 43015/30/2016-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई दि ल् ली, 18 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1074.—केन् द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजनयम, 1957 (1957 का

20) (जिसे इसमें इसके ृश् चात् उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम किा गया िज) की िारा 4 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार

ने कोयला मंत्रालय द्वारा िारी की गई अजिसूचना सं्‍ यांक का. आ. 473, तारी 30 िून, 2020, िो भारत के

रािृत्र, भाग II, ण् ड 3, उृ ण् ड (ii), तारी 4 िुलाई, 2020 में प्रकाजित की गई ी, उस अजिसूचना से

उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िव्‍ ट ृररक्षेत्र की भूजम में जिसका माृ 174.44 िेक्‍ट टर (लगभग) या 431.04 एकड़

(लगभग) िज, कोयले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आिय की सूचना िी ी ;

और केन् द्रीय सरकार का यि समािान िो गया िज दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग् न अनुसूची में जवजित उक्‍ट त

भूजम के भाग में कोयला अजभप्राप् त िज ;

अत:, अब, केन् द्रीय सरकार उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्‍ट तयों का प्रयोग

करते हुए, इससे संलग् न अनुसूची में वर्णिंत 174.44 िेक्‍ट टर (लगभग) या 431.04 एकड़ (लगभग) (लगभग) माृ

वाली भूजम में या उस ृर के सभी अजिकार का अिवन करने के अृने आिय की सूचना िेती िज:

रटप् ृण 1 : इस अजिसूचना के अिीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रे ांक सं्‍ यांक ईसीएल/एसृीएम/

िीएम/एसयूआर/157, तारी 1 अक्तूबर, 2020 का जनरीक्षण कलेक्‍ट टर, जिला िेवघर (झार ंड ) के कायावलय में या

कोयला जनयंत्रक, 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट् रीट, कोलकाता- 700 001 के कायावलय में या जनिेिक तकनीकी

(ृी. एण्ड ृी.), ईस्ट्टनव कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, डाकघर- दििेरगढ़, जिला ृजिमी बद्धवान, ृजिमी बंगाल-713

333 के कायावलय में दकया िा सकता िज ।

रटप् ृण 2 : उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम की उृिारा 8 के उृबंिों की ओर ध् यान आकष्‍ ट दकया िाता िज, जिसमें जनम् नजलज त

उृबंि िज :-

‘’8.(1) अिवन की बाबत् आृजत् तयां.- कोई व् यजक्‍ट त िो दकसी भूजम में, जिसकी बाबत् िारा 7 के अिीन

अजिसूचना जनकाली गई िज, जितबद्ध िज, अजिसूचना के िारी दकए िाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम् ृूणव भूजम या उसके

दकसी भाग या ऐसी भूजम में या उस ृर के दकन् िीं अजिकारों का अिवन दकए िाने के बारे में आृजत् त कर सकेगा ।

स्ट् ृ्‍ टीकरण.- इस िारा के अंतगवत यि आृजत् त निीं मानी िाएगी, दक कोई व् यजक्‍ट त दकसी भूजम में कोयला उत् ृािन के

जलए स्ट् वयं नन संदक्रयाएं करना चािता िज और ऐसी संदक्रयाएं केन् द्रीय सरकार या दकसी अन् य व् यजक्‍ट त को निीं करनी

चाजिए।

(2)

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

अजिकारी, आृजत् तकताव को स्ट् वयं सुने िाने या जवजि व् यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर िेगा और ऐसी सभी

आृजत् तयों को सुनने के ृश् चात् और ऐसी अजतररक्‍ट त िांच, यदि कोई िो, करने के ृश् चात् िो वि आवश् यक समझता

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

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3111

संबंि में एक ररृोटव या ऐसी भूजम के जवजभन् न टुकड़ों या ऐसी भूजम में या उस ृर के अजिकारों के संबंि में आृजत् तयों

ृर अृनी जसफाररिों और उसके द्वारा की गई कायवािी के अजभले सजित जवजभन् न ररृोटव केन् द्रीय सरकार को

उसके जवजनश् चय के जलए िेगा ।

(3)

इस िारा के प्रयोिनों के जलए वि व् यजक्‍ट त दकसी भूजम में जितबद्ध समझा िाएगा िो प्रजतकर में जित का

िावा करने का िकिार िो, यदि भूजम या दकसी ऐसी भूजम में या उस ृर के अजिकार इस अजिजनयम के अिीन अर्िवत

कर जलए िाते िज’’।

रटप् ृण 3: केन् द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला जनयंत्रक 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट् रीट, कोलकाता - 700 001 को उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम

के अिीन अजिसूचना सं्‍ या का. आ. 2520, तारी 27 मई, 1983, िो भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II, ंड 3, उृ ंड

(ii) में तारी 11 िून, 1983 में प्रकाजित की गयी ी, द्वारा सक्षम प्राजिकारी जनयुक्‍ट त दकया िज ।

अनुसूची

जचत्रा ईस्ट्ट ओ.सी.ृी.

एस.ृी. ान

जिला- िेवघर, राज्य झार ंड

[रे ांक सं्‍ यांक ईसीएल/ एसयूआर/ िीएम/ एसृीएम/157,तारी 1 अक्तूबर, 2020 ]

सतिी अजिकार:

क्रम

सं्‍या

मौिा / ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्कवल

सं्‍या/ ाना

सं्‍या

तिसील/

अंचल

जिला

क्षेत्र

िेक्‍टटेयर में

(लगभग)

रटप्ृजणयां

1

तुलसीडाबर

09/0596

सार

िेवघर

49.47

भाग

2

ून

08/0593

ृालोिोरी

िेवघर

63.31

भाग

3

ताराबाि

08/0591

ृालोिोरी

िेवघर

50.36

भाग

4

िमुआ

08/0602

ृालोिोरी

िेवघर

11.30

भाग

कुल : 174.44 ( लगभग) या 431.04 एकड़ (लगभग )

1. मौिा – तुलसीडाबर में अर्िवत दकए िाने वाले प्लाट सं्‍या :

216, 217, 218, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237,

238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245,246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255,

256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274,

275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295,

296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 385, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397,

398, 399, 400, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669,

670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675,676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687,

688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705,

706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723,

724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741,

3112 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759,

760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777,

778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795,

796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813,

814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831,

832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849,

850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867,

868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885,

886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903,

904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921,

922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939,

940, 941, 907/942, 286/948, 716/953, 718/954, 708/955, 299/957, 286/958, 296/961,

723/964.

2. मौिा – ून में अर्िवत दकए िाने वाले प्लाट सं्‍या :

283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 356, 357, 358, 359,

360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 366, 367, 368, 370, 374, 375, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383,

384, 385, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 397, 398, 399, 401, 402, 407, 408,

409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 444, 446, 447, 448,

449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466,

467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484,

485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502,

503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520,

521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538,

539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556,

557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574,

575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592,

593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610,

611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628,

629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646,

647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665,

668, 669, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686,

687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 704, 705,

706, 707, 709, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 717, 718, 719, 720, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727,

728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 745, 722/

748, 287/749, 395/750, 643/751, 457/752, 626/754, 287/755, 396/757, 287/788, 287/789,

287/790.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3113

3. मौिा – ताराबाि में अर्िवत दकए िाने वाले प्लाट सं्‍या :

24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,

48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,

72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95,

96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114,

115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,

133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 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, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186,

187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222,

223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240,

241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258,

259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276,

277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294,

295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312,

313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330,

331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348,

349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366,

367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384,

385, 406, 428, 429, 430, 431, 433, 434, 435, 437, 438, 439, 440, 497, 498, 500, 502, 503,

504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521,

522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539,

540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557,

558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575,

576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593,

594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611,

612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629,

630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647,

648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665,

666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683,

684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701,

702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719,

720, 721, 722, 207/1881, 110/1885, 110/1886.

3114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. मौिा – िमुआ में अर्िवत दकए िाने वाले प्लाट सं्‍या :

842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859,

860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877,

878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934,

935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 849/957,

848/958, 842/959, 959/962, 959/963.

सीमा वणवन : ब्लाक की सीमा िेवघर जिला के सार और ृालोिोरी ब्लाक के ऊृर वर्णवत कुल 4 मौिा/ग्राम से

िोकर गुिरती िज।

ब्लॉक- 1 :

1.

रे ा क- -ग : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘क’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो तुलसीडाबर मौज़ा से िजक्षण ृूवव दििा से

गुज़रते हुए जबन्िु ‘ग’ ( िो ब्लॉक का िजक्षण ृूवव कोना िज), मौज़ा तुलसीडाबर में ृहुंचती िज ।

2.

रे ा ग- घ : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ग’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो मौज़ा तुलसीडाबर में िजक्षण ृूवव कोना िज, से

गुज़रते हुए उत्तर दििा में जबन्िु ‘घ’ तक ृहुुँचती िज ।

3.

रे ा घ-ड.-च : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘घ’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो मौज़ा तुलसीडाबर में उत्तर ृूवव कोना िज, से

िजक्षण-ृजिम दििा से गुज़रते हुए जबन्िु ‘च’ तक ृहुुँचती िज ।

4.

रे ा च-छ-ि : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘च’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो ब्लॉक का िजक्षण ृजिम कोना िज, से उत्तर

ृजिम दििा से गुज़रते हुए जबन्िु ‘ि’ तक ृहुुँचती िज ।

5.

रे ा ि-झ-क : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ि’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो ब्लॉक का उत्तर ृजिम कोना िज, से उत्तर

ृूवव दििा से गुज़रते हुए जबन्िु ‘क’ तक ृहुुँचती िज ।

ब्लाक- 2 :

1.

रे ा क- -ग-घ-ड.-च-छ-ि

: रे ा ून मौिा के जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘क’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज, िो ृूवव दििा में

जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ ,ग,घ,ड.,च,छ’ से गुिरते हुए िमुआ मौिा में जबन्िु ‘ि’ तक ृहुंचती िज ।

2.

रे ा ि-झ : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ि’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज िो मौिा िमुआ में ब्लॉक का ृूवी कोना िज, से

गुिरते हुए िजक्षण ृजिम दििा में मौिा ताराबाि के जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘झ’ तक ृहुंचती िज ।

3.

रे ा झ- ञ : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘झ’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज िो मौिा ताराबाि में ब्लॉक का िजक्षण ृजिम

कोना से ृूवव की दििा में गुिरते हुए ताराबाि मौिा में जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ञ’ तक ृहुंचती िज ।

4.

रे ा ञ –ट : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ञ’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज िो मौिा ताराबाि में ब्लॉक का ृूवी कोना से

िजक्षण ृूवव की दििा में गुिरते हुए ताराबाि मौिा में जबन्िु ‘ट’ तक ृहुंचती िज ।

5. रे ा ट- -ड-ढ: रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ट’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज िो मौिा ताराबाि में ब्लॉक का िजक्षण ृूवी

कोना से उत्तर-ृजिम की दििा में जबन्िु ‘ -ड’ से गुिरते हुए ताराबाि मौिा में जबन्िु ‘ढ’ तक ृहुंचती

िज।

6.

रे ा ढ-ण-त : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ढ’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज िो मौिा ताराबाि में ब्लॉक का िजक्षण ृूवी कोना

से िजक्षण -ृजिम की दििा में जबन्िु ‘ण’ से गुिरते हुए ून मौिा में जबन्िु ‘त’ तक ृहुंचती िज ।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3115

7.

रे ा त- : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘त’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज िो ून मौिा में ब्लॉक का िजक्षण ृूवी कोना से

ृजिम की दििा में गुिरते हुए ून मौिा में जबन्िु ‘ ’ तक ृहुंचती िज ।

8.

रे ा -ि : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ ’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज िो ब्लॉक का िजक्षण ृजिम कोना िज, से उत्तर-ृजिम

दििा में गुिरते हुए ून मौिा में जबन्िु ‘ि’ तक ृहुंचती िज ।

9.

रे ा ि-ि-न-ृ-फ-ब-म-य : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘ि’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज िो मौिा ून में ब्लॉक का िजक्षण

ृजिम कोना से उत्तर-ृूवव की दििा में जबन्िु ‘ि,न,ृ,फ,ब,म’ से गुिरते हुए ून मौिा में जबन्िु ‘य’ तक

ृहुंचती िज ।

10. रे ा य-र-क : रे ा जबन्िु सं्‍या ‘य’ से प्रारंभ िोती िज िो मौिा ून में ब्लॉक का उत्तर ृजिम कोना से

उत्तर ृूवव की दििा में जबन्िु ‘र’ से गुिरते हुए ून मौिा में जबन्िु ‘क’ तक ृहुंचती िज ।

[फा. सं. 43015/10/2020-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि , उृ सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2020

S. O. 1074.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number

S.O. 473, dated the 30th June,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 4th July, 2020, the Central Government gave

notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 174.44 hectares (approximately) or 431.04 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 or of the said lands

prescribed in the Schedule appended to this notification;

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

the Central Government hereby gives of its intention to acquire the land measuring 174.44 hectares

(approximately) or 431.04 acres (approximately) and surface rights over the said lands described in the Schedule

appended hereto :

Note 1 : The plan bearing number ECL/SPM/GM/SUR/157, dated the 1st October, 2020 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Deoghar (Jharkhand ) or in the office of

the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700001 or in the office the Director Technical (P and P),

Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh, District- Pashchim Burdwan, West Bengal--713 333.

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

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

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

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

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

himself desires to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that, such operations

should not be undertaken by the Central Government or 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 petitioner

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

(3) For purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

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

3116 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 2520,

dated the 27th May,1983 published in the Gazette of India, part II, section 3, sub- section (ii), dated the 11th June,

1983.

SCHEDULE

Chitra East OCP

S.P.Mines Area

District – Deoghar, State – Jharkhand

[Plan bearing number ECL/SPM/GM/SUR/157, dated the 1st October, 2020]

Surface Rights :

Sr.

No.

Name of

Mouza/

Village

Patwari Circle

number/Thana

number

Tahsil/

Anchal

District

Area in

hectares

(approxi-

mately)

Remarks

1

Tulsidabar

09/0596

Sarath

Deoghar

49.47

Part

2

Khoon

08/0593

Palojori

Deoghar

63.31

Part

3

Tarabad

08/0591

Palojori

Deoghar

50.36

Part

4

Jamua

08/0602

Palojori

Deoghar

11.30

Part

Total : 174.44 hectares (approximately) or 431.04 acres (approximately)

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza- Tulsidabar :

216, 217, 218, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241,

242, 243, 244, 245,246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263,

265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286,

289 (P), 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 385, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394,

395, 396(P), 397, 398, 399, 400, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670,

671, 672, 673, 674, 675,676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692,

693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714,

715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736,

737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758,

759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780,

781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802,

803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824,

825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846,

847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868,

869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890,

891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912,

913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934,

935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 907/942, 286/948, 716/953, 718/954, 708/955, 299/957, 286/958, 296/961,

723/964

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza- Khoon :

283, 284, 285, 286, 287 (P) , 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362,

363, 364, 366, 367, 368, 370, 374, 375, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391,

392, 393, 394, 395, 397, 398, 399, 401, 402, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419,

420, 421, 422, 444, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463,

464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485,

486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507,

508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529,

530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551,

552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573,

574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595,

596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617,

618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639,

640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662,

663, 664, 665, 668, 669, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687,

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3117

688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 704, 705, 706, 707, 709, 711, 712,

713, 714, 715, 717, 718, 719, 720, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736,

737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 745, 722/748, 287/749, 395/750, 643/751, 457/752, 626/754, 287/755,

396/757, 287/788, 287/789, 287/790.

3. Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza- Tarabad :

24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83,

84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,

110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131,

132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 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, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175,

176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197,

198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219,

220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241,

242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263,

264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285,

286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307,

308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329,

330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351,

352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373,

374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 406, 428, 429, 430, 431, 433, 434, 435, 437, 438,

439, 440, 497, 498, 500, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518,

519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540,

541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562,

563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584,

585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606,

607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628,

629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650,

651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672,

673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694,

695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716,

717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 207/1881, 110/1885, 110/1886.

4. Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza- Jamua :

842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863,

864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885,

886, 887, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946,

947, 948, 949, 950, 849/957, 848/958, 842/959, 959/962, 959/963.

Boundary Description: The boundary of the block passes through the above said 4 Mouzas Village of Sarath

and Palojori block of Deoghar District.

Block-1 :

1.

Line A-B-C: The line starts at point -A in Tulsidabar mouza trends in South East direction reaches

at point-C ( South- East corner of the block) in Tulsidabar Mouza.

2.

Line C-D: The line starts at point -C in the South East corner of the coal block in Tulsidabar mouza

trends in North direction of the block reaches at point-D.

3.

Line D-E-F: The line starts at point –D in the North- East corner of the coal block in Tulsidabar

Mouza trends in South-west direction reaches at point-F.

4.

Line F-G-H: The line starts at point -F in the South- West corner of the coal block trends in North-

west direction reaches at point-H.

5.

Line H-I-A: The line starts at point -H in the North- West corner of the coal block trends in North-

East direction reaches at point-A.

Block-2 :

1. Line a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h: The line starts at point -a in Khoon mouza trends in East direction passes

through point b,c,d,e,f,g and reaches at point-h in Jamua Mouza.

3118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

Line h-i: The line starts at point -h in the East corner of the block in Jamua mouza trends in South-

West direction of the block reaches at point-i in Tarabad mouza.

3.

Line i-j: The line starts at point –i in the South-West corner of the block in Tarabad Mouza and

trends in East direction reaches at point-j in Tarabad Mouza.

4.

Line j-k: The line starts at point -j in the East corner of the block in mouza Tarabad and trends in

South-East direction reaches at point-K in mouza Tarabad.

5.

Line k-l-m-n: The line starts at point -k in the South East corner of the block in mouza Tarabad and

trends in North-west direction passes through point l, m and reaches at point-n in mouza Tarabad.

6.

Line n-o-p: The line starts at point -n in the South East corner of the block in mouza Tarabad and

trends in South-west direction passes through point o and reaches at point-p in mouza Khoon.

7.

Line p-q: The line starts at point -p in the South East corner of the block in mouza Khoon and

trends in west direction reaches at point-q in mouza Khoon.

8.

Line q-r: The line starts at point -q in the South- West corner of the block in mouza khoon and

trends in North-west direction reaches at point-r in mouza Khoon.

9.

Line r-s-t-u-v-w-x-y: The line starts at point -r in the South-West corner of the block in mouza

khoon and trends in North-East direction passes through point s,t,u,v,w,x and reaches at point-y in

mouza Khoon.

10.

Line y-z-a: The line starts at point y in the North-West corner of the block in mouza khoon and

trends in North-East direction passes through point z and reaches at point-a in mouza Khoon.

[F. No. 43015/10/2020 - LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1075.—केन् द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजनयम, 1957 (1957

का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके ृश् चात् उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम किा गया िज) की िारा 4 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन भारत

सरकार ने कोयला मंत्रालय द्वारा िारी की गई अजिसूचना सं्‍ यांक का. आ. 1697, तारी 17 जसतम् बर, 2019, िो

भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II, ण् ड 3, उृ ण् ड (ii), तारी 21 जसतम् बर, 2019 में प्रकाजित की गई ी, उस

अजिसूचना से उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िव्‍ ट ृररक्षेत्र की भूजम में जिसका माृ 442.146 िेक्‍ट टर (लगभग) या

1092.54 एकड़ (लगभग) िज, कोयले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आिय की सूचना िी ी ;

और केन् द्रीय सरकार का यि समािान िो गया िज दक इससे संलग् न अनुसूची में जवजित उक्‍ट त भूजम के भाग में

कोयला अजभप्राप् त िज ;

अत:, अब, केन् द्रीय सरकार उक्‍ट त अजिजनयम की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्‍ट तयों का प्रयोग

करते हुए, इससे संलग् न अनुसूची में वर्णिंत 397.083 िेक्‍ट टर (लगभग) या 981.192 एकड़ (लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम

में या उस ृर के सभी अजिकार का अिवन करने के अृने आिय की सूचना िेती िज:

रटप् ृण 1 : इस अजिसूचना के अिीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रे ांक सं्‍ यांक सी - I(ई) III/ िीआर/1020/964,

तारी 20 अक्‍टटूबर, 2020 का जनरीक्षण कलेक्‍ट टर, जिला जछन् िवाड़ा (मध् य प्रिेि) के कायावलय में या कोयला

जनयंत्रक, 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट् रीट, कोलकाता- 700 001 के कायावलय में या जवभागाध् यक्ष या मु्‍ य प्रबंिक, वेस्ट् टनव

कोलफील् ्स जलजमटेड (रािस्ट् व जवभाग), कोल इस्ट् टेट, जसजवल लाईन् स, नागृुर - 440 001 (मिारा्‍ र) के कायावलय

में दकया िा सकता िज ।

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3119

रटप् ृण 2 : ृूवोक्त अजिजनयम की उृिारा 8 के उृबंिों की ओर ध् यान आकष्‍ ट दकया िाता िज, जिसमें जनम् नजलज त

उृबंि िज :-

‘‘8.(1) अिवन की बाबत् आृजत् तयां.- कोई व् यजक्‍ट त िो दकसी भूजम में, जिसकी बाबत् िारा 7 के अिीन

अजिसूचना िारी की गई िज, जितबद्ध िज, अजिसूचना के िारी दकए िाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम् ृूणव भूजम या उसके

दकसी भाग या ऐसी भूजम में या उस ृर के दकन् िीं अजिकारों का अिवन दकए िाने के बारे में आृजत् त कर सकेगा ।

स्ट् ृ्‍ टीकरण.- इस िारा के अंतगवत यि आृजत् त निीं मानी िाएगी, दक कोई व् यजक्‍ट त दकसी भूजम में कोयला उत् ृािन के

जलए स्ट् वयं नन संदक्रयाएं करना चािता िज और ऐसी संदक्रयाएं केन् द्रीय सरकार या दकसी अन् य व् यजक्‍ट त को निीं करनी

चाजिए।

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

अजिकारी, आृजत् तकताव को स्ट् वयं सुने िाने या जवजि व् यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर िेगा और ऐसी

सभी आृजत् तयों को सुनने के ृश् चात् और ऐसी अजतररक्‍ट त िांच, यदि कोई िो, करने के ृश् चात् िो वि

आवश् यक समझता िज, वि या तो िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन अजिसूजचत भूजम के या ऐसी भूजम में या

उस ृर के अजिकारों के संबंि में एक ररृोटव या ऐसी भूजम के जवजभन् न टुकड़ों या ऐसी भूजम में या उस ृर के

अजिकारों के संबंि में आृजत् तयों ृर अृनी जसफाररिों और उसके द्वारा की गई कायवािी के अजभले

सजित जवजभन् न ररृोटव केन् द्रीय सरकार को उसके जवजनश् चय के जलए िेगा ।

(3)

इस िारा के प्रयोिनों के जलए वि व् यजक्‍ट त दकसी भूजम में जितबद्ध समझा िाएगा िो प्रजतकर में जित का

िावा करने का िकिार िो, यदि भूजम या दकसी ऐसी भूजम में या उस ृर के अजिकार इस अजिजनयम के अिीन अर्िवत

कर जलए िाते िज’’।

रटप् ृण 3: केन् द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला जनयंत्रक, 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट् रीट, कोलकाता - 700 001 को उक्‍ट त

अजिजनयम के अिीन अजिसूचना सं्‍ या 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 गयी ी, द्वारा सक्षम प्राजिकारी जनयुक्‍ट त दकया िज ।

अनुसूची

जव्‍ णुृुरी यूिी टू ओसी ान

ृेंच क्षेत्र

जिला जछन् िवाड़ा (मध् य प्रिेि)

(रे ांक सं्‍ या सी- 1(ई)III/ िीआर/1020/964, तारी 20 अक्‍टटूबर, 2020)

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्कवल

सं्‍ या

तिसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल (िेक्‍ट टर में)

कुल

रटप् ृणी

जनिी

सरकारी

वन

1

जसरगोरा

17

ृराजसया

जछन् िवाड़ा 47.051

21.675

28.183

96.909

भाग

2

जछन् िा

16

ृराजसया

जछन् िवाड़ा 10.719

0.00

1.331

12.050

भाग

3

जृण् डरई

16

ृराजसया

जछन् िवाड़ा 14.662

18.095

11.365

44.122

भाग

4

कुकुरमुण् डा

16

ृराजसया

जछन् िवाड़ा 121.052 28.821

94.129 244.002

भाग

कुल :-

193.484 68.591 135.008 397.083

3120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कुल क्षेत्रफल : 397.083 िेक्‍ट टर (लगभग)

या 981.192 एकड़ (लगभग)

(1)

ग्राम जछन् िा में अर्िवत दकये िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ यांक :

जनिी भूजम :-

237, 240/6/2-240/6/3-240/6/4, 240/7/1-240/7/2, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 260/1-260/2-260/3,

261/1-261/2.

वन भूजम :- 242.

(2)

ग्राम जसरगोरा में अर्िवत दकये िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ यांक :

जनिी भूजम :-

9/1- 9/2, 10, 11, 12/1-12/2, 13, 14, 15, 17/1-17/2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23/1- 23/2- 23/3- 23/4,

25/1-25/2, 26/1- 26/2, 27/1- 27/2, 28/1- 28/2, 29, 30, 31, 33/1, 35/1- 35/2, 36, 39, 185/3,

188/1- 188/2/1-188/2/2-188/2/3, 189/1-189/2, 191, 192, 193, 195, 201/1- 201/2, 201/3/1/

1-201/3/1/2, 201/3/2, 202, 204, 206/1/1- 206/1/2- 206/2- 206/3, 207/1- 207/2- 207/3- 207/4,

239/1.

सरकारी भूजम:- 22, 24, 34, 190, 194, 196/2, 203/1- 203/2, 205/1/1 (भाग)-205/1/2, 205/2, 240.

वन भूजम :- 2 (भाग), 16/1- 16/2.

(3)

ग्राम जृण् डरई में अर्िवत दकये िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ यांक :

जनिी भूजम :-

4, 5/1-5/2, 6/1/1-6/1/2-6/2-6/3-6/4, 7, 8/1-8/2, 9/1- 9/2, 10/1/1-10/1/2, 10/2, 11, 12/1-12/2,

171, 176, 177, 178/1/1, 178/1/2, 178/2.

सरकारी भूजम :- 173, 175, 179.

वन भूजम :- 13 (भाग), 170.

(4)

ग्राम कुकुरमुण् डा में अर्िवत दकये िाने वाले प् लाट सं्‍ यांक :

जनिी भूजम :-

1/1- 1/2, 2, 4, 6/1- 6/2/1-6/2/2, 7/1/1/-7/1/2- 7/2- 7/3- 7/4- 7/5- 7/6, 8/1- 8/4/1-8/4/2- 8/5,

9/1- 9/2, 10, 11, 12, 13/3, 14, 15/1/1/1- 15/1/1/2-15/1/2- 15/2- 15/3- 15/4- 15/5, 16/1- 16/2-

16/3- 16/4- 16/5, 17/1/1-17/1/2- 17/2, 18/1- 18/2, 20/1/1-20/1/2- 20/2, 21/1/1-21/1/2- 21/2,

22, 23, 25/1/1-25/1/2-25/1/3- 25/2- 25/3/1-25/3/2- 25/4- 25/5- 25/6- 25/7, 26/1-26/2, 27, 28/1-

28/2, 29, 30/1- 30/2, 31/1- 31/2, 32/1- 32/2, 33/1- 33/2, 34, 35/1-35/2-35/3, 36, 37, 39/1-

39/2- 39/3/1-39/3/2-39/3/3, 39/3/4- 39/4/1-39/4/2, 40/1- 40/2, 41/1- 41/2, 43/1- 43/2, 44,

45/1- 45/2- 45/3, 46/1- 46/2, 47, 48, 50, 51/1- 51/2- 51/3, 52, 53/1- 53/2- 53/3- 53/4- 53/5/1-

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3121

53/5/2,- 53/6- 53/7, 54/1- 54/2- 54/3- 54/4- 54/5/1- 54/5/2, 54/6- 54/7/1-54/7/2, 55/1- 55/2-

55/3- 55/4- 55/5- 55/6- 55/7- 55/8- 55/9- 55/10- 55/11- 55/12- 55/13- 55/14- 55/15, 57, 58/1-

58/2- 58/3- 58/4, 59,60/1- 60/2, 61/1/1-61/1/2-61/1/3- 61/2- 61/3/1-61/3/2- 61/4- 61/5- 61/6,

62/1- 62/2- 62/3, 63/1-63/2-63/3, 64, 65/1- 65/2- 65/3- 65/4- 65/5- 65/6, 66, 67/1- 67/2/1-

67/2/2- 67/3, 72/1- 72/2- 72/5, 73/1/1-73/1/2- 73/2- 73/3, 76/4, 77, 78, 79/1-79/2-79/3-79/4,

80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85/3- 85/4, 87, 88, 89/1/1-89/1/2-89/1/3-89/1/4- 89/2/1- 89/2/2- 89/2/3-

89/2/4- 89/2/5- 89/2/6- 89/3/1-89/3/2-89/3/3-89/3/4-89/3/5, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96/1, 96/2, 97,

98, 99, 100, 101, 102/1- 102/2, 103, 104/1/1- 104/1/2-104/2- 104/3, 105, 107/1- 107/2,

108/1- 108/2, 109, 110/1- 110/2- 110/3, 112, 113, 114, 115/1-115/2, 116, 117/1- 117/2-

117/3- 117/4/1-117/4/2- 117/5, 118/1/1-118/1/2-118/2- 118/3/1-118/3/2- 118/4, 119, 120/1/1-

120/1/2- 120/2- 120/3, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127/1- 127/2- 127/3- 127/4- 127/5/1-127/5/2-

127/5/3-127/5/4, 127/6- 127/7- 127/8, 128/1/1-128/1/2- 128/2- 128/3, 129, 130/1/1- 130/1/2-

130/2/1- 130/2/2- 130/2/3- 130/2/4, 131, 133, 134/1-134/2, 135/1- 135/2/1-135/2/2- 135/3-

135/4.

सरकारी भूजम :- 5, 38, 42/1, 56, 93, 111, 136.

वन भूजम :- 3/1- 3/2, 19, 24/1 (भाग)- 24/2, 42/2, 49/1- 49/2, 85/1, 86, 106, 121, 124, 132.

सीमा वणवन :

क – : रे ा ग्राम जृण् डरई में जबन् िु ‘क’ से आरंभ से िोकर उत् तर दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 5/1, 4 की बाह्य सीमा से

लगकर गुिरती िज, दफर ग्राम कुकुरमुण् डा में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 76/4, 85/1, 72/5- 72/1- 72/2, 67/3 की

बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन् िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

– ग : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और उत् तर दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 67/3, 66 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज दफर ग्राम जछन् िा में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 237, 240/6/2-240/6/4,261/2 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर

गुिरती िज और जबन् िु 'ग' ृर जमलती िज ।

ग - घ : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ग’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ृूवव दििा में ग्राम जछन् िा में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 261/1, 260/1, 243,

244, 245, 246 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज, दफर ग्राम जछन् िा और ग्राम कुकुरमुण् डा की

सजम् मजलत ग्राम सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन् िु 'घ' ृर जमलती िज ।

घ - ड. : रे ा जबन् िु ‘घ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और उत् तर-ृूवव दििा में ग्राम कुकुरमुण् डा और ग्राम जछन् िा की सजम् मजलत

ग्राम सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज दफर ग्राम कुकुरमुण् डा में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 24/1, 8/4/1- 8/4/2- 8/5, 12,

13/3, 24/2 की बाह्य सीमा के से लगकर गुिरती िज, दफर ग्राम कुकुरमुण् डा और ग्राम जसरगोरा की

सजम् मजलत ग्राम सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन् िु 'ड.’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ड. – च : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ड.’ से आरंभ िोती िज और ग्राम जसरगोरा में ृूवव दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 2, 10 की बाह्य सीमा से

लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन् िु 'च’ ृर जमलती िज ।

3122 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

च – छ : रे ा जबन् िु ‘च’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 10, 19, 20, 39, 33/1, 36, 34 की बाह्य सीमा से

लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन् िु ‘छ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

छ – ि : रे ा जबन् िु ‘छ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प् लाट सं्‍ या 33/1 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और ग्राम

जसरगोरा में जबन् िु ‘ि’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ि – झ : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ि’ से आरंभ िोती िज और िजक्षण-ृजश् चम दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 185/3, 189/2, 188/2/3 की

बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और ग्राम जसरगोरा में जस्ट् त जबन् िु ‘झ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

झ – ञ : रे ा जबन् िु ‘झ’ से आरंभ िोती िज और प् लाट सं्‍ या 196 से िोकर गुिरती िज और प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 201/1,

205/1/1 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन् िु ‘ञ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ञ - ट : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ञ’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण-ृजश् चम दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 205/1/1, 207/4, 239/1 की बाह्य

सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन् िु ‘ट’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ट – : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ट’ से आरंभ िोकर ग्राम जसरगोरा में प् लाट सं्‍ या 240 में से िोकर ग्राम जृण् डरई में प् लाट सं्‍ या

175 की बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन् िु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

– ड : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोकर उत् तर दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ या 175 की ृजश् चम सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और

ग्राम जृण् डरई और ग्राम कुकुरमुण् डा की सजम् मजलत सीमा ृर जस्ट् त जबन् िु ‘ड’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ड – ढ : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ड’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजश् चम दििा में ग्राम जृण् डरई और ग्राम कुकुरमुण् डा की सजम् मजलत ग्राम

सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज, दफर प् लाट सं्‍ या 38 को ृार करती िज और जबन् िु ‘ढ’ ृर जमलती िज ।

ढ – ण : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ढ’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण-ृजश् चम दििा में ग्राम जृण् डरई में प् लाट सं्‍ यांक 170, 13 की बाह्य

सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज और जबन् िु ‘ण’ ृर जमलती िज।

ण – क : रे ा जबन् िु ‘ण’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजश् चम दििा में प् लाट सं्‍ या 13 में से लगकर गुिरती िज और प्रारंजभक

जबन् िु ‘क’ ृर जमलती िज ।

[फा. सं. 43015/16/2019-एलए एण्ड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, उृ सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2020

S.O. 1075.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number

S.O. 1697, dated the 17th September, 2019 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 21st September, 2019, the Central Government

gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 442.146 hectares (approximately) or 1092.54 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 all rights in or over the land measuring

397.083 hectares (approximately) or 981.192 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule appended hereto:

Note 1: The plan bearing number C-I(E)III/GR/1020-964, dated the 20th October, 2020 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh) 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 aforesaid Act which provides as

follows:-

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3123

“8.(1) Objections to acquisition.- 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.”

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

11th June, 1983.

SCHEDULE

Vishnupuri UG to OC Mine

Pench Area

District Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh)

[ Plan bearing number C-I(E)III/GR/1020-964, dated the 20th October, 2020

Sl.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

number

Tahsil

District

Area (In hectares)

Total

Remarks

Tenancy

Govt.

Forest

1

Sirgora

17

Parasia

Chhindwara

47.051

21.675

28.183

96.909

Part

2

Chhinda

16

Parasia

Chhindwara

10.719

0.00

1.331

12.050

Part

3

Pindrai

16

Parasia

Chhindwara

14.662

18.095

11.365

44.122

Part

4

Kukur-

munda

16

Parasia

Chhindwara

121.052

28.821

94.129

244.002

Part

Total :

193.484

68.591

135.008

397.083

Total area : 397.083 hectares (approximately)

or 981.192 acres (approximately)

(1) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Chhinda :-

Tenancy land :-

237, 240/6/2-240/6/3-240/6/4, 240/7/1-240/7/2, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 260/1-260/2-260/3, 261/1-261/2.

Forest land :- 242.

(2) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Sirgora :-

Tenancy land :-

9/1- 9/2, 10, 11, 12/1-12/2, 13, 14, 15, 17/1-17/2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23/1- 23/2- 23/3- 23/4, 25/1-25/2, 26/1- 26/2,

27/1- 27/2, 28/1- 28/2, 29, 30, 31, 33/1, 35/1- 35/2, 36, 39, 185/3, 188/1- 188/2/1-188/2/2-188/2/3, 189/1-189/2,

191, 192, 193, 195, 201/1- 201/2, 201/3/1/1-201/3/1/2, 201/3/2, 202, 204, 206/1/1- 206/1/2- 206/2- 206/3,

207/1- 207/2- 207/3- 207/4, 239/1.

3124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government Land :- 22, 24, 34, 190, 194, 196/2, 203/1- 203/2, 205/1/1 (Part)-205/1/2, 205/2, 240.

Forest land:- 2 (Part), 16/1- 16/2.

(3) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Pindrai:-

Tenancy land :-

4, 5/1-5/2, 6/1/1-6/1/2-6/2-6/3-6/4, 7, 8/1-8/2, 9/1- 9/2, 10/1/1-10/1/2, 10/2, 11, 12/1-12/2, 171, 176, 177,

178/1/1, 178/1/2, 178/2.

Government land :- 173, 175, 179.

Forest land: - 13 (Part), 170.

(4) Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kukurmunda :-

Tenancy land :-

1/1- 1/2, 2, 4, 6/1- 6/2/1-6/2/2, 7/1/1/-7/1/2- 7/2- 7/3- 7/4- 7/5- 7/6, 8/1- 8/4/1-8/4/2- 8/5, 9/1- 9/2, 10, 11, 12,

13/3, 14, 15/1/1/1- 15/1/1/2-15/1/2- 15/2- 15/3- 15/4- 15/5, 16/1- 16/2- 16/3- 16/4- 16/5, 17/1/1-17/1/2- 17/2,

18/1- 18/2, 20/1/1-20/1/2- 20/2, 21/1/1-21/1/2- 21/2, 22, 23, 25/1/1-25/1/2-25/1/3- 25/2- 25/3/1-25/3/2- 25/4-

25/5- 25/6- 25/7, 26/1-26/2, 27, 28/1- 28/2, 29, 30/1- 30/2, 31/1- 31/2, 32/1- 32/2, 33/1- 33/2, 34, 35/1-35/2-

35/3, 36, 37, 39/1- 39/2- 39/3/1-39/3/2-39/3/3, 39/3/4- 39/4/1-39/4/2, 40/1- 40/2, 41/1- 41/2, 43/1- 43/2, 44,

45/1- 45/2- 45/3, 46/1- 46/2, 47, 48, 50, 51/1- 51/2- 51/3, 52, 53/1- 53/2- 53/3- 53/4- 53/5/1-53/5/2,- 53/6- 53/7,

54/1- 54/2- 54/3- 54/4- 54/5/1- 54/5/2, 54/6- 54/7/1-54/7/2, 55/1- 55/2- 55/3- 55/4- 55/5- 55/6- 55/7- 55/8- 55/9-

55/10- 55/11- 55/12- 55/13- 55/14- 55/15, 57, 58/1- 58/2- 58/3- 58/4, 59,60/1- 60/2, 61/1/1-61/1/2-61/1/3- 61/2-

61/3/1-61/3/2- 61/4- 61/5- 61/6, 62/1- 62/2- 62/3, 63/1-63/2-63/3, 64, 65/1- 65/2- 65/3- 65/4- 65/5- 65/6, 66,

67/1- 67/2/1-67/2/2- 67/3, 72/1- 72/2- 72/5, 73/1/1-73/1/2- 73/2- 73/3, 76/4, 77, 78, 79/1-79/2-79/3-79/4, 80, 81,

82, 83, 84, 85/3- 85/4, 87, 88, 89/1/1-89/1/2-89/1/3-89/1/4- 89/2/1- 89/2/2- 89/2/3- 89/2/4- 89/2/5- 89/2/6-

89/3/1-89/3/2-89/3/3-89/3/4-89/3/5, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96/1, 96/2, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102/1- 102/2, 103,

104/1/1- 104/1/2-104/2- 104/3, 105, 107/1- 107/2, 108/1- 108/2, 109, 110/1- 110/2- 110/3, 112, 113, 114, 115/1-

115/2, 116, 117/1- 117/2- 117/3- 117/4/1-117/4/2- 117/5, 118/1/1-118/1/2-118/2- 118/3/1-118/3/2- 118/4, 119,

120/1/1-120/1/2- 120/2- 120/3, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127/1- 127/2- 127/3- 127/4- 127/5/1-127/5/2-127/5/3-

127/5/4, 127/6- 127/7- 127/8, 128/1/1-128/1/2- 128/2- 128/3, 129, 130/1/1- 130/1/2- 130/2/1- 130/2/2- 130/2/3-

130/2/4, 131, 133, 134/1-134/2, 135/1- 135/2/1-135/2/2- 135/3- 135/4.

Government land :- 5, 38, 42/1, 56, 93, 111, 136.

Forest land :- 3/1- 3/2, 19, 24/1 (Part)- 24/2, 42/2, 49/1- 49/2, 85/1, 86, 106, 121, 124, 132.

Boundary description:

A – B : Line starts from point ‘A’ in village Pindrai, passes in north direction along the outer boundary of plot

numbers 5/1, 4, then passes in village Kukurmunda along the outer boundary of plot numbers 76/4,

85/1, 72/5, 72/1-72/2, 67/3 and meets at point‘B’.

B – C : Line starts from point ‘B’, passes in North direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers 67/3, 66

then passes in Village Chhinda along the outer boundary of plot numbers 237, 240/6/2, 240/6/4, 261/2

and meets at point‘C’ in village Chhinda.

C – D : Line starts from point ‘C’, passes in east direction in village Chhinda along the outer boundary of plot

numbers 261/1- 260/1, 243, 244, 245, 246 and meets at point ‘D’ on common village boundary of

villages Chhinda and Kukurmunda.

D – E : Line starts from point ‘D’, passes in north-east direction along the common village boundary of

villages Kukurmunda and Chhinda, then passes in village Kukurmunda along the outer boundary of

plot numbers 24/1, 8/4/1- 8/4/2- 8/5, 12, 13/3, 24/2, meets at point ‘E’ on common village boundary of

villages Kukurmunda and Sirgora.

E – F : Line starts from point ‘E’, passes in east direction in village Sirgora along the outer boundary of plot

numbers 2, 10 and meets at point ‘F’.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3125

F – G : Line starts from point ‘F’, passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 10, 19, 20, 39, 33/1, 36, 34

and meets at point‘G’.

G – H : Line starts from point ‘G’, passes along the outer boundary of plot number 33/1 and meets at point ‘H’

in village Sirgora.

H – I : Line starts from point ‘H’, passes in south-west direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers

185/3, 189/2, 188/2/3 and meets at point ‘I’ in village Sirgora.

I – J :

Line starts from point ‘I’, passes through plot number 196/2, passes along the outer boundary of plot

numbers 201/1, 205/1/1 and meets at point ‘J’ in village Sirgora.

J-K :

Line starts from point ‘J’, passes in south-west direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers

205/1/1, 207/4, 239/1 and meets at point ‘K’.

K – L Line starts from point ‘K’, passes through plot number 240 in village Sirgora, passes in village Pindrai

along the outer boundary of plot number 175 and meets at point ‘L’.

L-M

Line starts from point ‘L’, passes in north direction along the west boundary of plot number 175 and

meets at point ‘M’ on common boundary of villages Pindrai and Kukurmunda.

M- N

Line starts from point ‘M’, passes in west direction along the common boundary of village Pindrai and

Kukurmunda crosses plot number 38 and meets at point ‘N’.

N-O

Line starts from point ‘N’ passes in south-west direction in village Pindrai along the outer boundary of

plot number 170, 13 and meets at point ‘O’.

O-A

Line starts from point ‘O’, passes in west direction through plot number 13 and ends at starting point

‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/16/2019- LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2020

.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½

¼ftls blesa blds Ik”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk

ea=ky; ds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 412] rkjh[k 27 ebZ] 2020] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II]

[kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 30 ebZ] 2020 esa izdkf”kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk lsa layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V

ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 2400-244 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 5931-00 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus

ds vius vk”k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofgr mDr Hkwfe

ds Hkkx esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr gS A

vr%] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 2201-342 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 5439-51 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij

ds lHkh vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk”k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS%

bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@

Hkwfe@534] rkjh[k 13 vDrwcj] 2020 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk & lqjtiqj vkSj cyjkeiqj ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy;

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

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

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

gS%&

3126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼1½ dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk

fudkyh xbZ gS] fgrc) gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds

fdlh Hkkx ;k

,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vf/kdkjkas dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA

bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds

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

pkfg,A

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

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

ds i”pkr~ vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkap] ;fn dksbZ gks] djus ds i”pkr] tks og vko”;d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7

dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe dk ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh

Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdM+s ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj”kksa vkSj

mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu”p; ds fy, nsxkA

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

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

tkrs gSA ^^

dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds

v/khu vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼iia½ esa

izdkf”kr dh xbZ Fkh] }kjk l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k gSA

enuuxj vkslhih ¼mRrj vkSj nf{k.k Cykd½

HkVxkao {ks=

ftyk& lqjtiqj vkSj cyjkeiqj ¼NRrhlx<+½

[js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@534] rkjh[k 13 vDrwcj] 2020]

Øe la-

xzke dk uke

xzke la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIi.kh

1-

enuuxj

95

izrkiiqj

lqjtiqj

870.740

Hkkx

2-

txUukFkiqj

93

izrkiiqj

lqjtiqj

313.900

Hkkx

3-

duduxj

86

izrkiiqj

lqjtiqj

227.850

Hkkx

4-

pmjk

60

jktiqj

cyjkeiqj

518.852

Hkkx

dEikVZesaV la[;k

mi &izHkkx

izHkkx

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIi.kh

ih 6

izrkiiqj

lqjtiqj

270-000

Hkkx

dqy % 270-000 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 667-17 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

dqy ;ksx¼d$[k½ % 2201-342 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

;k 5439-51 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

1- xzke enuuxj ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 5(Hkkx), 6, 7(Hkkx), 8(Hkkx), 9(Hkkx),

10(Hkkx), 12(Hkkx), 19(Hkkx), 21(Hkkx), 23(Hkkx), 25(Hkkx) ls 28(Hkkx), 29 ls 177, 179 ls 318, 320 ls 1157.

2- xzke txUukFkiqj ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 2 ls 159, 162 ls 178, 180 ls 183,

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3127

954(Hkkx) ls 956(Hkkx), 957 ls 1147, 1148(Hkkx), 1149(Hkkx), 1150 ls 1152, 1154(Hkkx), 1753, 1756.

3- xzke duduxj ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 1 ls 199, 200(Hkkx), 212(Hkkx), 213 ls

373, 374(Hkkx) ls 377(Hkkx), 382 (Hkkx), 384, 354/442.

4- xzke pmjk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 1 ls 91, 92(Hkkx), 94 ls 98, 100 (Hkkx), 149

(Hkkx), 150 (Hkkx), 151 ls 172, 173 (Hkkx), 174, 175, 176 (Hkkx), 179 (Hkkx), 180, 181 (Hkkx), 182 (Hkkx), 200

(Hkkx), 1040 (Hkkx), 1042, 1055, 1056, 1057 (Hkkx), 1070.

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke txUukFkiqj ds IykV la[;k 178, 157, 156,

139, 138, 21, 20, 19, 6, 4, 3, 2 ds if”peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **[k** ij feyrh gSA

[k&x&?k&³ js[kk fcUnq **[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke enuuxj ds IykV la[;k 547 ds if”peh

lhek] fcUnq *x*] 546] 545] fcUnq *?k*] 331/1, 332, 331, 329, 320, 318, 316, 189, 187, 179,

177, 176, 163, 162, 154, 153, 145, 31, 30, 29 ds if”peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **³**

ij feyrh gSA

³&p

js[kk fcUnq **³** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke enuuxj ds IykV la[;k 28, 27, 26, 25,

23, 21, 19, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 5 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **p** ij feyrh gSA

p&N

js[kk fcUnq **p** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke enuuxj ds mRrjh lhek] vkjf{kr ou

dEikVZesaV la[;k ih 6 ds mRrjh vkSj iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **N** ij feyrh

gSA

N&t&>

js[kk fcUnq **N** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke duduxj ds mRrjh lhek] fcUnq *t* ls

xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **>** ij feyrh gSA

>&´

js[kk fcUnq **>** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke duduxj ds iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ

fcUnq **´** ij feyrh gSA

´&V

js[kk fcUnq **´** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke duduxj ds IykV la[;k 200] 199] 382

ls gksdj 369] 370] 371 ds iwohZ lhek] 377] 376] 375] 374 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **V**

ij feyrh gSA

V&B

js[kk fcUnq **V** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke duduxj ds nf{k.kh lhek] pmjk ds

IykV la[;k 1057@1] 1040] 92 ls gksdj 94 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **B** ij

feyrh gSA

B&M&<

js[kk fcUnq **B** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke pmjk ds IykV la[;k 100] fcUnq *M*] 149]

150 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **<** ij feyrh gSA

<&.k

js[kk fcUnq **<** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke pmjk ds IykV la[;k 150 176] 173]

179] 182] 181] 200 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **.k** ij feyrh gSA

.k&r

js[kk fcUnq **.k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke txUukFkiqj ds IykV la[;k 1148 ls gksdj

1149] 1150 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 1154 ls gksdj 1152 ds Hkkxr% nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh

gqbZ fcUnq **r** ij feyrh gSA

r&d

js[kk fcUnq **r** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke txUukFkiqj ds IykV la[;k 956] 955] 954

ls gksdj 162] 163] 165] 171] 172@2] 183 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 183] 180@2] 180@1

ds if”peh lhek] 178 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

[Qk- la- 43015@06@2020-,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

jke f'kjksef.k ljkst] mi lfpo

3128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18 December, 2020

S. O. 1076.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number

S.O. 412, dated 27th May, 2020 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

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

the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated 30th May, 2020, the Central Government gave

notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 2400.244 hectares (approximately) or 5931.00 acres

(approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the schedule annexed to that notification;

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

prescribed in the Schedule appended to this notification.

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

Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire all rights in or over the land measuring

2201.342 hectares (approximately) or 5439.51 acres (approximately) described in the schedule appended hereto:

Note1: The plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/ LAND/534, dated the 13th October, 2020 of the area

covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Surajpur and Balrampur

(Chhattisgarh) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or in the office

of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006 (Chhattisgarh).

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

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

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

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

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

himself desires to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such 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 makes a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub- section (1) of section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated

the 20th March, 1987, published in the Gazette of India, part II, section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the 4th April,

1987.

SCHEDULE

Madannagar OCP (North and South Block)

Bhatgaon Area

District – Balrampur and Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)

[Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/ LAND/ 534, dated the 13th October, 2020]

All Rights:

Revenue Land:

Sl. No.

Name of village

Village

number

Tahsil

District

Area in

hectares

Remarks

1.

Madannagar

95

Pratappur

Surajpur

870.740

Part

2.

Jagannathpur

93

Pratappur

Surajpur

313.900

Part

3.

Kanaknagar

86

Pratappur

Surajpur

227.850

Part

4.

Chaura

60

Rajpur

Balrampur

518.852

Part

Total: 1931.342 hectares (approximately) or 4772.34 acres (approximately)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3129

(B)

Reserve Forest Land:

Compartment

number

Sub -Division

Division

Area in

hectares

Remarks

P 6

Pratappur

Surajpur

270.000

Part

Total:-270.000 hectares (approximately)

or 667.17 acres (approximately).

Grand Total (A+B) : 2201.342 hectares (approximately)

or 5439.51 acres (approximately)

1.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Madannagar (Part): 5(P), 6, 7(P), 8(P), 9(P), 10(P), 12(P),

19(P), 21(P), 23(P), 25(P) to 28(P), 29 to 177, 179 to 318, 320 to 1157.

2.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Jagannathpur (Part): 2 to 159, 162 to 178, 180 to 183, 954(P) to

956(P), 957 to 1147, 1148(P), 1149(P), 1150 to 1152, 1154(P), 1753, 1756.

3.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kanaknagar (Part): 1 to 199, 200(P), 212(P), 213 to 373, 374(P)

to 377(P), 382(P), 384, 354/442.

4.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Chaura (Part): 1 to 91, 92(P), 94 to 98, 100(P), 149(P), 150(P),

151 to 172, 173(P), 174, 175, 176(P), 179(P), 180, 181(P), 182(P), 200(P), 1040(P), 1042, 1055, 1056,

1057(P), 1070.

Boundary description:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Jagannathpur along western boundary of plot

numbers 178, 157, 156, 139, 138, 21, 20, 19, 6, 4, 3, 2 and meets at point ‘B’.

B-C-D-E

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in village Madannagar along western boundary of plot

numbers 547, point ‘C’ 546, 545, point ‘D’, 331/1, 332, 331, 329, 320, 318, 316, 189, 187, 179,

177, 176, 163, 162, 154, 153, 145, 31, 30, 29 and meets at point ‘E’.

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in village Madannagar through plot numbers 28, 27, 26, 25,

23, 21, 19, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 5 and meets at point ‘F’.

F-G

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes along northern boundary of village Madannagar, northern and

eastern boundary of reserve forest compartment number ‘P 6’ and meets at point ‘G’.

G-H-I

Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes along northern boundary of village Kanaknagar, point ‘H’ and

meets at point ‘I’.

I-J

Line starts from point ‘I’ and passes along eastern boundary of village Kanaknagar and meets at

point ‘J’.

J-K

Line starts from point ‘J’ and passes in village Kanaknagar through plot numbers 200, 199, 382,

along eastern boundary of plot numbers 369, 370, 371, through 377, 376, 375, 374 and meets at

point ‘K'

K-L

Line starts from point ‘K’ and passes along southern boundary of village Kanaknagar, through plot

numbers 1057/1, 1040, 92, along eastern boundary of plot number 94 of village Chaura and meets at

point ‘L’.

L-M-N-O Line starts from point ‘L’ and passes in village Chaura through plot numbers 100, point ‘M’, N,

149, 150 and meets at point ‘N ‘.

N-O

Line starts from point ‘N’ and passes in village Chaura through plot numbers 150, 176, 173, 179,

182, 181, 200 and meets at point ‘O’.

O-P

Line starts from point ‘O’ and passes in village Jagannathpur through plot number 1148, along

southern boundary of plot numbers 1149, 1150, through 1154, along partly southern boundary of

1152 and meets at point ‘P’.

P-A

Line starts from point ‘P’ and passes in village Jagannathpur through plot numbers 956, 955, 954,

along southern boundary of plot numbers 162, 163, 165, 171, 172/2, 183, western boundary of plot

numbers 183, 180/2, 180/1, southern boundary of 178 and meets at starting point ‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/06/2020-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

3130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

.श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1077.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव प्रिानाचायव, िवािर नवोिय जवगिकालय, ियृुर, (राि) और अन्य एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में केन्द्रीय सरकार औगिकोजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍या 06/2013) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

6.01.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल- 42012/135/2012- आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

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

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

to The Principal Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jaipur (RaJ) & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 6.01.2020.

[No. L-42012/135/2012 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la-

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh

jsQjsUl ua. L-42012/135/2012–IR(DU)

13/12/2012

jkts'k dqekj iq= Jh gfjflag

}kjk egkea=h] fgUn etnwj lHkk]

caxkyh dkWyksuh] Nkouh] dksVkA

V/s

izkpk;Z] tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;]

fugkyxat Fkkuk ds lkeus] /kkSydksV jksM+]

/kkSyiqj] jktLFkkuA

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% dksbZ ugha

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh gok flag & vfHkHkk"kd

% vf/kfu.kZ; %

fnukad % 31- 12- 2019

1-

Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 13-12-2012 dks fuEukafdr ,d fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk ¼1½ ¼?k½ ,oa 2 ¼,½ ds izko/kkuksa ds

vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa fuEukafdr fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;kA

“Whether the action of the management of Jwahar Navodya School in not fixing the pay scales and not

giving the status of permanent employee to Shri Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Hari Singh w.e.f., 01/09/2009

is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3131

2-

bl lUnHkZ ds izkIr gksus ij mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;s x;s fd og vius nkos

dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djsaA

3-

bl funsZ'k ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 12-04-2013 dks izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;k

ftlds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj of.kZr gaSA

4-

izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr tokgj uoksn; fo|ky; /kkSYkiqj esa fnukad 1-9-1998 dks eSl esa [kkuk cukus o vU; dk;Z

djus gsrq gqbZ FkhA vizkFkhZ us fnukad 07-02-2000 dks izkFkhZ Jfed dks ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k ftldk fookn izkFkhZ us

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dsUnzh; t;iqj ds le{k is'k fd;kA U;k;kf/kdj.k us fnukad 2-8-2010 dks vokMZ ikfjr djrs

gq, Jfed dks lsok dh fujUrjrk lfgr cgky djus dk vkns'k fcuk foxr osru lfgr vknsf'kr fd;kA bl

vf/kfu.kZ; ds ikyu esa vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dks fnukad 24-3-11 ls M~;wfV ij fy;kA lsok dh fujUrjrk ds 14 o"kZ mijkUr

Hkh vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dks LFkk;h dj osru J`a[kyk esa J`¡[kykc) ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dks ek= 3000 :i;s osru fn;k tk

jgk gS tks U;wure nSfud osru ls de gSA izkFkhZ ds leku dk;Z gsrq vU; LFkk;h deZpkjh 10]000 :i;s ls vf/kd

osru izkIr dj jgs gSA izkFkhZ dks dksbZ HkRrk ,oa vodk'k Hkh ugha fn;k tk jgk gSA tks vuqfpr Je vH;kl gSA izkFkhZ

us Jfed ;wfu;u ds ek/;e ls LFkk;h djus gsrq fuosnu Hkh fd;k vkSj izkFkZuk i= lgk;d {ks+=h; Jek;qDr dks Hkh

fn;k ysfdu vizkFkhZ us LFkk;h fu;qfDr vkSj osru J`a[kyk nsus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA vr% izkFkhZ dks fnukad 1-9-2000 ls

LFkk;h djok;k tkdj LFkk;h osru J`a[kyk esa foxr ifjykHkksa lfgr J`¡[kykc) djok;k tkosaA

5-

vizkFkhZ us izfrmRrj esa izkFkhZ ds nkos dks vLohdkj fd;k vkSj dgk fd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok esa

fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us dsoy fnukad 1-9-1998 ls 6-2-2000 rd nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa Hkkstu 'kkyk

esa dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ dks vf/kfu.kZ; ds vuqikyu esa iwoZor nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa iqu% fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ ds i{k esa ek= rduhdh vk/kkj ij iapkV ikfjr gqvk Fkk] ftldh ikyuk dj nh xbZA fu;fer fu;qfDr vkSj

osru J`a[kyk esa J¡`[kykc) fd;s tkus dk nkok fdlh izdkj Lohdkj ugha gSA xzh"e vkSj 'khrdkyhu vodk'k ds nkSjku

eSl cUn jgrk gS vkSj bl nkSjku izkFkhZ ls dksbZ dk;Z ugha fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ ls eSl esa dk;Z dh miyC/krk ds vk/kkj

ij nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Z fy;k tkrk gS vkSj mlh ds vuqlkj ikfjJfed fn;k tkrk gSA Hkkstu'kkyk esa

jlksbZ;k ,oa lgk;d ds in Lohd`r gSA ftu ij fu;fer :i ls fu;qDr@LFkk;h deZpkjh dk;Zjr gSA izkFkhZ dks

fu;fer fu;qfDr dk dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj ugha gSA vr% nkok fujLr fd;k tkosaA

6-

fnukad 6-2-2017 dks ;g izdj.k izkFkhZ ds lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k x;kA fdUrq 26-11-2018 rd izkFkhZ dh vkSj

ls dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA ;g¡k rd fd izkFkhZ fnukad fnukad 1-2-2018 ls vuqifLFkr pyk vk jgk gSA

U;k;fgr esa fnukad 19-2-2019 o 27-5-2019 dks Hkh izkFkhZ dks lk{; gsrq volj fn;s x;s fdUrq izkFkhZ us lk{; izLrqr

ugha fd;kA vUrr% izkFkhZ dh yxkrkj vuqifLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, lk{; izkFkhZ gsrq volj lekIr dj fn;k x;kA foi{kh

}kjk Hkh bl fLFkfr esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk pkgk x;kA vr% foi{kh vfHkHkk"kd dks lquk x;kA vfHkHkk"kd

foi{kh us vius vfHkopuksa dks iqujko`r djrs gq, ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o

vU; cuke n;kyky o vU; ¼2o11½ 2 scc 429 esa ikfjr fof/k dk voyEc fy;k gSA

7-

izkFkhZ dh lk{; dk volj mldh mnklhurk ,oa vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k lekIr djus dks foo'k gksuk iM+k

gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr djus esa foQy jgk gS fd og foi{kh ds v/khu LFkk;h

deZdkj ds :i esa fnukad 1-9-2000 ls fu;fer gksdj fu/kkZfjr osru J`a[kyk esa osru fLFkjhd`r djokus dk vf/kdkjh

gksA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku o vU;@n;kyky o vU; ds fu.kZ; esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS

fd ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh vLFkkbZ deZdkj pkgs dbZ o"kkZas rd lsok esa jgs] tc rd og fdlh Lohd`r in ds fo:)

fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k gks] lsok esa fu;ferhdj.k dk vf/kdkjh ugha gksrkA blfy;s Je eU=ky; }kjk lUnfHkZr

fookn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u djrs gq, ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ lk{; ds vHkko esa fu;fer osru J`a[kyk esa osru

3132 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

LFkjhdj.k ,oa LFkk;h deZdkj dh izkLFkfr fnukad 1-9-2000 ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA tokgj uoksn; fo|ky; ds

izcU/ku dk d`R; fof/k lEer ,oa U;k;ksfpr gSA izkFkhZ lk{; ds vHkko esa dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

8-

vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fookn

dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA

9-

vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr

izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA

jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1078.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव मिाप्रबंिक, िूरसंचार, ल नऊ (यूृी) और अन्य एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में केन्द्रीय सरकार औगिकोजगक अजिकरण

एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ल नऊ के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍या 155/2001) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

03.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल- 40012/76/2001- आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 155/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -

cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The General Manager, Telecom, Lucknow (UP) & Others, and their workmen which were received

by the Central Government on 03.12.2020.

[No. L-40012/76/2001 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 155/2001

Reference No. L-40012/76/2001-IR(DU) dated: 11.09.2001

BETWEEN :

Shri Umanath Singh S/o Sh. Manmohan Singh

R/o Khushropur, PO Mishrakheda/Gurubakshganj

Raebareilly

AND

1.

The General Manager

Telecom Deptt.

O/o the General Manager

Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow – 226001

2.

The Telecom District Engineer

O/o the Telecom District Manager

Raebareilly – 229001

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3133

AWARD

1.

By order No. L-40012/76/2001-IR(DU) dated: 11.09.2001 and its subsequent corrigendum dated

27.12.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Shri Umanath Singh S/o Sh. Manmohan Singh, R/o Khushropur, PO

Mishrakheda/Gurubakshganj, Raebareilly and the General Manager, Telecom Deptt., O/o the General Manager,

Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow & the Telecom District Engineer, O/o the Telecom District Manager, Raebareilly for

adjudication.

2.

The reference under adjudication is as under:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF TELECOM, LUCKNOW IN

TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SH. UMA NATH SINGH VIDE ORDER DATED 1/9/1999

WAS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3.

The case of the workman, Uma Nath Singh, in brief, is that he had been employed on the post of

Security personnel under Telecom Divisional Engineer, Raibareilly on 07.02.1999 and worked as such till

14.09.1999 continuously for more than 240 days; but his services have been terminated by the management on

14.09.1999 (evening) without complying with the provisions of the Section 25 F of the Act, as per directions of

the Telecom Divisional Engineer, Raibareilly. The workman has stated that he had been paid salary on muster

sheet, affixing ticket on it; but he was not given any proof for it. The workman has submitted that he had not

been given any written letter for his aforesaid employment nor did he was given any written orders for this

alleged termination; moreover, he had not been assigned any reason for termination of his services. The

workman has alleged that the management also violated the provisions contained in the Section 25G & H of the

Act; whereby it retained number of workmen who were junior to him; and also, did not call him for employment

post retrenchment/termination as the management employed number of other fresh hand. Accordingly, the

workman has prayed that his termination dated 14.09.1999 be set aside and he be reinstated with back wages

and other consequential benefits.

4.

The management has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it has

very specifically stated that it never employed the workman; moreover, his services had been availed by the

opposite parties through a Contractor viz. M/s Security and Protection Services, Varanasi and it was the

contractor which engaged the workman. The management has submitted that the workman was never on the

rolls of the opposite parties; hence there was no termination of services of the workman on the part of the

management; rather the alleged termination, if any, was done by the said contractor. The management has

stated that no payment was made to the workman at any point of time nor there arise any question of alleged

contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and accordingly, it has prayed that the

claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

5.

The workman has filed its rejoinder, reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.

6.

The parties have filed documentary evidence in support of their respective case. The workman has

examined himself in support of its case; whereas, the management examined Shri K.P. Bajpai, Dy. Divisional

Engineer. The management cross-examined the workman’s witness; whereas the workman failed to cross-

examined the management witnesses, in spite of ample opportunity had been granted. The dates are being fixed

for arguments since 13.10.2009; but parties did not turn up for oral submissions; however, they were afforded

opportunity to file written submission, which they again did not avail; and the case was reserved for award,

keeping in view long pendency since 2001.

7.

Perused entire evidence available on record and scanned material available on record in light of the

rival pleadings and arguments.

8.

The workman has come up with a case that he worked with the management w.e.f. 07.02.1999 to

14.09.1999; and he worked continuously more than 240 days in given period of seven months. It is also the

case of the workman that he had been paid by the management on muster roll and that his services have been

terminated by the management without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment

compensation, in contravention to the provisions of Section 25 F, G & H of the Act. The workman has filed

photocopy of the attendance register in support of his claim.

9.

In rebuttal, the management has contended that the workman had never been employed by it; rather his

services had been availed by the opposite parties through a Contractor viz. M/s Security and Protection Services,

Varanasi for watch and ward services after entering an agreement with the said contractor for supply of

manpower. The management has denied of any payment directly to the workman by the department; however,

he was paid by the contractor after claiming the bills from the telecom department. It is a clear-cut case of the

management that since the workman was never on the rolls of the opposite parties; therefore, there arise no

question of termination of services of the workman on the part of the management or contravention of the

3134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management has filed photocopy of agreement with the

Contractor viz. M/s Security and Protection Services, Varanasi for providing man power watch and ward

services and has filed photocopy of the bills raised by the Contractor for such supply of man power.

10.

The workman in his cross-examination stated on oath that neither any advertisement was issued nor his

name had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange; nor he was interviewed; nor he was given any

appointment letter. He also admitted that he was not paid salary after affixing ticket on Muster Roll by the

Telecom Department. The workman field photocopy of attendance register from February, 1999 to August,

1999 through list of documents C-15.

On the contrary, the management witness stated on oath before this Tribunal that the workman was not

appointed in the department in any capacity nor was terminated. He stated that the workman had been deployed

by the Contractor Viz. Security and Protection Services, Varanasi for which the said contractor was awarded a

contract and it was the contractor who used to depute the workman and used to pay him; the department never

paid the workman directly. The attendance register was provided by the Contractor for verification of the

duties, supplied by the Contractor, and when it used to fill up, the register was returned to Contractor. The

workman did not avail the opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses. The management also filed

photocopy of the contract and various bill, which were presented by the Contractor for supply of security

guards.

11.

In the instant case, the workman has pleaded that he had been appointed by the management of the

opposite parties and he worked for more than 240 days during his period of appointment w.e.f. 07.02.1999 to

14.09.1999 and his services have been terminated by the telecom department through an oral order without

complying with the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In 2005 (107)

FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai Hon’ble Apex Court came

to the conclusion that where the workman failed to prove that he had been in employment with the employer for

a period of 240 days uninterruptedly, he is not entitled to protection in compliance of section 25 – F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the scope of the enquiry before

the Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding the date of termination to decide the question of the

continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex

Court has observed as under:

“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or

wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has

worked with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he in fact

worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.”

Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in order to take any relief for non-compliance of

mandatory provisions contained in section 25 F of the Act, it is necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to

the effect that the was actually in employment of the opposite party for 240 days in the year preceding his

termination and he was actually paid for it. In the instant case there is no iota of evidence to show that the

workmen worked for 240 days with the management of the telecom department in twelve calendar months

preceding the date of termination. In order to substantiate his pleadings, the workman has filed photocopy of his

attendance register w.e.f. February, 1999 to September, 1999; and even if for the argument sake it is taken that

the workman worked continuously from the date of his engagement till the date of his alleged termination i.e.

07.02.1999 to 14.09.1999 on each and every day, including holidays etc. even then the total working comes to

be 220 days only, which is short by 20 days from the mandatory time limit for compliance of provisions of

Section 25 F of the Act. The workman has utterly failed to substantiate this fact that he worked for 240 days in

a year preceding the termination or his entire period of his engagement.

On the contrary the management of the Telecom department has come out with ample documentary

evidence to show that the workman was deployed by M/s. Security and Protection Services, Varanasi as

Security Guard in the telecom department, this includes copy of agreement, copies of bills claimed by

M/s. Security and Protection Services, Varanasi.

12.

It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In

the present case burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination

order and to prove the termination order was illegal. It was the case of the workman that he had worked for 240

days during his period of engagement, which lasted for approximately seven months in total. This claim has

been denied by the management; therefore, it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that she had in fact

worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his alleged termination. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer

vs S.T. Hadimani Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3135

“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It

was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the

year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and

that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion

that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement

for that period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set

aside.”

13.

Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in 2006 (108)

FLR R.M. Yellatti & Asstt. Executive Engineer as follow:

“It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under

section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading

the aforestated judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden

of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is

discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon

the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of

services of daily wages earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will

also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only

call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period,

the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc.

Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The

above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the

claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the

workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments

further lay down that mere non production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression

by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference

against the management.”

In the present case the workman has stated that he has worked continuously for 240 days, but has not

produced any document, except photocopy of his attendance register, in support of his oral evidence. The

burden was on the workman to show by the way of cogent evidence that he actually worked for 240 days in the

preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination; however in the instant case, during period of his

alleged engagment; but he failed to do so as he has he could not bring this fact on record. In view of denial of

the management regarding his claim, the workman has nothing to support his version, except his own statement

before this Tribunal, which does not suffice the matter. Hence, the workman could not establish that there was

any employee and employer relationship between him and the opposite parties.

14.

On the other hand the management has well proved its case by filing copy of the contract with the

M/s. Security and Protection Services, Varanasi that the workman had been engaged through the Contrator,

M/s Security and Protection Services, Varanasi for watch and ward services and these security guards were

required to be paid through the contractor. Also, the details of wages bills, claimed by the Contractor goes to

show that that the workman was an employee of the Contractor i.e. M/s. Security and Protection Services,

Varanasi and he had been deployed by the said Contractor to carry out the work of security guard.

Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work

for 240 days in a year preceding the date of alleged termination was on the workman but he failed to discharge

the above burden. There is no reliable material for recording findings that the workman had worked for 240

days in the preceding year from the date of his alleged termination and the alleged unjust or illegal order of

termination was passed by the management.

15.

Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the workman; and I come to the conclusion that he is

not entitled to any relief.

16.

Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW.

19th November, 2020.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

3136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1079.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव जनिेिक, राष्ट्रीय रासायजनक प्रयोगिाला, ृुणे, और अन्य एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में श्रम न्यायालय, ृुणे के ृंचाट

(संिभव सं्‍या 297/2010) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05.10.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020- आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (1947 of 14) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 297/2010) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Pune as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director,

National Chemical Laboratory, Pune & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 05.10.2020.

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

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FIRST LABOUR COURT, PUNE

(Presided over by : Kalpana N. Phatangare)

Reference [IDA] No.:- 297/2010

Exh. No.107.

The Director,

)

National Chemical Laboratory,

)

Pashan, Pune - 411 008.

)

…First Party

AND

Shri. Arun Sopan Nimhan,

)

Near Datta Mandir, Sus Road,

)

Shikshak Colony, Pashan,

)

Pune – 411 021.

)

And Others

)

…Second Parties

Appearances :-

Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar for first party.

Adv. Mr. N. A. Kulkarni for second party.

AWARD

( Passed on this 21st AUGUST 2020 )

1)

The present Reference is sent by Appropriate Government i.e. Government of India, Ministry of

Labour through Under Secretary for the adjudication over the demand of second parties that :-

“How far the management of National Chemical Laboratory, Pune is justified in not regularising the

services of the 28 workers (list enclosed) who joined as casual labourers and converted to contract

labour ? To what relief they are entitled to and from which date they are eligible for regularisation,

continuity of service and back wages ?”

2)

Brief facts of the 'Statement of Claim' Exh.:-5 are as follows :-

It is submitted that second party workmen are working with first party without any break for the period

varying between 10 to 21 years. It is submitted that the second party workmen are working in different

Departments of 'National Chemical Laboratory' [N. C. L. for sake of brevity] and most of them are initially

employed directly by the 'N. C. L.' as a Casual or a Temporary and subsequently later on an intervening

Contractor was sought to be introduced for the sole purpose to deny the permanency and regularisation to

second party workmen. As a paper arrangement, second party workmen have been shown as the employees

employed through a contractor, even – though a contractor is nothing but a name lender. The paper arrangement

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3137

of a contractor remained in existence till 2006. After 2006 till date second party workmen are employed by the

'N. C. L.' and payment is also being made by the N. C. L.

3)

It is submitted that paper arrangement was made by floating a dummy contractor solely with a view to

deprive the status and privileges of permanency to second party workmen, though they are working for

substantially long period. The chart showing the continuous service put in by each of the second party workmen

and nature of duties performed by said workmen is annexed herewith and is marked as an 'Annexure – A'. The

said nature of duties primarily contains cleaning, sweeping and in respect of gardening etc.

4)

It is submitted that in the years 1990 and 1995 the 'N. C. L.' has floated a Scheme of regularisation of

the services of the employees, in pursuant to directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But

however, second party workmen have not been regularised in the services even till date though they are working

for more than 12 years or so. It is submitted that some candidates were made permanent and were given benefits

and status of regularisation though they are juniors to some of the second party workmen. Thus, the approach of

N. C. L. is not only discriminatory but also high–handed. It is submitted that contract entered into between

N. C. L. and with one M/s. Esses Enterprises is sham and bogus. The contract was entered into for which a

stamp was purchased on 25.02.1993; whereas an Agreement was purportedly signed on 24.02.1993.

5)

It is submitted that second party workmen are in possession of certificate issued by the concerned

Officers of N. C. L. and contractor has no role to play, except to come on last day of every month in order to

collect wages from N. C. L. and disburse wages to second party workmen. There was no control or supervision

of any nature from the Contractor on the work of the Second Party Workmen. In fact, all the tests, such as

economic, organization, control and supervision are the tests made out by N. C. L. and not of a contractor.

6)

It is submitted that role of Contractor started in 1990 and most of the second party workmen were

being paid prior to 1990 directly by N. C. L. The Provident Fund Contributions of second party workmen are

also being paid by N. C. L. There is no control or supervision of any nature by contractor. In fact, the control

and supervision was of officers of N. C. L. By keeping second party workmen as Casuals, Temporary and

continuing them as casuals and Temporary for years together, N. C. L. has engaged into unfair labour practices

under Section 2 (ra) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Item No. 10 of Schedule V of the said Act.

7)

It is submitted that second party workmen approached Central Administrative Tribunal (C. A. T. for

sake of brevity) for seeking regularisation in services by filing Application bearing Original Application No.:-

189/2000. Thereafter, C. A. T. heard the matter and by its Judgment and an order dated 23.04.2001 dismissed

the Application holding that the second party workmen should have approached to the Authorities under The

Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1971 and C. A. T. has no jurisdiction to try and entertain

the said issue.

8)

It is submitted that being aggrieved by said Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2001 of C. A. T., the

second party workmen filed a Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No.:- 1770 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High

Court of Judicature at Mumbai challenging the Judgment and the order dated 23.04.2001 of the C. A. T. The

said Writ Petition came up for final hearing before the Hon'ble High Court on 13.07.2009 and the Hon'ble High

Court was pleased to grant a liberty to second party workmen to raise an Industrial Dispute seeking

regularisation and permanency of their services in the establishment of N. C. L.

9)

It is submitted that second party workmen, thereafter, raised a Demand by their letter dated 30.09.2009.

Thereafter, N. C. L. appeared in the proceedings before Conciliation Officer and submitted that there is no

employer – employee relationship between N. C. L. and second party workmen. Second party workmen

submitted their Rejoinder on 18.09.2009 to Conciliation Officer and denied that, there was no employer –

employee relationship. It is submitted that N. C. L. is not an 'Industry' under Section 2 (j) of The I. D. Act, 1947.

But it was pointed out that in a case of one Mr. D. M. Pillay and others in a Reference No.:-46/2001, it was held

by the Industrial Tribunal that, N. C. L. is an indusrty under Section 2 (j) of The I. D. Act, 1947.

10)

It is submitted that thereafter, Conciliation Officer recorded failure on 22.02.2010 and referred the

matter to an Appropriate Government for a reference. In pursuant to notice issued by this Court, second party

workmen are submitting the present 'Statement of Claim'. Therefore, it is prayed that may be pleased to hold and

declare that the National Chemical Laboratory has indulged in unfair labour practices under Section 2 (ra) of

The I. D. Act, 1947 read with Item No. 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act. Further it prayed that first party may

be directed to make the second party workmen as permanent whose names are mentioned in Annexure 'A'. They

be directed to give all the benefits of permanency to second party workmen after completion of their 240 days

continuous service or after completion of one year as the case may be. Hence, prayed to allow the Reference.

11)

First party appeared and filed its 'Written Statement' vide Exh.:-7. At the outset, it is submitted that the

present reference is misconceived and bad in law. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this

reference as the first party is not an 'Industry' as defined under the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act,

3138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1947. Reference is also defective as the employer of second party i.e. M/S. Essess Enterprises is not made a

party to Reference.

12)

It is submitted that second party being engaged / employed by M/s. Essess Enterprises which was a

registered contractor at the relevant time, cannot claim regularization in the service of first party as there is no

employer–employee relationship between the second party and the first party. Second party was brought into the

premises of first party by M/s. Essess Enterprises in capacity of license Contractor under The Contract Labour

Abolition Act and first party is also having license as a principal employer under the very same Act. It denied

that first party introduced contract system with the purpose of denying permanency of second party.

13)

It is submitted that appointment in the services of first party is based on selection process and there are

rules and procedures of selection. Second party are seeking through their demand to subvert the selection

process and seek employment through the back door. Second party is seeking abolition of a contract which is

validly entered into between first party and employer of second party.

14)

It is submitted that second party are employees of contractor M/s. Essess Enterprises. The said

contractor had undertaken various miscellaneous work of first party in the premises of first party. It is submitted

that first party is governed by various rules and regulations made by Council of Scientific & Industrial Research

under the Ministry of Science and Technology. The qualifications and other considerations for regular

employment are specified in these rules. The second party cannot claim regularisation in the services of first

party without fulfilling the criteria laid down for selection.

15)

It is submitted that N. C. L. is one of the constituents of National Laboratories under the auspices of

Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) with Headquarters at New Delhi. CSIR is an Autonomous

Body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is basically engaged in Research and

Development of Chemical Science with a purpose to reach the benefits of programs of Chemical Sciences to the

people. There are more than 700 permanent employees with it. The work of first party is not in the nature of

business but is purely in the nature of scientific research for the welfare of the State. First party is not engaged in

any business and it does not earn any profit. The purpose of activities of first party is to reach the knowledge of

chemical science to the people of India. First party as a constituent of CSIR is established only to implement the

objectives of CSIR. It is a non profit making body engaged in activities to supplement the sovereign activities of

the Government of India.

16)

It is submitted that Central Civil Service Rules are applicable to employees of CSIR first party as such,

the employees of CSIR and first party are akin to Civil servants. Employees of First party are of different

categories. These categories are listed in the recruitment rules and are what is known as sanctioned categories.

First party is governed by the directions of Government and as far as the recruitment are concerned, there is a

direction as on today banning new recruitment due to which even permanent categories are not recruited. Apart

from regular work, first party has miscellaneous work which is done through contract workers. The said work is

not of regular nature and hence, the employment of contract workers. The contractors are engaged for

miscellaneous work and their employees have no claim of any nature with first party.

17)

It is submitted that second party was initially engaged for such miscellaneous work by M/S. Deccan

Industrial Services and thereafter by M/s. Essess Enterprises, Pune. They are employees of M/S. Essess

Enterprises and they are paid their wages by the said contractor. Second party cannot be compared with the daily

wage workers of the first party who are conferred with temporary status. The service conditions of second party

are governed by the rules applicable to contractor. Denying all the contentions made by the second party

workmen, first party prayed to answer the Reference in the negative with cost.

18)

On the basis of facts and circumstances, issues are framed vide Exh.:-8. Those issues are for my

determination. Those issues along with their findings and reasons thereon are as follows :-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1)

Whether the second party is an 'Industry'

….

Yes.

within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

2)

Whether there is employer–employee

….

Yes.

relationship between first party and

the second party ?

3)

Whether the second party is a workman

….

Yes.

within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of

The Industrial Disputes Act ?

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3139

4)

Whether this Court has jurisdiction to

….

Yes.

try this matter ?

5)

Does the second party prove that first

….

Yes.

party has engaged in unfair labour

practices under Section 2 (ra) of The

Industrial Disputes Act, read with item

No. 10 of Schedule IV of the Said Act ?

6)

Whether the second party is

….

Yes.

entitled to the reliefs as sought ?

7)

What Order ?

Reference is answered Partly in

affirmative.

REASONS

19)

Perused documents filed along with Schedule and on the record. To substantiate his claim, second party

examined themselves vide different exhibits and enclosed documents. The evidence is closed vide pursis Exh.:-

95. The first party has examined its witness Mr. Rajashekhar Shivsharnappa Malge vide Exh.:-98. It closed it's

oral evidence vide Exh.:-100. First party filed its ‘Written Submission’ Vide Exh.:-105. On behalf of Second

parties ‘Written filed its ‘Written Synopsis’ Vide Exh.:-106. Perused the record and the Written Arguments

filed by both the parties.

AS TO ISSUE NOS. 1 TO 7 :-

20)

All issues are interlinked with each other. Therefore, those are decided simultaneously. It is argued by

Ld. Counsel Mr. N. A. Kulkarni on behalf of second party workmen that Central Government has sent this

Reference to adjudicate. The Schedule is for regularisation and not for reinstatement of the second party

workmen. For his contentions, he has relied upon Section 10 (4) of The I. D. Act, 1947. Section 10 (4) of The I.

D. Act, 1947 reads as thus :-

(4)

Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal] under this Section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the

points of dispute for adjudication, (the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the

case may be), shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.

21)

It is argued on behalf of second party that Section 10 (4) empowers this Court to regularise the the 28

employees i.e. second party in Annexure 'A' of this Reference. They were working with first party from 10 to 21

years without any break. First second party workmen were treated casual / temporary then told that they are

working on contract basis employee till 2006. They were taken back in the employment of NCL. Thus, there

was just a paper arrangement in respect of employment of the employment of second party. There was no break

in the employment of the services of these workmen. They were doing gardening, sweeping, cleaning duties.

22)

Second party workmen stated that in the year 1990 and 1995 N. C. L. has floated a Scheme of

regularization of services of employees, in pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India. Thereafter, second party workmen approached Central Administrative Tribunal (C. A. T. for sake of

brevity) for seeking regularisation in services by filing Application bearing Original Application No.:-

189/2000. Thereafter, C. A. T. heard the matter and by its Judgment and an order dated 23.04.2001 dismissed

the Application holding that the second party workmen should have approached to the Authorities under The

Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1971 and C. A. T. has no jurisdiction to try and entertain

the said issue.

23)

Second party being aggrieved by said Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2001 of C. A. T., the second

party workmen filed a Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No.:- 1770 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature at Mumbai challenging the Judgment and the order dated 23.04.2001 of the C. A. T. The said Writ

Petition came up for final hearing before the Hon'ble High Court on 13.07.2009 and the Hon'ble High Court was

pleased to grant a liberty to second party workmen to raise an Industrial Dispute seeking regularisation and

permanency of their services in the establishment of N. C. L.

24)

Thereafter, second party workmen raised dispute before the Central Conciliation Officer. After failure

of the same, the present Reference was forwarded for adjudication of the demands of the second party. It is

argued by Ld. Advocate for second party that Section 2 (r) (A) was introduced later on. It is nothing but replica

of The M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 provisions. Employer will have to prove the genuineness or sham /

bogus contract. There is not question of all being ever being impleaded M/s. Esses Enterprises. Employer has

not shown produced any documentary evidence to that effect. Here is a important question that when first party

3140 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is alleging that second party workmen are employees of contractor. But first party has not issued summons to

the alleged contractor.

25)

Second party submitted that though the first party denying that it is an 'Industry'. But on behalf of

second party, it is argued that the second party workmen were working for gardening, cleaning, sweeping etc. in

the premises of first party. Therefore, second party workmen are not directly related to the work of the N. C. L.

as a scientist. But they are doing miscellaneous work in the premises of the first party Company. Therefore, for

atleast the work which second party workmen were doing, first party is held to be an 'industry' because second

party were doing work in the premises of first party. Second party were examined themselves and they prayed

for regularization of their services atleast from the date of this Reference.

26)

It is argued by Ld. Counsel on behalf of first party that N. C. L. is a Research Institute and involved in

the chemical research. It is purely a organization of Government of India and doing sovereign functions. The

service conditions of the employees working in the first party Laboratory are governed by Central Civil Service

(Classification, Control and Appeal) C. C. S. (C. C. A.) Rules, 1965 applicable to it. These employees are public

servants.

27)

It is argued by Ld. Advocate for first party that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's

Judgment 120 workers were regularized and rest were left out. As per the Reference Order second party

workmen will have to answer that how far management of N. C. L. is justified in not regularizing the casual

labours. Further it is argued that if the prayer clause of Reference is seen there is prayer of declaration of unfair

labour practice whereas the Reference is for regularization of the second party workmen. Further it is argued

that this Court cannot go outside the Reference Order.

28)

It is argued by Ld. Advocate for first party that he is agitating mainly on the point that as the N. C. L. is

doing sovereign functions of Government of India it cannot be said as 'Industry' as defined under Section 2 (j) of

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further the second party workmen are employees working on contract basis

as there is prescribed procedure for the recruitment of the employees of the N. C. L. and for miscellaneous work

there is contract system. There is also no existence of employer – employee relationship between first party N.

C. L. and Second Party Workmen. The present matter is filed under The I. D. Act, 1947. It is filed for

regularization of the second party workmen whereas the prayer of Reference is for declaration of unfair labour

practice.

29)

It is main contention of Ld. Counsel for first party that the first party N. C. L. has taken objection that

miscellaneous work in the premises of first party is done through contract basis. Employees like second party

workmen were doing work of cleaning, sweeping, washing etc. through contract basis and there is no direct

relationship between first party and second party. He further relied on the admission given by the witness

Mr. Valmiki–Second party that he has given every information to his Ld. Counsel.

30)

In support of his contentions, Ld. Advocate for first party has relied upon the case law of General

Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Rajnandgaon Vs. Bharat Lal & Anr. (S. C.); decided in Civil

Appeal No.:- 10605 of 2010; wherein it is observed by Their Lordships that,

The expression ‘control and supervision’ in the context of contract labour was explained by this Court

in International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union; reported in (2009) (13)

SCC 374) thus :

“If the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work

under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer by that would not make the

worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by the contractor, if the right to

regulate employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the

contractor.”

31)

The Ld. Advocate for the first party has also relied upon the case law of Physical Research Laboratory

Vs. K. G. Sharma (S.C.); decided on 08.04.1997; wherein Hon’ble Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court have

quoted the ratio decided in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others; reported

in A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 548;

Industry is defined in Section 2 (j) and explained in Banerji (supra), has a wide import.

(a) Where (i) systematic activity,

(ii) organized by co-operation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is

commercial) (ii) for the production and / or distribution of goods and services calculated to

satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or

services geared to celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale of prasad or food) prima facie,

there is an ‘industry’ in that enterprise.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3141

(b) absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint private or

other sector.

(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the

employer–employee relations.

(d)

If the organization is a trade or business it does not case to be one because of philanthropy animating the

undertaking.

32)

In view of above said discussions, it can be seen that second party workmen were taken as casual

employees. Thereafter, they were taken on contract basis for miscellaneous work. These employees are not

directly taken for work of research, therefore, there is no question about whether first party N. C. L. is an

'Industry' or not due to work done by second party workmen. Through this second party workmen, N. C. L. was

doing systematic activities, with the help of these second party workmen. Hence, there is no doubt about its

status. As relied upon by Ld. Advocate for first party on the case law of Bangalore Water Supply (supra) The

Hon’ble Lordships in very clear terms have held that absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant,

be the venture in the public, joint private or other sector. Further it was also held that systematic activity is

inclusive part of the term ‘Industry’. It is abundantly clear on record that the second party employees were not

working as scientist but they were doing the work of cleaning, sweeping and gardening initially directly under

the control and supervision of first party. Hence, it cannot be said that the first party is not an ‘Industry’ as

defined under Section 2 (j) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, first party is an ‘Industry’ and the case

law relied upon is not helpful to the first party.

33)

Further the Ld. Advocate for first party has relied upon the case law of International Airport Authority

of India (supra) where it is observed that,

“If the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under

the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer by that would not make the worker a

direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by the contractor, if the right to regulate

employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.”

Here it is pertinent to note that the witness Mr. Rajshekhar Malge of first party vide Exh.:-98 in cross–

examination (page 9, para (22) in clear terms stated that except his bare words there is no evidence available

with first party to show that those employees were working through S. C. S. Enterprises with NCL. He admitted

that Exh.:-67 and Exh.:-68 appointment letters and interview calls were issued by Section Officer of First Party.

He further admitted that as on today those employees are working with NCL and their salary is padi by NCL.

Thus, if we perused the ratio in above said case law it can be seen that the salary is paid by the first party – NCL

to the employees. The witness in clear terms has stated that except his bare words there is no evidence to show

that the employees were working through contractor. No agreement has been produced on record by first party

to show that there was contract between it and S. C. S. Enterprises. Therefore, now it cannot be said that the

second party employees were working through the contractor.

34)

It is on record that the second party employees are working since 10 to 21 years with first party without

any break. It is already decided that the first party is an ‘Industry’ and there was no evidence on record

regarding appointing of any contractor by first party. Even though the first party has not regularized the services

of second party workmen. Hence, first party has engaged in unfair labour practices. Therefore, second party

employees are entitled to the reliefs claimed.

35)

In view of discussions made herein above the second party is an 'Industry' within the meaning of

Section 2 (j) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is employer–employee relationship between first party

and the second party. The second party employees are workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of The

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court has every jurisdiction to try this matter. Hence, issue Nos. 1 to 6 are

answered in the affirmative. Thus, the reference deserves to be allowed for the regularization of the second

party. In view of peculiar circumstances of the matter, parties to bear their own costs. In view of said findings,

in answer to issue No. 7, following order is passed :

ORDER

1)

The Reference is answered in the affirmative.

2)

It is hereby declared that First Party is an 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of The Industrial

disputes Act, 1947.

3142 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3)

It is hereby declared that second Party is a 'Workmen' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of The

Industrial disputes Act, 1947.

4)

It is hereby declared that this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Reference.

5)

It is hereby declared that first party N. C. L. is engaged in unfair labour practice and it is directed to desist

from the same.

6)

It is hereby directed to the first party that it should regularize the services of all the second party workmen

from date of filing of Reference.

7)

Parties to bear their own costs.

DATE : 21.08.2020.

KALPANA N. PHATANGARE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1080.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव प्रबंि जनिेिक, स्ट्कूटर इंजडया जलजमटेड,ल नऊ (यूृी) और अन्य एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में केन्द्रीय सरकार औगिकोजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ल नऊ के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍या 29/2012) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार

को 03.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल- 42011/137/2011- आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum

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

to The Managing Director, Scooters India Limited, Lucknow (UP) & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 03.12.2020.

[No. L-42011/137/2011-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 29/2012

Ref. No. L-42011/137/2011-IR(DU) dated: 04.01.2012

BETWEEN :

Sri Dharampal Singh S/o Sri Shiv Buksh Singh

H. No. 555/139 H Ram Nagar

Alambagh, Lucknow (UP)

AND

The Managing Director

Scooters India Limited

Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow (UP)

AWARD

1.

By order No. L-42011/171/2011-IR(DU) dated: 05.01.2012 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3143

Sri Dharampal Singh S/o Sri Shiv Buksh Singh, H.No. 555/139 H Ram Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow (UP) and

the Managing Director, Scooters India Limited, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow (UP) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW IN

NOT CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF WORKMAN SHRI DHARAMPAL SINGH,

GRADE ‘C’ DATED 03.12.1993 AND VOLUNTARY RETIRING HIM W.E.F. 11.01.1994

WITHOUT PAYING ENTIRE PENSIONER BENEFITS, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? WHAT

RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3.

The case of the workman, in brief, is that the workman, was first appointed as un-skilled worker in

1977. The management introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide dated 08.12.1988 and in pursuance

thereof, the workman submitted his application for Voluntary Retirement on 30.11.1993 w.e.f. 31.03.1994. The

management vide circular dated 06.11.1993 suspended the said VRS w.e.f. 01.12.1993; and accordingly when

the workman moved an application dated 03.12.1993 to withdraw his application for Voluntary Retirement, then

he came to know that his application dated 30.11.1993 for Voluntary Retirement had already been accepted on

the same date i.e. 30.11.1993.

The workman has alleged that the management was well aware that the said Voluntary Retirement

scheme was going to be suspended w.e.f. 01.12.1993 vide circular dated 08.12.1988 even then it malafiedly

accepted the Voluntary Retirement application of the workman dated 30.11.1993 on the same date. The

workman has also stated that had the management not accepted his application for Voluntary Retirement on the

same date and considered his application for withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement, then he would have worked

up till the date of his superannuation. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his Voluntary Retirement be

set aside and the management be directed to reinstate him with consequential benefits.

4.

The management of the Scooters India Limited has filed its written statement; wherein it has disputed

the claim of the workman with submission that the present reference order is highly belated one and is barred by

the provisions contained in the Section 2A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The opposite party has

submitted that the application for Voluntary Retirement was moved by the workman on 30.11.1993 which was

accepted on same day and his date of release was notified as 31.12.1993 vide order dated 30.11.1993 and the

workman was informed and was relieved on 11.01.1994.

The management has denied that the workman ever moved any application for withdrawal of his

Voluntary Retirement application, inasmuch as he accepted the consequential benefits due to said Voluntary

Retirement Scheme. The management has submitted that the Writ Petition No. 1165 (S/S) of 1994 case of one

similarly situated workman viz. Sri J.C. Nigam, challenging the action of the management in accepting the

application for VRS, was dismissed on 09.01.1997; and the Special Appeal No. 48 (SB) of 1997 was decided on

18.12.2000, setting aside order dated 09.01.1997. The management preferred SLP challenging the order dated

18.12.2000, which was converted by Hon’ble Supreme Court into Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2004 and the same

was allowed vide judgment dated 12.02.2004 and the judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by Division Bench of

Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow bench, Lucknow was set aside. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order

dated 12.02.2004, Sri J.C. Nigam preferred the Review Petition no. 747of 2004 which was dismissed; and

further Curative Petition No. 152 of 2008 was preferred by Sri J.C. Nigam, which too had been dismissed by the

Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 20.01.2009, thus the dispute under

consideration has already been decided by the competent court of law.

The management has stated that in the year 1992, the company was facing problems including surplus

of man power, and was incurring huge losses, the matter was referred to BIFR, it declared the company as a sick

industrial unit vide order dated 11.12.1992, direction was given by BIFR to reduce the surplus man power,

thereafter Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced for employees with certain additional benefits. The

opposite party has further submitted that financial position of the company was very bad during the period in

question, wage revision could not take place and the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of wage revision,

moreover he is not entitled to get the same without wage revision which was effected on that date when the

petitioner was not on the role of the company. At present also the position of the company is very poor and

matter has been referred to BIFR vide memo dated 501/10 dated 26.2.2010; accordingly, the management has

prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit without any relief to the workman

concerned.

5.

The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein it has reiterated the averments already made in the

statement of claim.

5.

The parties filed documents in support of their respective case and adduced oral evidence. The

workman has examined himself; whereas the management examined Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Deputy

Manager (Legal) in support of its case; and the parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of

3144 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

each other. None turned up on behalf of the workman to argue the case; however, the management forwarded

its oral arguments in support of its case.

7.

Heard authorized representatives of the management at length; and perused entire evidence on record.

8.

Having heard the authorized representative of the management and perused the respective pleadings of

the parties; along with documentary and oral evidence, relied upon by the parties it is apparent on the face of

record that the workman has come up with a case that he applied for Voluntary Retirement w.e.f. 31.03.1993

vide his application dated 30.11.1993, in pursuance to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide dated 08.12.1988

and his said application for voluntary retirement was accepted on 30.11.1993 by the management with ulterior

motive; and did not consider his application dated 07.12.1993 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary

retirement, as the said voluntary retirement scheme was going to be suspended w.e.f. 01.12.1993 vide circular

dated 08.12.1988. It is the case of the workman that had the management not accepted his application for

Voluntary Retirement on the same date and considered his application for withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement,

then he would have worked up till the date of his superannuation.

Per contra, the case of the management is that the workman voluntarily moved the application for

Voluntary Retirement 30.11.1993 which was accepted on same day vide order dated 30.11.1993; and the

workman was informed and was relieved on 11.01.1994; however, the workman never moved any application

for withdrawal of his Voluntary Retirement application, on the contrary the workman accepted the consequential

benefits due to said Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The management has also come up with a case that in the

case of one similarly situated workman viz. Sri J.C. Nigam, who also challenged the action of the management

in accepting the application for VRS, was finally decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, without any relief to him.

Moreover, the management has made out a case that the present industrial dispute has been referred with an

inordinate delay and is barred by the provisions of Section 2A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9.

Before entering to the merits of the case, it has to be looked into that the management of the Scooters

India Limited has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the case due to inordinate delay of

more than 18 years in raising the present dispute in terms of provisions contained in Section 2A (3) of the Act.

In rebuttal, the workman has submitted that case has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the

appropriate Government and this Tribunal is duty bound to answer the same on the terms of reference;

moreover, the provisions of Section 2A (3) of the Act is not applicable to the present case. The Section 2A of

the Act reads as under:

2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. – (1) Where

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

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

out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial

dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section

(1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute

referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of

such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as

they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

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

the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retreatment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in sub-section (1).

A bare perusal of the above quoted section revels that the limitation prescribed in the sub-section (3) of

Section 2A is regarding filing of an application before the Labour Court or Tribunal with regard to the filing of

an application directly before the Labour Court or Tribunal, after expiry of 45 days from the date it moved an

application before the Conciliation Officer under sub-section (2) of Section 2A; and there is no bar on

entertaining an industrial dispute duly referred by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act.

Also, Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Services

Society Ltd. & another 1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay of seven years has held that the Court

can mould relief by refusing back wages or directing payment of part of back wages. Likewise, Hon’ble

Supreme Court in 2001 SCC (L&S) 105 Gurmail Singh vs. Principal, Govt. College of Education & others, has

laid down that ‘the Labour Court cannot dismiss the case of the workman merely on the ground of delay. If the

order of dismissal is challenged belatedly, the dispute would still continue for adjudication, the only question

would be to deprive back wages for the period of delay in raising such a dispute if on merits it is to succeed.’

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3145

Further, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in 1994 LLR 29 The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Chief

Office, Lucknow vs. B.C. Verma & another; wherein the question for consideration before the Hon’ble High

Court was whether inaction or delay in raising industrial dispute by the workman can be condoned; Hon’ble

High Court observed as under:

“In the present case, Section 10(1) may be read along with Section 10 (5). Both the subsections read

together lead to conclusion that ‘at any time’ the Reference can be made in the exercise of the

administrative power by the Central Government provided there exists an industrial dispute or the

same is apprehended. The use of expression “at any time’ in both the sub-sections clearly indicates

that legislature never intended any limitation to be imposed for making reference.”

In the present case, the Conciliation Officer on failure of the conciliation proceedings forwarded its

‘Failure of Conciliation Report’ to the appropriate Government, which after considering the Failure of

Conciliation Report, referred the present industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication under powers

conferred under Section 10 of the Act. Hence, upon reference of an industrial dispute by the appropriate

Government, it is duty casted upon the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to answer the terms of reference.

Also, admittedly there is an inordinate delay of approximately 18 years. However, in view of the statutory

provisions, quoted above and discussions, made hereinabove, the objection of the management of the

Scooters India Limited regarding non-maintainability of the case due to delay in raising present

industrial dispute has no merit as provision of the Section 2A (3) of the Act does not apply in the present

case.

10.

On merits of the case, it is admitted case of the parties that the workman had been an employee of the

opposite party management and he opted for VRS on 30.11.1993, which was accepted by the management on

the same day vide Factory Order Part-II dated 30.11.1993 and the workman “received all monetary benefits

raised out of said VRS”. During cross-examination, the workman stated that he was forced to opt for VRS and

received all benefits; but he did not make any written objection to it. Later on he stated that he made written

objection; but has not filed a copy of the same before this Tribunal. The management has elaborately submitted

that company was not in good shape, it was facing huge loss, the matter was referred to BIFR, it was declared as

a sick unit and thereafter VRS Scheme was introduced. Paragraph 10 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme for

the employees of the Scooters India Limited is re-produced below:

“As employee can be permitted to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the

management notifies in writing to him and about the decision to accept his application for Voluntary

Retirement. In the event of death of an employee during the notice period, action has not been

completed on his application nor has notice period expired and as such the Enterprises (PSE) at the

time of death. He would be, therefore, entitled to the benefits which are admissible in the event of

death while in service and not under the Voluntary Retirement scheme notified by the Bureau of Public

Enterprises (BPE) vide its Office Memorandum dated 5.10.1982 and 06.01.1968.”

Consequent to introduction of VRS, large number of employees including workman opted for VRS

which was considered and allowed within time frame. The management has stated that in pursuance to

acceptance of application for voluntary retirement of the workman, entire benefits have been released in his

favour which was duly accepted by the workman and the workman never made any application for withdrawal

of his application for voluntary retirement. The workman himself has filed the application dated 30.11.1993,

opting for VRS and in the cross examination, has “accepted the receipt of consequential sum as a result of

VRS”. There is no iota of evidence on record that workman made any objection regarding receipt of

consequential benefits in wake of his withdrawal application as claimed by him. Moreover, the workman utterly

failed to prove that he made any application for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement.

In Writ Petition No. 1165 (S/S) of 1994, in the case of one similarly situated workman viz. Sri J.C.

Nigam, who challenged the action of the management regarding accepting the application for voluntary

retirement, was dismissed on 09.01.1997; and the special Appeal No. 48 (SB) of 1997 was decided on

18.12.2000, setting aside order dated 09.01.1997. The management preferred SLP challenging the order dated

18.12.2000, which was converted by Hon’ble Supreme Court into Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2004 and the same

was allowed vide judgment dated 12.02.2004 and the judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by Division Bench of

Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow bench, Lucknow was set aside. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“where an employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal but

has withdrawal the amount of retiral benefits per Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is not entitled for the

withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that in the present case the

respondent herein withdrew the amount of retiral benefits.”

Being aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 12.02.2004, Sri J.C. Nigam preferred the Review

Petition no. 747 of 2004 which was dismissed; and further Curative Petition No. 152 of 2008 was preferred by

3146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sri J.C. Nigam, which too had been dismissed by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its

judgment dated 20.01.2009.

11.

In the instant case also, which is identical to the J.C. Nigam case (supra), the workman opted for VRS

and on its acceptance having received all consequential benefits, he workman has no occasion to agitate the

acceptance of the VRS scheme; more particularly in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court,

mentioned in foregoing para.

12.

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law relied upon, I do not find any

illegality in the action of the management in not considering the application of the workman for withdrawal of

application for voluntary retirement; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

13.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

14.

Award as above.

Let two copies of the award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW.

23rd November, 2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1081.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव प्रबंि जनिेिक, स्ट्कूटर इंजडया जलजमटेड,ल नऊ (यूृी) और अन्य एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में केन्द्रीय सरकार औगिकोजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ल नऊ के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍या 28/2012) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार

को 24.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42011/171/2011- आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2012) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribuna-cum

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Managing Director, Scooters India Limited, Lucknow (UP) & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 24.11.2020.

[No. L-42011/171/2011 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT: P. K. SRIVASTAVA HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 28/2012

Ref. No. L-42011/171/2011-IR(DU) dated: 05.01.2012

BETWEEN :

Shri Vinod Kumar Dixit S/o Late O.N. Dixit

Village – Kurouni PO – Niwan

Distt. Lucknow (UP)

AND

The Managing Director

Scooters India Limited

Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow (UP)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3147

AWARD

1.

By order No. L-42011/171/2011-IR(DU) dated: 05.01.2012 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Vinod

Kumar Dixit S/o Late O.N. Dixit, Village – Kurouni PO – Niwan, Distt. Lucknow (UP) and the Managing

Director, Scooters India Limited, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow (UP) for adjudication.

2.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW IN

NOT CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF WORKMAN SHRI VINOD KUMAR DIXIT S/O

O.N. DIXIT, GRADE ‘D’ DATED 07.12.1993 AND VOLUNTARY RETIRING HIM W.E.F.

31.12.1993 WITHOUT PAYING ENTIRE PENSIONER BENEFITS, IS LEGAL AND

JUSTIFIED? WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3.

The case of the workman, in brief, is that the workman, was first appointed as un-skilled worker on

21.02.1976. Management introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide dated 08.12.1988 and in pursuance

thereof, the workman submitted his application for Voluntary Retirement on 30.11.1993 w.e.f. 31.03.1994. The

management, vide circular dated 06.11.1993 suspended the said VRS w.e.f. 01.12.1993; and accordingly when

the workman moved an application dated 07.12.1993 to withdraw his application for Voluntary Retirement, then

he came to know that his application dated 30.11.1993 for Voluntary Retirement had already been accepted on

the same date i.e. 30.11.1993.

The workman has further alleged that the management was well aware that the said Voluntary

Retirement scheme was going to be suspended w.e.f. 01.12.1993 vide circular dated 08.12.1988 even then it

malafiedly accepted the Voluntary Retirement application of the workman dated 30.11.1993 on the same date.

The workman has also stated that had the management not accepted his application for Voluntary Retirement on

the same date and considered his application for withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement, then he would have

worked up till the date of his superannuation. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his Voluntary

Retirement be set aside and the management be directed to reinstate him with consequential benefits.

4.

The management of the Scooters India Limited has filed its written statement; wherein it has disputed

the claim of the workman with submission that the present reference order is highly belated one and is barred by

the provisions contained in the Section 2A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The opposite party has

submitted that the application for Voluntary Retirement was moved by the workman on 30.11.1993 which was

accepted on same day and his date of release was notified as 31.12.1993 vide order dated 30.11.1993 and the

workman was informed and was relieved on 11.01.1994.

The management has denied that the workman ever moved any application for withdrawal of his

Voluntary Retirement application, inasmuch as he accepted the consequential benefits due to said Voluntary

Retirement Scheme. The management has submitted that the Writ Petition No. 1165 (S/S) of 1994 case of one

similarly situated workman viz. Sri J.C. Nigam, challenging the action of the management in accepting the

application for VRS, was dismissed on 09.01.1997; and the special Appeal No. 48 (SB) of 1997 was decided on

18.12.2000, setting aside order dated 09.01.1997. The management preferred SLP challenging the order dated

18.12.2000, which was converted by Hon’ble Supreme Court into Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2004 and the same

was allowed vide judgment dated 12.02.2004 and the judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by Division Bench of

Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow bench, Lucknow was set aside. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order

dated 12.02.2004, Sri J.C. Nigam preferred the Review Petition no. 747of 2004 which was dismissed; and

further Curative Petition No. 152 of 2008 was preferred by Sri J.C. Nigam, which too had been dismissed by the

Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 20.01.2009, thus the dispute under

consideration has already been decided by the competent court of law.

The management has stated that in the year 1992, the company was facing problems including surplus

of man power, and was incurring huge losses, the matter was referred to BIFR, it declared the company as a sick

industrial unit vide order dated 11.12.1992, direction was given by BIFR to reduce the surplus man power,

thereafter Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced for employees with certain additional benefits. The

opposite party has further submitted that financial position of the company was very bad during the period in

question, wage revision could not take place and the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of wage revision,

moreover he is not entitled to get the same without wage revision which was effected on that date when the

petitioner was not on the role of the company. At present also the financial position of the company is very poor

and matter has been referred to BIFR vide memo dated 501/10 dated 26.2.2010; accordingly, the management

has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit without any relief to the

workman concerned.

3148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5.

The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein it has reiterated the averments already made in the

statement of claim.

6.

The parties filed documents in support of their respective case and adduced oral evidence. The

workman has examined himself; whereas the management examined Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Deputy

Manager (Legal) in support of its case; and the parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of

each other. None turned up on behalf of the workman to argue the case; however, the management forwarded

its oral arguments in support of its case.

7.

Heard authorized representatives of the management at length; and perused entire evidence on record.

8.

Having heard the authorized representative of the management and perused the respective pleadings of

the parties; along with documentary and oral evidence, relied upon by the parties it is apparent on the face of

record that the workman has come up with a case that he applied for Voluntary Retirement w.e.f. 31.03.1993

vide his application dated 30.11.1993, in pursuance to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide dated 08.12.1988

and his said application for voluntary retirement was accepted on 30.11.1993 by the management with ulterior

motive; and did not consider his application dated 07.12.1993 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary

retirement, as the said voluntary retirement scheme was going to be suspended w.e.f. 01.12.1993 vide circular

dated 08.12.1988. It is the case of the workman that had the management not accepted his application for

Voluntary Retirement on the same date and considered his application for withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement,

then he would have worked up till the date of his superannuation.

Per contra, the case of the management is that the workman voluntarily moved the application for

Voluntary Retirement 30.11.1993 which was accepted on same day vide order dated 30.11.1993; and the

workman was informed and was relieved on 11.01.1994; however, the workman never moved any application

for withdrawal of his Voluntary Retirement application, on the contrary the workman accepted the consequential

benefits due to said Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The management has also come up with a case that in the

case of one similarly situated workman viz. Sri J.C. Nigam, who also challenged the action of the management

in accepting the application for VRS, was finally decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, without any relief to him.

Moreover, the management has made out a case that the present industrial dispute has been referred with an

inordinate delay and is barred by the provisions of Section 2A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9.

Before entering to the merits of the case, it has to be looked into that the management of the Scooters

India Limited has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the case due to inordinate delay of

more than 18 years in raising the present dispute in terms of provisions contained in Section 2A (3) of the Act.

In rebuttal, the workman has submitted that case has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the

appropriate Government and this Tribunal is duty bound to answer the same on the terms of reference;

moreover, the provisions of Section 2A (3) of the Act is not applicable to the present case. The Section 2A of

the Act reads as under:

2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. – (1) Where

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

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

out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial

dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section

(1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute

referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of

such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as

they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

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

the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retreatment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in sub-section (1).

A bare perusal of the above quoted section revels that the limitation prescribed in the sub-section (3) of

Section 2A is regarding filing of an application before the Labour Court or Tribunal with regard to the filing of

an application directly before the Labour Court or Tribunal, after expiry of 45 days from the date it moved an

application before the Conciliation Officer under sub-section (2) of Section 2A; and there is no bar on

entertaining an industrial dispute duly referred by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act.

Also, Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Services

Society Ltd. & another 1999 LAB IC 1435 where there was admitted delay of seven years has held that the Court

can mould relief by refusing back wages or directing payment of part of back wages. Likewise, Hon’ble

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3149

Supreme Court in 2001 SCC (L&S) 105 Gurmail Singh vs. Principal, Govt. College of Education & others, has

laid down that ‘the Labour Court cannot dismiss the case of the workman merely on the ground of delay. If the

order of dismissal is challenged belatedly, the dispute would still continue for adjudication, the only question

would be to deprive back wages for the period of delay in raising such a dispute if on merits it is to succeed.’

Further, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in 1994 LLR 29 The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Chief

Office, Lucknow vs. B.C. Verma & another; wherein the question for consideration before the Hon’ble High

Court was whether inaction or delay in raising industrial dispute by the workman can be condoned; Hon’ble

High Court observed as under:

“In the present case, Section 10(1) may be read along with Section 10 (5). Both the subsections read

together lead to conclusion that ‘at any time’ the Reference can be made in the exercise of the

administrative power by the Central Government provided there exists an industrial dispute or the

same is apprehended. The use of expression “at any time’ in both the sub-sections clearly indicates

that legislature never intended any limitation to be imposed for making reference.”

In the present case, the Conciliation Officer on failure of the conciliation proceedings forwarded its

‘Failure of Conciliation Report’ to the appropriate Government, which after considering the Failure of

Conciliation Report, referred the present industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication under powers

conferred under Section 10 of the Act. Hence, upon reference of an industrial dispute by the appropriate

Government, it is duty casted upon the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to answer the terms of reference.

Also, admittedly there is an inordinate delay of approximately 18 years. However, in view of the statutory

provisions, quoted above and discussions, made hereinabove, the objection of the management of the

Scooters India Limited regarding non-maintainability of the case due to delay in raising present

industrial dispute has no merit as provision of the Section 2A (3) of the Act does not apply in the present

case.

10.

On merits of the case, it is admitted case of the parties that the workman had been an employee of the

opposite party management and he opted for VRS on 30.11.1993, which was accepted by the management on

the same day vide Factory Order Part-II dated 30.11.1993 and the workman “received all monetary benefits

raised out of said VRS”. During cross-examination, the workman stated that he was forced to opt for VRS and

received all benefits; but he did not make any written objection to it. Later on he stated that he made written

objection; but has not filed a copy of the same before this Tribunal. The management has elaborately submitted

that company was not in good shape, it was facing huge loss, the matter was referred to BIFR, it was declared as

a sick unit and thereafter VRS Scheme was introduced. Paragraph 10 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme for

the employees of the Scooters India Limited is re-produced below:

“As employee can be permitted to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the

management notifies in writing to him and about the decision to accept his application for Voluntary

Retirement. In the event of death of an employee during the notice period, action has not been

completed on his application nor has notice period expired and as such the Enterprises (PSE) at the

time of death. He would be, therefore, entitled to the benefits which are admissible in the event of

death while in service and not under the Voluntary Retirement scheme notified by the Bureau of Public

Enterprises (BPE) vide its Office Memorandum dated 5.10.1982 and 06.01.1968.”

Consequent to introduction of VRS, large number of employees including workman opted for VRS

which was considered and allowed within time frame. The management has stated that in pursuance to

acceptance of application for voluntary retirement of the workman, entire benefits have been released in his

favour which was duly accepted by the workman and the workman never made any application for withdrawal

of his application for voluntary retirement. The workman himself has filed the application dated 30.11.1993,

opting for VRS and in the cross examination, has “accepted the receipt of consequential sum as a result of

VRS”. There is no iota of evidence on record that workman made any objection regarding receipt of

consequential benefits in wake of his withdrawal application as claimed by him. Moreover, the workman utterly

failed to prove that he made any application for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement.

In Writ Petition No. 1165 (S/S) of 1994, in the case of one similarly situated workman viz. Sri J.C.

Nigam, who challenged the action of the management regarding accepting the application for voluntary

retirement, was dismissed on 09.01.1997; and the special Appeal No. 48 (SB) of 1997 was decided on

18.12.2000, setting aside order dated 09.01.1997. The management preferred SLP challenging the order dated

18.12.2000, which was converted by Hon’ble Supreme Court into Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2004 and the same

was allowed vide judgment dated 12.02.2004 and the judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by Division Bench of

Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow bench, Lucknow was set aside. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“where an employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal but

has withdrawal the amount of retiral benefits per Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is not entitled for the

withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that in the present case the

respondent herein withdrew the amount of retiral benefits.”

3150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Being aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 12.02.2004, Sri J.C. Nigam preferred the Review

Petition no. 747 of 2004 which was dismissed; and further Curative Petition No. 152 of 2008 was preferred by

Sri J.C. Nigam, which too had been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 20.01.2009.

11.

In the instant case also, which is identical to the J.C. Nigam case (supra), the workman opted for VRS

and on its acceptance having received all consequential benefits, he workman has no occasion to agitate against

the acceptance of the VRS scheme; more particularly in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court,

mentioned in foregoing para.

12.

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law relied upon, I do not find

any illegality in the action of the management in not considering the application of the workman for

withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

13.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

14.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

18th November, 2020

Let two copies of the award be sent to the Ministry for publication

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1082.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव गवनवमेंट लमंट, कोलकाता कोलकात और अन्य एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों

और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में केन्द्रीय सरकार औगिकोजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, कोलकात के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍या 03/2005) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19/08/20

को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-16011/03/2004-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03 / 2005) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-

cum Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Government Mint , Kolkata , & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 19.08.20.

[No. L-16011/03/2004 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. NT-03 of 2005

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of India Government Mint

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra,

Appearance : Presiding Officer

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. Arupnath Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel.

On behalf of the Workmen : Mr.A.K. Banerjee, Ld. Counsel

Mr. T. Das, Ld. Counsel with Mr. S. Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel,

Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Ld. Counsel,

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3151

Mr. A.K. Banerjee, Ld. Counsel with Mr. Raraj

Dutta, Ld. Counsel,

Mr. S. Roy, Ld. Counsel with Mr. S. Murarka,

Ld. Counsel.

State: National

Industry: Mint.

Dated: 30th July, 2020

AWARD

The dispute under reference pertains to non-payment of 19% compensation for increased working

hours of India Government Mints, Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad from 37½ to 44 hours per week consequent

upon recommendation of 5th Pay Commission. It appears that in 1951 the General Manager, Government of

India Mint had attempted to enhance working hours from 37½ to 40 hours per week and the authorities also

started deducting salaries from the pay packet for not discharging duties of 40 hours per week whereupon the

employees moved an application No. PWA 353 of 1951 before the authority of the Payment of Wages Act. The

application was allowed and the working hours of the employees were maintained to 37 ½ hours per week and

deduction from salary was held to be illegal. After submission of 4th Pay Commission report in 1986 in which

working hours of India Govt. Mint was mentioned as 44 hours, a circular was issued by the General Manager,

India Govt. Mint on 21st November, 1986 enhancing working hours from 37 ½ hours to 44 hours. However, it

was cancelled by diary order dated 15th January, 1987. In this background the Mint management issued a notice

under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 16th January, 1988 proposing to enhance the working

hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours a week in terms of recommendation of 4th Pay Commission. Aggrieved by the said

notification and rejection of objection against the notification of notice the union filed a writ petition before the

Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta praying for order to direct the management of Mint to rescind or cancel the

notice under section 9A of the Act of 1947for enhancing the working hours. However, during pendency of this

writ petition, recommendation of 5th Pay Commission came in and for implementation of which several round of

discussion by the General Manager of Mint with the union representatives were held. In this connection a

meeting was held on 15th April, 1998 with the various unions of India Government Mint, Kolkata, Hyderabad

and Mumbai. The minutes of this meeting were sent to the Ministry of Finance. Subsequently on 5th of May,

1998 a further meeting was held in which various decisions were adopted mutually by and between the parties.

During above meetings the unions agreed for increase of working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week, but

demanded 19% compensation for increase of working hours in the existing pay. The demand was sent to the

Ministry of Finance for favourable consideration. One of the points of discussion was also regarding 10 hours

overtime per week at the usual applicable rates in addition to stipulated 44 hours. Ministry of Finance, however,

turned down the demand for payment of 19% compensation for increase of working hours as per

recommendation of 5th Pay Commission observing that the employees shall be entitled for revised pay scale

from the date on which the Mints start working 44 hours a week. This decision resulted in industrial dispute

which has been referred to this National Tribunal by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under

Section 7B read with Section 10(1A) constituted a National Tribunal vide order No. L-16011/3/2004-IR(DU)

dated 06.06.2005 and referred the industrial dispute in the following language:

“Whether the action of the management of India Government Mint in not granting of 19%

compensation for the increased working hours from 37.5 hours per week to 44 hours per week

(as per recommendation of Vth Pay Commission), is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workmen

are entitled?”

2.

All India Mint and Presses Employees Federation, Calcutta Mint Workers Union, Calcutta Mint

Employees Union, Hyderabad Mint Staff Association, Hyderabad Mint Employees Union, Bharatiya Mazdoor

Sangh, Hyderabad, Takshal Karmik Sangh, Hyderabad, Takshal Mazdoor Sabha Mint Premises Union,

Mumbai, Takshal Mazdoor Sabha, Mumbai have filed their respective statements of claim in response to the

above reference. All the unions have pleaded almost similar set of facts. It is stated that there are four units of

India Government Mints situated at Kolkata, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Noida, but the nature of services rendered

by Noida Mint is different from others. At Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad Mints coins are made from virgin

state whereas at Noida Mint bank coins are stamped. As such, it is claimed, the workmen of Kolkata, Mumbai

and Hyderabad Mints belong to one class while workmen of Noida Mint belong to separate class. This was the

reason why the number of working hours at Noida Mint from its very inception from the year 1984 has been

more than the working hours of the workmen of other three mints. The process of manufacturing coins from

virgin state is more rigorous than the process of stamping of coins. It is further pleaded that in Fourth Pay

Commission report the normal working hours was incorrectly recorded due to inadvertence as 44 hours per

week. The working hours of employees of Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad Mint had been 37 ½ hours per

week at the time of recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission also. There was no recommendation in Fourth

Pay Commission report for increase of the working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week. Though the notice

3152 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was issued proposing to enhance the working hours from

37 ½ to 44 hours, but the same was challenged by the unions through a writ petition filed before the

Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta during pendency of which the report of Firth Pay Commission was published.

Various meetings were held by the General Manager of the Mints with the union representatives for

implementation of Fifth Pay Commission report. The demand of 19% compensation in case of increase of

working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week was also discussed in the meeting held on 15th April, 1998 and

5th May, 1998 and forwarded to the Ministry of Finance for favourable consideration. Therefore, the Writ

Petition No. 9523(W) of 1988 which was pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta was not pressed by

the petitioners. The members of the unions at all material times till February, 2004 had been discharging their

duties of 44 hours plus 10 hours overtime allowance per week on the basis of the said agreement with regard to

above compensation. The demand of the unions for payment of 19% compensation was not accepted and a diary

order dated 24th March, 2005 determining the normal working hours as 44 hours per week was issued by the

Mint authorities. It was also a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 intending to give

effect to the diary order with effect from 18th April, 2005. There cannot be any increase in the number of

working hours of an employee without corresponding compensation thereof. Therefore, 6 ½ working hours per

week should be compensated with corresponding increase in the pay packet. The workmen are required to work

17.73% of hours of extra work. Accordingly taking into account the anomalies of pay as recommended by the

Fifth Pay Commission, the percentage of compensation was arrived at 19% and promised by the management of

the Mint. The unions have prayed that the demand raised by the unions for 19% compensation for increase in

working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week should be accepted and the action of the management in not

granting compensation as above, may be declared unjust, illegal and improper.

3.

The management of India Government Mint has filed its written statement in reply to the pleadings

submitted by the unions in which it is pleaded that the normal working hours of Kolkata, Mumbai and

Hyderabad Mints was 37½ hours which has been enhanced to 44 hours as normal working hours per week after

implementation of Fifth Central Pay Commission report with effect from 27.05.1998, but the normal working

hours of Noida Mint have been 44 hours from the very inception. The management of India Government Mint,

Kolkata had issued a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 enhancing the normal

working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours per week which was challenged by the Calcutta Mint Workers Union and

others in Writ Petition No. 9523(W) of 1988 before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta , however, it was

dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Though in appeal stay order was granted by the Division Bench of

the Hon’ble Court, but the same was withdrawn by the Calcutta Mint Workers Union on 13th May, 1998. A

meeting was held by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance with the representatives of all unions on the issue

of implementation of recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission on 15th April, 1998 in which the workers

demanded 19% compensation on introduction of 44 hours normal working hours. However, it was decided that

the issue would be taken up for favourable consideration with the Department of Expenditure. Another meeting

was held on 5th May, 1998 between the Mint management and the members of steering committee of the unions.

It is further pleaded that the management has not given any assurance in writing regarding 19% compensation

for increased working hours. The Calcutta Mint Workers Union had also moved an application No. 115 of 2001

and MA No. 74 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the matter of 19% compensation, wherein

the Tribunal vide its order dated 08.02.2001 directed the Mint authority to take decision and communicate the

same. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal the communication dated 1th May, 2001 was issued by the

Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance denying any justification for grant of compensation and that

from 01.01.1996 to 26.05.1998 the pay should be proportionately depressed where the workmen did not work

for 44 hours a week. It is also pleaded that the employees of Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad and Noida Mints

belong to Central Government and governed by CCA Rules, 1965, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not

applicable in case of employees of Mint. It is also pleaded that India Government Mint, Kolkata has been

declared a public utility service under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4.

Rejoinders have been filed in reply to the pleadings in written statement reiterating the facts pleaded in

the statements of claim. It is also pleaded that increase in working hours was accepted only on assurance of the

management of mint for favourable consideration. Hence principle of Promissory Estoppels is applicable and

Mint authority is duty hound to grant 19% compensation for increased working hours.

5.

On behalf of the workmen WW-01, Shri V.T. Bhaste, WW-02, Shri Provat Ghosh, WW-03,

Shri Biswanath Sikdar, WW-04, Shri K. Dasavaranam, WW-05, Shri K. Uma Maheswara Rao, WW-06,

Shri Jaywantrao Yeshwantrao Rao have been examined. On behalf of the management only witness MW-01,

Shri Shahid Ashraf has been examined. Parties have also filed number of documentary evidences which shall be

taken up at appropriate stage in the f9indings of the Award for convenience.

6.

I have heard the learned counsels for the unions and also for the management of Government of India

Mint.

7.

The learned counsels for the unions have submitted that increase in working hours amounts to change

in condition of service and notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was mandatory to effect

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3153

any change in working hours. The unions had agreed to work for the increased working hours for 44 hours only

on assurance of the management of Mint to pay 19% compensation. Hence the management is bound to pay

19% compensation for increased working hours.

8.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the India Government Mint has argued that acceptance of the

revised pay scale by the employees amounts to waiver of notice under Section 9A of the Act. The steering

committee of the unions had entered into agreement/settlement in a meeting with the General Manager of Mint

giving consent for increase of working hours from 37 ½ to 44 hours. Mint management never gave any

assurance for payment of 19% compensation for increased working hours.

9.

Based on the rival pleadings and submissions of the unions and the management following points of

determination may be delineated –

1.

Whether India Government Mint is an industry?

2.

Whether judgment in case No. PWA 353 of 1951 under Payment of Wages Act operates as

res-judicata?

3.

Whether notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is mandatory?

4.

Whether acceptance of revised pay scale as recommended by Pay Commission would amount

to waiver of notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

5.

Whether India Government Mint is bound to pay 19% compensation to the employees by

virtue of principles of Promissory Estoppels?

Mint as industry

10.

Though at the very outset the management of Government of India Mint has taken the point of

maintainability that the employees of Kolkata, Mumbai and Hyderabad Mints belong to Central Government

and they are governed by CCS Rules, 1965, therefore, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and other

labour laws are not applicable, but in paragraph 12 of the written statement the management has also pleaded

that India Government Mint, Kolkata is under the Industrial Disputes Act and is governed by the provisions of

Factories Act, 1948. Not only this the management has also pleaded that above units of India Government Mint

have been converted into a public sector unit of SPMCIL since 13th January, 2016. Government notification

dated 10th February, 2006 has also been filed on record to the effect that in pursuance of cabinet decision on

2nd September, 2005, Government of India has decided to corporatize the functions of nine units of Department

of Economic Affairs and accordingly all the existing functions of those nine units including Security Presses etc

in respect of security grade papers and coin and printing of currency notes and non-judicial stamp papers have

been transferred to a wholly owned company viz. “Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India Limited”.

Consequently, the management, control, operation and maintenance of production etc. have been transferred to

the company. Statutory definition of “Industry” is given in Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947 –

“2(j) “industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture

or calling of employers and

includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of

workmen:”

11.

Above definition of ‘industry’ was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bangalore Water

Supply v. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 where it has been observed -

“Where (i) any systematic activity, (ii) organized by cooperation between employer and employee

(the direct and substantial element is chimerical), (iii) for the production and or distribution goods and

services calculated to supply human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of

material things or services geared celestial bliss i.e. making on large scale Prasad or food; prima facie,

there is an ‘industry’ in that enterprise.)”

It was observed that mere absence of profit motive will not necessarily push the activity out of the pole

of industry, further that act undertaken in fulfillment of the state’s constitutional obligation or in discharge of

constitutional or sovereign functions is excepted from the definition of ‘industry’. However, Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi in Union of India v. Raj Kumar Shah (WP (C) 3495 of 2015 decided on 20.01.2020 while

considering the question whether the Controller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks was an industry,

held that every function which is performed by the government is not sovereign. Sovereign functions which are

core and inalienable are exempted from Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947.Sovereign functions become inalienable

only when it becomes impossible to delegate them to any other authority, then only it is exempted from the

ambit of Section 2(j) of the Act. Functions such as collection of tax, maintenance of law and order, external

relations which have at all time to be performed by the government and the government alone would qualify as

‘inalienable’ sovereign functions.

3154 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

In the instant case, as it has been seen above, the units of India Government Mint has been corporatized

and converted into a public sector unit of SPMCIL (Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India Limited)

on 13.01.2006 as a consumer goods industry engaged in the manufacture/production of currency and Bank

Notes, Security Paper, non-judicial stamp papers, postal stamps and stationery, cheques, bonds etc., thus these

functions cannot be said to be inalienable and sovereign functions. Not only this, it is admitted case between the

parties that the units of India Government Mint have been declared public utility services under the provision of

Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Only industry specified in First Schedule can be declared

public utility services. Hence, obviously the units of Indian Government Mint comes within the definition of

industry and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply to it. Apart from this a specific issue whether

Mint is an industry or not had also come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in

Writ Petition No. 3586 of 1982 (The management of India Government Mint, Hyderabad v. workmen) In

which the Mint was held to be not an industry. Against this judgment of the Hon’ble Single Bench appeal was

preferred before the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1988 where Mint was considered to be

industry. Special Leave petition filed against the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench was also dismissed by

the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus it is established that Mint is an ‘Industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Res-judicata

13.

Learned counsel for the unions have submitted that the working hours of units have been 37½ hours

per week. Attempts were made by the Mint management in 1951 to enhance the working hours without giving

notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the Mint management illegally tried to

enhance the working hours from 37½ to 40 hours and also tried to deduct wages for 2½ per week from the

workers who did not work for 40 hours. The matter went to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act

which ruled that normal working hours of unit was 37½ hours per week since the creation of Mint and the

employer has no right to increase the working hours in absence of contract without increase of their wages. In

these circumstances, learned counsel for the unions have contended that in view of judgment of authority under

the Payment of Wages Act the working hours cannot be increased without increase in wages of the employees

and principles of res-judicata will be applicable in the matter. I do not agree with the contentions of the learned

counsels that principles of res-judicata applies in such circumstances.

14.

Principles of res-judicata has been incorporated in Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure which reads

as follows –

“Section 11. No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue

has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between

parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to

try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been

heard and finally decided by such court.”

In order to apply the principles contained in Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure following

conditions must satisfy –

1. There must be a suit and a former suit between the said parties;

2. The former suit must have been heard and finally decided;

3. The former court must be competent to try the second suit; and

4. The matter must have been directly and substantially in issue in former suit also.

14.

Conditions (3) and (4) are relevant and important to the matter in issue. It is essential that the former

court must be competent to try the subsequent suit. Thus the decision in a previous suit by a court, not

competent to try the subsequent suit, will not operate as res-judicata. The principle behind this condition is that

the decision of the court of limited jurisdiction ought not to be final and binding on a court of unlimited

jurisdiction. Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 limits the jurisdiction and power of the Authority to

the determination of claim arising out of deduction from wages or delay in the payment of wages which cannot

be extended to include the power to adjudicate upon a matter under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is a court of limited jurisdiction. Only Industrial Tribunal or Labour

Court is competent to determine such matters.

15.

Apart from that, it is also necessary that the matter must have been directly and substantially in issue

before the formal court. From the perusal of judgment passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act

Ext. W(I) - 1 it is clear that the matter of violation of provision of Section 9A of the Act of 1947 was not in issue

before the court in Case of PWA 353 of 1951. Thus no question of application of principles of res-judicata

arises.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3155

Notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947

16.

Undisputedly the employer has every right to change the condition of service after serving notice under

Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Item No. 4 of the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1947 shows

that hours of work is to be treated as condition of service. It is also not disputed that change in working hours is

condition of service which can be varied by the employer after giving notice under Section 9A of the Act of

1947. The provision of Section 9A of the Act of 1947 may be reproduced below for convenience -

9A. Notice of change – No employer, who proposed to effect any change in the co0nditions of service

applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change –

(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) (b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice;

Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change –

(a) Where the change is effected in pursuance to any settlement or award; or

(b) Where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and

Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services

(Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil service Regulations, Civilians and

Defence Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment

Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate

Government in the Official Gazette, apply.

17.

Thus from the above provision it is clear that whenever any change in condition of service is proposed

by the employer four conditions must be complied with (a) notice giving effect to change; (b) notice must be in

prescribed form; (c) change can be effected to only after lapse of 21 days from the date of service of notice; and

(d) change must be in matter specified in Fourth Schedule.

18.

Now question arises whether the Mint Authority has given notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947

before enhancing working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week. The statement of claim of the union reveals

that notice under Section 9A increasing working hours from 37½ to 44 hours a week based on the

recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission was issued by the Mint authorities on 16.01.1988. This was

objected by the workmen and the unions representing workmen of the India Security Press and the Currency

Note Press issued notice of strike proposing to proceed on indefinite strike in view of unjustified increase of

working hours. A Writ Petition was also filed before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta praying for withdrawal

of notice. The matter was then admitted in conciliation and during conciliation it was agreed that during

pendency of above writ petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, notice dated 16.01.1988

would not be given effect to and thus notice of strike was not implemented. Subsequently the Writ Petition No.

9523 (W) of 1998 pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta was dismissed on 07.01.1991. A failure

report was submitted by the conciliation officer. Reference was also initially refused by the Central

Government, but under the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, reference was made. Thus

after closure of conciliation proceeding the notice issued on 16.01.1998 cannot be said to survive. Therefore a

fresh notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 was required for change in condition of service. Admittedly no

notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 was issued thereafter.

Effect of accepting revised Pay Scale as recommended by Pay Commission

19.

Learned counsel for the management of Government of India Mint has submitted that during pendency

of writ petition in Hon’ble Calcutta High Court Fifth Pay Commission has submitted its report and was

implemented by the Central Government. The workmen of Indian Government Mint also took benefit of the

revised pay scale. Enhancement of working hours from 37½ to 44 hours a week was condition precedent for

revision of pay scale and other benefits to the employees. Therefore, question of service of any notice under

Section 9A of the Act of 1947 does not arise. Learned counsel has also submitted that Firth Pay Commission has

specifically dealt with the issue of enhancement of working hours. Contrary to it the learned counsels for the

unions have submitted that the Pay Commission report is not binding on the workmen in absence of notice

under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 and acceptance of revised pay scale by the workmen does not give the

authority to the Mint management to enhance working hours.

20.

Justifying increase in working hours the Fifth Pay Commission in paragraph 66.31 of the report has

observed that mere fact that the Mints have been observing 37½ hours over a century is not a reason enough to

necessitate that status quo should be maintained regardless of changes in the working environment and

condition. A lesser number of working hours might conceivably have been justified in the earlier years when the

coin manufacturing process were not refined enough and involved working in arduous and intemperate

condition. The progressive modernization and automation of the Mints would however have resulted in a fatigue

3156 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and this is an aspect that will necessarily have to be kept in view. The Pay Commission have also taken into

consideration the working hours of Noida Mint which was working for 44 hours a week and in order to maintain

uniformity in working hours, the Pay Commission had recommended for enhancement of normal working hours

from 37½ to 44 hours.

21.

Admittedly 5th Pay Commission has already been implemented and the workmen are getting benefits of

the same. WW-01, Shri V.T. Bhaste in his statement has said that in respect of one Mint, the recommendation of

Pay Commission has been implemented after fulfilling certain conditions from the workmen side. He has further

stated in his cross-examination that the recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission has been accepted by

the management as well as by all the employees unions. Other witnesses also have admitted in their cross-

examination that the workmen are getting the revised pay scale and other allowances as recommended by the

5th and 6th Central Pay Commission.

22.

Now question of waiver arises at this stage as to whet her acceptance of the revised pay scale as

recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission amounts to waiver of notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947.

This question has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Rajasthan and Bombay High Courts. In Director, State

Forms v. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, 2003 (2) WLN 629 where Project Allowance given @ 10% by the

Government of India where the basic minimum amenities were not available to the workmen at underdeveloped

places was subsequently reduced to 8% which resulted in an industrial dispute. The matter came up before the

Hon’ble High Court. The argument of the management was not accepted by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court

that notice to the workmen likely to be affected by the reduction in the rate of Project Allowance was not

required as the Project Allowance was reduced by the management following the report of the Third Pay

Commission which had heard the employees union and associations before making recommendations. The

Hon’ble Court had observed –

“Under Section 9A of the Act before reducing the rate of Project Allowance from 10% to 8% the

Corporation was bound to follow the mandate of Section 9A of the Act. After recommendations of the

Third Pay Commission were accepted by the Government the Appellant blindly followed the same

without taking any independent and voluntary decision on their own with regard to the question

whether or not reduce the Project Allowance. The dependence of the Appellant on the report of the

Pay Commission was so heavy that it thought that since the unions of workmen of various enterprises

have already pleaded their case before the Pay Commission, it was not necessary to give 21 days’

notice to the employees in the project before effecting the change. This was clearly a wrong approach

which cannot be countenance. Since the Appellant Corporation failed to comply with the provisions of

Section 9A the change effected in the rate of Project Allowance payable to the workmen cannot be

changed.”

23.

The question of issue of notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 before increase in working hours

after acceptance of revised pay by the workmen came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court at

Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5400 of 1996 in Union of India v. India Security Press decided on 3rd August,

2010 where the number of working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week were increased in view of the

recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission and the workmen have accepted the benefits of the

recommendation of the Pay Commission in as much as they were drawing wages in accordance with the

recommendation. Not only this, but in above case the workmen have also submitted undertaking to abide by the

recommendations. The Hon’ble Court did not accept the above argument advanced by the management and held

that any change in the service condition of workers working in the India Security Press or Currency Note Press

must be preceded by a notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947. The Hon’ble Court has also held that under

Section 9A of the Act notice of change is required whenever a change is proposed in respect of any matter

specified in Fourth Schedule of the Act. The change in working hours is one of the reason that would require a

notice under Section 9A of the Act. Thus, mere fact that the workmen accepted the revised pay scale would not

waive of the notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947.

24.

Thus from the above discussion it is clear that the fact that the unions of workmen were heard by the

Pay Commission or the workmen accepted the pay scale as revised by 5th Pay Commission would not obviate

the requirement of giving a prior notice of the proposed change in the condition of service of the workmen of

India Government Mint.

Effect of Agreement with Unions

25.

Where change in condition of service is effected in pursuance of any settlement or Award, notice is not

required. Proviso to Section 9A of the Act of 1947 says –

“Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change –

(a) Where the change is effected in pursuance to any settlement or award; or

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3157

(b) Where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and

Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services

(Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil service Regulations, Civilians and

Defence Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment

Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate

Government in the Official Gazette, apply.”

Explaining the purpose of giving notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

in Navbharat, Hindu Daily, Nagpur v Navbharat Shramik Shanga 1985-I-LLJ 474 (Bombay) has observed that –

“The intention behind the notice appeared to be that the workmen affected has a chance to raise a

dispute by approaching proper authority.

The said dispute can also mature into a reference if the

parties do not arrive at an amicable settlement.”

26.

In the instant case the management of Mint has emphasized the factum of amicable settlement with the

unions. Learned counsel for the management of India Government Mint relying on the minutes of meeting held

on 15th April, 1998 with the unions/associations of India Government Mint, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Mumbai

has submitted that during pendency of writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta Fifth Pay Commission

had submitted its report. Therefore, for implementation of the report of the Fifth Pay Commission the General

Manager, India Government Mint held several meetings with joint action committee of unions/associations of

India Government Mint, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Mumbai and in one of the meeting held on 15th April, 1998 at

New Delhi the unions had agreed that the three mints of India Government would function for 44 hours per

week. In above meeting a demand of 19% compensation on account of introduction of 44 hours work per week

based on recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission was also raised by the workers for which there was an

agreement that this demand would be taken up with the Department of Expenditure for favourable

consideration. Record of discussion held on 15th April, 1998 at New Delhi between India Government Mints and

unions have been filed on record.

27.

For better appreciation of the terms of agreement it would be pertinent to quote minutes of above

meeting held on 15th April, 1998 which is as follows –

“Record of discussions held on 15.04.1998 at New Delhi with Unions/ Associations of India Govt.

Mints, Calcutta, Hyderabad & Mumbai.

1. The three mints will function 44 hrs. per week as normal working hours as recommended by the

fifth Pay Commission. Revised pay scales recommended by the commission as approved by

Government will be allowed to the workers/employees from 1.1.1996 after they start 44 hrs.

normal working per week.

2. Keeping in view the demand – supply position of coins etc. the General Manager of each Mint will

be authorized to sanction maximum overtime working with a view to increasing production

according to work needs and in conformity with Factories Act i.e. approximately 54 hrs. per week.

The demand supply gap as at present likely to continue in the foreseeable future. The OTA

working will be only subject to review and revision after consultation with the unions/association.

3. Overtime Allowance will be allowed on the revised pay scales from 1.1.1996 in conformity with

Government orders/Factories Act.

4. Increases in production corresponding to the revised weekly working hours including overtime

working will be effected. The base level production, target production and incentive parameters

will be determined on the basis of total weekly working hours including OTA working. Incentive

payment will be based on this.

5. The eligibility for and ceiling on OTA on the basic pay as per the new pay scales based on 44 hrs.

normal weekly working will be revised appropriately.

6. The workers/employees demanded 19% compensation on account of introduction of 44 hrs.

normal weekly working hours as per 5th Pay Commission recommendations. This will be taken up

with the Department of Expenditure for favourable consideration.

7. The General Manager of concerned Mint will take action on the basis of minutes of the above

discussions in conformity with the existing rules/ regulations/ statutory laws/ agreements/ pending

litigations/ court orders etc.”

28.

Next meeting was held on 5th May, 1998 between General Manager, India Government Mints and

members of steering committee of unions and associations in which normal working hours of 44 hours with new

pay scale was again reiterated. The minutes of meeting dated 5th May, 1998 may also be reproduced as below –

3158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Minutes of the meeting held on 5.5.98 at 3.30 P.M. in the Conference Hall with General Manager

along with D.G.M., C.A.O., SR. L.O.W.M. L.O.A.W. Ms. and members of steering Committee of Union &

Associations.

1. General Manager stated that O.T.A. Arrears from 1.1.96 will be paid on the basis of 37½ hrs. as

normal hours with new scales till the start of 44 hrs. working as Normal hours. But he added that

this payment will be made only after receiving orders from Ministry.

2. This point is already clarified in the minutes of the meeting with the Ministry of Finance at point

No.3.

3. Regarding distribution of normal working hours, General Manager agreed upon 8 hrs. per day

from Monday to Friday and 4 hours on Saturday as normal working hours per week.

Timing shall be:

9.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. Monday to Friday

9.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. on Saturday

As regards 48 hrs. per week the timings shall be : -

9.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. Monday to Friday

9.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. on Saturday.

4. G.M. expressed that 54 hrs. working can be implemented only after the availability of raw

materials/blanks and consumables required for running plants and machineries are ensured by the

concerned officers of the shop floor. The J.A.C. proposed to extend their co-operation for

implementation of 54 hrs. and proportionate increase in production. However G.M. proposed that

54 hrs./week working will be started from 1.6.98 by which time blanks required for continuous

running along with other consumables will be made available so that there will not be any

problem for smooth working.

5. G.M. had agreed to take up the matter with Ministry of Finance regarding 19% compensation with

Ministry of Finance.

6. As regards recommendation made in part B of 5th Pay Commission, the G.M. advised the

employees concerned to submit their representation on the basis of which further action will be

taken. As part ‘C’ does not concern this organization it was not discussed.

The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair.”

29.

It is material to note here that the Bombay Mint Employees Federation had served a notice of strike

dated 18th February, 1998 on account of increase in working hours. The parties entered into conciliation

proceeding during which the notice of strike was withdrawn by the federation on settlement that 7 items of

records of discussion held on 15th April, 1998 at New Delhi would be implemented after compliance with the

relevant statutory provisions and other rules and regulations. The learned counsels for the unions have made

minutes of meeting held on 15.04.1998 basis of their argument for grant of 19% compensation. It is submitted

that one of the terms of agreement in minutes of 15th April, 1998 was that the demand of the unions for grant of

19% compensation on account of introduction of 44 hours normal weekly working hours shall be taken up with

the Department of Expenditure for favourable consideration. The terms of discussion have to be read as a whole.

The unions cannot be allowed to adopt favourable terms and discard the unfavourable one. Paragraph 1 of the

agreement was regarding 44 hours normal working hours of the Mints as recommended by Fifth Pay

Commission. It was also agreed that the revised pay scale will be allowed to the workers from 01.01.1996 after

they start 44 hours normal working per week. Thus the unions accepted that the workers would start working for

44 hours per week and the day they start working for 44 hours, they would be entitled for the revised pay scale.

In pursuance of this agreement the workmen have also started working and they are getting revised pay scale. So

far as demand of 19% compensation is concerned, the management does not appear to have accepted the grant

of 19% compensation. The term of agreement was that their demand would be placed before the Department of

Expenditure for favourable consideration. The term ‘favourable consideration’ does not mean acceptance of

demand. It denotes that the final authority was with the Department of Expenditure and subject to decision of

the Department of Expenditure, the demand of 19% compensation would be disposed of.

30.

The unions also wanted implementation of minutes of 15th April, 1998 and for the enforcement of the

minutes the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and Hyderabad Mint Staff Association had gone to the extent of filing

O.A. No. 648 of 1998 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pleading inter alia that on the basis of

recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission the working hours of India Government Mints have been increased

from 37½ to 44 hours a week and in meeting of April, 1998 it was decided that the demand of 19%

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3159

compensation on account of increase of working hours to 44 hours would be taken up with the Department of

Expenditure for favourable consideration. In above O.A. the Tribunal directed the Department of Expenditure to

consider the demand of the employees expeditiously. In Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal

O.A. 115 of 2001 was also filed by the Calcutta Mint Workers Union to the same effect. In this O.A. also the

Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Department of Expenditure to take decision

and communicate the same to the Applicant within three months vide order dated 8th February, 2001. Thus it is

explicit that the unions themselves wanted the implementation of the agreement/settlement arrived at between

the India Government Mint and the members of the steering committee of unions/associations.

31.

In above set of facts and circumstances, where the unions through their steering committee have

themselves come to the terms of settlement and agreed for implementation of the minutes of meeting held on

15th April, 1998, whether notice under Section 9A of the Act of 1947 wasstill required? Section 9A of the Act of

1947 categorically says that no notice shall be required for effecting any change in condition of service where

the change is effected in pursuance with any settlement or award. From the above discussion it is clear that the

members of the steering committee of unions/associations had come to terms in the meeting of 15th April, 1998

that the three Mints at Kolkata, Hyderabad and Mumbai will function for 44 hours per week as normal working

hours as recommended by Fifth Pay Commission. It was agreed that the revised pay scales recommended by the

Pay Commission will be allowed to the workers/employees from 01.01.1996 after they start 44 hours normal

working per week. The witnesses examined on behalf of the unions have admitted that the unions agreed for

implementation of the 5th Pay Commission report which was recorded in form of a minutes of a meeting.

WW-04, Shri K. Dasavaranam has named it as tripartite settlement. Not only this, in meeting held on 5th May,

1998 it was again reiterated that the minutes of meeting of 15th April, 1998 would be implemented. The

implementation of minutes of meeting held on 15th April, 1998 was also reiterated in meeting between Mumbai

Mint and Bombay Mint Employees Federation held on 5th May, 1998 during conciliation proceedings. Some of

the unions had also gone to the extent of moving to Central Administrative Tribunal for issue of direction to

implement the minutes of meeting dated 15.04.1998. Thus, in view of above agreement/settlement it is obvious

that notice of change in working hours was not required as provided in Section 9A of the Act of 1947.

32.

Admittedly after direction issued by the Central Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad and also that of

Kolkata the Department of Economic Affairs communicated its decision refusing to pay 19% compensation for

increased working hours.

Promissory Estoppel

33.

The learned counsels for the unions have also taken the point of doctrine of promissory estoppel

against the India Government Mint. It has been submitted by the learned counsels for the unions that appeal

from the Hon’ble High Court was withdrawn on the basis of agreement entered into by and between the parties

whereby it was assured that the claim for 19% compensation would be for “favourable consideration” which

cannot be treated a stray assurance or assurance given in a casual manner. The principles of promissory estoppel

is applicable where one party by words or conduct made to the other a clear or unequivocal promise which

intended to create a legal relation or affect a legal relationship to arise in future knowing or intending that it

would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is, in fact, was acted upon by the

other party. In that case promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go

back on it. Applying the above principles to the facts of the instant case, it appears that the promise as

incorporated in minutes of meeting dated 15.04.1998 was made by the India Government Mint only to place the

demand of 19% compensation before the Department of expenditure. There was no assurance by the India

Government Mint to grant above compensation and the unions had also agreed to this. Placing of demand of

19% compensation to the Department of Expenditure for “favourable consideration” implies only that final

authority to decide or accept the demand lies with the Department of Expenditure. Such promise is no promise

of acceptance of demand. Hence principle of ‘Promissory Estoppel’ does not apply.

34.

Learned counsels for the unions have also submitted that in grant of overtime, Central Administrative

Tribunal, Kolkata had refused to change the deviser and upheld the deviser of 192 as applied by the

management, but the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and held that

deviser would be 191 instead of 192. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court was challenged before the

Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, but this

argument of the learned counsels for the unions has no reflection on increase of working hours or on grant of

compensation. The deviser was applied treating the normal working hours as 44 hours a week. However, the

judgment is applicable in the matter of grant of quantum of overtime and it has nothing to do with the matter in

controversy in the present case. Merely because the workmen are required to work 17.73 hours of extra work

due to implementation of 5th Pay Commission report the workmen cannot be said to be entitled to 19%

compensation in view of the fact of the agreement entered into between the management and the unionjs on

15.04.1998.

3160 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

36.

Thus, it is concluded that the workmen of India Government Mint represented by the unions are not

entitled for 19% compensation on account of increase in working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week and the

decision of the management of India Government of Mint in not granting 19% compensation for the increased

working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week (as per recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission) is just and

legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

37.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 30th July, 2020.

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1083.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव इंडस टावसव जलजमटेड, ृुणे (एमएस) और अन्य एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों

और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में श्रम न्यायालय, औरंगाबाि के ृंचाट

(संिभव सं्‍या 21/2018) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल- 42025/07/2020- आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2018) of the Labour Court, Aurangabad as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Indus Towers Ltd, PUNE (MS) &

Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 18.11.2020.

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

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, MAHARASHTRA AT AURANGABAD

Reference (IDA) No. 21/2018

(CNR NO. MHLC200026192016)

Between :

1

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd.,

E Crore, Office No. 2010,

2nd Floor, Marvbel Edge, Viman Nagar,

PUNE 411014

First party No. I

2 M/s. Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Office No. 509, 5th Floor,

Nucleus MLL, 1, Church Road,

PUNE 411001.

First party No. II

AND

Sh. Kailash Pawar,

Through: The Secretary,

Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmchari Sanghatana,

C/o. Sh. Narayan Waman Ghule

75/5, K Sector, Pavan Nagar,

N-9, CIDCO, Aurangabad 431003.

…Second party/workman

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3161

AWARD

Dtd. 15/02/2020

1

This Reference has been made over by Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) Ministry of Labour by its

order dtd. 23/10/2017 to resolve the dispute between the above-named parties in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of sub-section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (which shall hereinafter referred to as the I.D.Act,1947) for absorbing him the post of permanent

Technician for having served loyally for long period by regularizing his service is justified ? If yes, what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to ?

2

After receiving the said Reference order from the Central Government, this office has issued notices to

the workman/second party to appear in the matter. On perusal of the Bailiff report which is at Ex.6 shows that

on behalf of the second party, one Sh. Narayan Waman Ghule who is the Secretary of Indus Mobile Tower

Technical Karmchari Sanghatana has received the notice on behalf of the second party. The Roznama of the

proceeding shows that time and again, the opportunity to appear in the matter was given to the second party, but

he remains absent. This itself shows that he is not interested to proceed with the matter. Under such

circumstances, the matter is kept for order on 15/02/2020 for passing order. Hence, I pass the following Award.

AWARD

1

The Reference is answered in negative.

2

Copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.

3

No order as to costs.

Dtd. 15.02.2020

D.V. JOSHI, Presiding Officer & Judge

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1084.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव इंडस टावसव जलजमटेड, ृुणे (एमएस) और अन्य एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों

और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में श्रम न्यायालय, औरंगाबाि के ृंचाट

(संिभव सं्‍या 162/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15.02.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020- आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 162/2017) of the Labour Court, Aurangabad as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Indus Towers Ltd, PUNE (MS) &

Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.02.2020.

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

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, MAHARASHTRA AT AURANGABAD

Reference (IDA) No. 162/2017

(CNR NO. MHLC200015512016)

Between :

1

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd.,

E Crore, Office No. 2010,

2nd Floor, Marvbel Edge, Viman Nagar,

PUNE 411014

…First party No. I

2

M/s. Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Office No. 509, 5th Floor,

Nucleus MLL, 1, Church Road,

PUNE 411001.

…First party No. II

3162 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

Sh. Mohan Barke,

Through: The Secretary,

Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmchari Sanghatana,

C/o. Sh. Narayan Waman Ghule

75/5, K Sector, Pavan Nagar,

N-9, CIDCO, Aurangabad 431003.

…Second party/workman

AWARD

Dtd. 15/02/2020

1

This Reference has been made over by Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) Ministry of Labour by its

order dtd. 23/10/2017 to resolve the dispute between the above-named parties in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of sub-section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (which shall hereinafter referred to as the I.D.Act, 1947) for absorbing him the post of permanent

Technician for having served loyally for long period w.e.f. 1.10.2010 by regularizing his service is justified ? If

yes, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?

2

After receiving the said Reference order from the Central Government, this office has issued notices to

the workman/second party to appear in the matter. On perusal of the Bailiff report which is at Ex.4 shows that

on behalf of the second party, one Sh. Narayan Waman Ghule who is the Secretary of Indus Mobile Tower

Technical Karmchari Sanghatana has received the notice. The Roznama of the proceeding shows that time and

again, the opportunity to appear in the matter was given to the second party, but he remains absent. This itself

shows that he is not interested to proceed with the matter. Under such circumstances, the matter is kept for

order on 15/02/2020 for passing order. Hence, I pass the following Award.

AWARD

1

The Reference is answered in negative.

2

Copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.

3

No order as to costs.

Dtd. 15.02.2020

D.V. JOSHI, Presiding Officer & Judge

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम् बर, 2020

का.आ. 1085.—औगिकोजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव इंडस टावसव जलजमटेड, ृुणे (एमएस) और अन्य एवं उनके कमवचारी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों

और उनके कमवकारों के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औगिकोजगक जववाि में श्रम न्यायालय, औरंगाबाि के ृंचाट

(संिभव सं्‍या 146/2017) को प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.11.2020 को प्राप्त हुए े ।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2020- आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2020

S.O. 1085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 146/2017) of the Labour Court, Aurangabad as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Indus Towers Ltd., PUNE (MS) &

Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 18.11.2020.

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

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3163

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, MAHARASHTRA AT AURANGABAD

Reference (IDA) No. 146/2017

(CNR NO. MHLC200013902016)

Between :

1

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd.,

E Crore, Office No. 2010,

2nd Floor, Marvbel Edge, Viman Nagar,

PUNE 411014

…First party No. I

2

M/s. Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Office no. 509, 5th Floor,

Nucleus MLL, 1, Church Road,

PUNE 411001.

…First party No. II

AND

Sh. Shriram Vishnu Malunjkar

Through: The Secretary,

Indus Mobile Tower Technical Karmchari Sanghatana,

C/o. Sh. Narayan Waman Ghule

75/5, K Sector, Pavan Nagar,

N-9, CIDCO, Aurangabad 431003.

Second party/workman

AWARD

Dtd. 15.02.2020

1

This Reference has been made over by Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) Ministry of Labour by its

order dtd. 23/10/2017 to resolve the dispute between the above-named parties in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of sub-section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 ( which shall hereinafter referred to as the I.D.Act,1947) for absorbing him the post of permanent

Technician for having served loyally for long period w.e.f. 2.9.2010 by regularizing his service is justified ? If

yes, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?

2

After receiving the said Reference order from the Central Government, this office has issued notices to the

workman/second party to appear in the matter. On perusal of the Bailiff report which is at Ex.3 shows that on

behalf of the second party, one Sh. Narayan Waman Ghule who is the Secretary of Indus Mobile Tower

Technical Karmchari Sanghatana has received the notice. The Roznama of the proceeding shows that time and

again, the opportunity to appear in the matter was given to the second party, but he remains absent. This itself

shows that he is not interested to proceed with the matter. Under such circumstances, the matter is kept for

order on 15/02/2020 for passing order. Hence, I pass the following Award.

AWARD

1

The Reference is answered in negative.

2

Copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication.

3

No order as to costs.

Dtd. 15.02.2020

D. V. JOSHI, Presiding Officer & Judge

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2020

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

ljdkj lSUVªy os;jgkmflax dksjiksjs'ku xksMkmu] dqfj;kfpjk 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; bZjukdqye] dksphu ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 06@2016½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-42011@14@2015-vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu oS|] mi funs'kd

3164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2020

S.O. 1086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ERNAKULAM, Cochin as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management

of Central Warehousing Corporation Godown, Kuriachira and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 10.12.2020.

[No. L-42011/14/2015- IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. V. Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer

(Friday the 27th day of November 2019, 6 Agrahayana 1941)

ID No. 06/2016

Workman/Union

: 1.

The General Secretary

Thrissur Jilla General Mazdoor

Sangham (BMS)

Shornur Road, Thiruvampadi

Patturaickal

Thrissur - 680022

By Adv. C. Anilkumar

2.

The General Secretary

General Workers Union (CITU)

CWC Godown

Thrissur – 680006

By Adv. K.V. Rejanish

3.

The General Secretary

Thrissur Head Load Worker’s

Union (AITUC)

CWC Godown, Kuriachira

Thrissur – 680006

By Adv. K.A. Anas

4.

The General Secretary

Thrissur Head Load Worker’s Union (INTUC)

CWC Godown, Kuriachira

Thrissur – 680006

By Adv. A.S. Dheeraj

Management

:

The Warehouse Manager

Central Warehousing

Corporation Godown

Kuriachira

Thrissur – 680006

By Adv. Elvin Peter P. J.

This case coming up for final hearing on 27.11.2020 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the

same day passed the following:

AWARD

1.

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section

10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order

No. L-42011/14/2015-IR(M) dated 20.01.2016 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

2.

The dispute referred is;

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3165

“Whether the Demand of the BMS union that the 12 Labourers of their union should be given equal

pay as enjoyed by the 44 workers of the AITUC, CITU & INTUC union of CWC godown at

Kuriachira, Thrissur is justified ? If not what relief they are entitled? ’’

3.

The present industrial dispute is an inter se dispute between trade unions regarding sharing of work

available in the ware house of Central Warehousing Corporation. The dispute was raised by the 1st union.

4.

Notice was issued to all the unions in the dispute and also the management. All the unions and the

management entered appearance. The unions filed their claim statements. The management also filed written

statement against the claim filed by the 1st union. Union 2-4 filed objections to the claim petition filed by the 1st

union. At this stage of proceedings the Counsel for the 1st union which raised the claim filed a memo dt.

25.05.2020 informing that the 1st union is not interested to pursue the industrial dispute. Hence the matter was

posted on 27.11.2020 to hear the unions 2-4 and the management. There was no representation on the side of

other unions as well as the management. Since the 1st union which raised the inter se dispute between the trade

unions informed through their Counsel that they are not interested in adjudicating the industrial dispute, the

dispute referred to this Tribunal cannot be adjudicated.

5.

In the above circumstance a ‘no dispute award’ is passed in this case and reference is answered

accordingly.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 27th day of November,

2019.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2020

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

ljdkj uks,eqUMh vk;ju vksj ekbUl ds izca/kra= lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; la- 1] ?kuckn ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- 238@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-26012@14@2000-vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

uohu oS|] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2020

S.O. 1087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 238/2000) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Noamundi Iorn Ore Mines and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.12.2020.

[No. L-26012/14/2000-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 238/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Noamundi Iron Ore Mines of M/s. TISCO Ltd.

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

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

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Iron

Dated : 29.09 .2020

3166 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No.L-26012/14/2000-IR(M) dated 18/08/2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Noamundi Iron Mine of M/s TISCO in dismissing

Sh. Arjun Das is justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman Sh. Arjun Das is entitled?”

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

subsequently both the parties left appearing before the Tribunal. Thereafter again regd. notices were issued to

both the parties but even then no one appeared. Later on the Ld. Lawyer of management appeared but no one

appeared on behalf of the workman/union. Now the Case is pending since 18/09/2000 and workman/union is

not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2020

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

ljdkj lSUVªy cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 52@2009½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12012@69@2009-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2020

S.O. 1088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank

of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.12.2020.

[No. L-12012/69/2009 -IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 01ST DECEMBER, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 52/2009

I Party

II Party

Smt. K Sudha Rani,

No. 12, Gurubasava Nilaya,

Lingaraj Nagar,

Hugar Layout,

Hubli - 580031,

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, PB No. 5129,

No. 24, Crescent Road,

Bangalore - 560001.

Appearance :

Advocate for I Party : Mr. V. S. Naik

Advocate for II Party : Mr. F. G. Gudneyyanavar

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3167

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/69/2009-IR(B-II) dated 24.11.2009 in exercise of

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

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

“Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing the services of

Smt. K. Sudha Rani w.e.f. 12.11.2007 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman

concerned is entitled?”

1.

The 1st Party workman is the former Clerk of the 2nd Party Bank who is dismissed from service after

the charges against her came to be proved in a Departmental Enquiry. She has raised the Industrial Dispute

assailing the validity of the procedure and conduct of enquiry, the Report of the Enquiry Officer and the legality

of the punishment order. She claims that the punishment is too harsh and disproportionate, now she is

unemployed and seeks for reinstatement and monetary compensation.

2.

The 2nd Party in their counter statement denied all the allegations levelled in the claim statement and

would justify the punishment order as legal and valid. The punishment order passed by the Disciplinary

Authority is confirmed by the Appellate Authority by following all the Rules and Regulations and after giving

opportunity to the 1st Party.

3.

On the basis of rival pleading, a Preliminary Issue was raised in respect of the fairness of the Domestic

Enquiry held against the 1st Party workman, after contest the issue was answered in the affirmative by

upholding the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry.

4.

The documents marked during the enquiry as Ex M-1 to Ex M-93 are not produced with the Enquiry

Records. Notice was issued to both parties calling upon them to produce the documents marked in the enquiry

as Ex M-1 to Ex M-93. Surprisingly the notice issued to the 2nd Party has returned unserved with the

endorsement ‘Left’.

5.

The 1st Party workman adduced evidence about her unemployment from the date of dismissal.

6.

The allegation is that of unauthorised absence. The details of the unauthorised absence was cited in the

Charge Sheet dated 03.08.2007. The unauthorised absence spreads over from 06.10.2004 to 25.05.2007 and till

the date of Charge Sheet. It was not a continuous absence but intermittent absence totalling to 607 days. In the

very same Charge Sheet, her previous punishment on the similar act in the year 2005 was also referred. It was

also alleged in the Charge Sheet that she ‘…..was called back for duty vide letter …. dated 28.03.2007, but she

has failed to report back for her duty till date. Mrs. K Sudharani has been sending letters requesting for

extension of leave without specifying the nature of ailment which warrants such long absence but has forwarded

Medical Certificates casually in support of her claim. The copy of Medical certificate issued by District

Surgeon submitted along with the reply to the memo recommends rest upto 25.05.2007. But Mrs K Sudharani

continued to remain absent till date and just submitted copies of the same Medical Certificate issued upto

25.05.2007 by adding extension of the dates which is not acceptable.’

7.

The Presenting Officer had submitted a detailed written brief (Ex M-15) along with Annexure detailing

the period of leave, nature of leave (casual, privilege, sick, unavailed leave, loss of pay, totally 608 days of LOP

between 10.02.2004 to 03.08.2007). In response to the same the 1st Party in her letter dated 15.10.2007 (Ex M-

16) had stated that Annexure one to Mr. Sreenidhi (Presenting Officer) letter dated 08.10.2007 is not in

conformity with leave period maintain at Regional Office 20.01.2004.

8.

The CSE since denied the charges the enquiry was proceeded; in the initial stage of enquiry with the

assistance of her Defence Representative she had appeared but thereafter did not pursue her defence.

One witness working as Assistant Manager at the Regional Office of the 2nd Party who is also in-charge of leave

records was examined for the Management. He identified the documents produced by the Management as

office records in the staff file of the CSE and the documents are marked through him as ME-1 to ME-93. He

gave an account of the leave debited to the CSE’s leave account. The CSE did not attend the enquiry hearing to

cross examine the witness.

The next witness for the Management was the Manager at the Regional Office, Bangalore who is in-

charge of GAD Department, he explained the documents already marked.

1st Party remained absent and did not cross examine this witness also. The enquiry came to be closed.

9.

The Enquiry Officer in the body of his finding for his convenience analysed the charges as:

i) She was punished earlier for her unauthorised absence.

ii) She continued to remain absent very frequently without

3168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

obtaining any prior permission or notice to the Competent Authority

10.

Two documents ME-2 and ME-3 are said to be the orders of the Disciplinary Authority awarding

punishment to her (in respect of her previous unauthorised absence). ME-91 Leave Register, ME-92 Muster

Roll of the staff of Regional Office, Bangalore from October 2004 to 03.08.2007. The communications between

the CSE and the Regional Office like leave applications, letter addressed by the Regional Office, Postal

acknowledgement, memos issued to her for remaining absent, unclaimed memo from her, medical fitness

certificates produced by her for her absence, the order deputing her to Indiranagar Branch, the letter of the

Branch Manager of Indiranagar stating that during her tenure at the said branch she remained absent on two

occasions without submitting leave applications, the letter from Miller Road Branch to Indiranagar Branch etc.

On the scrutiny of these documents only, the Enquiry Officer had found that,

“CSE is habitual in absenting herself from the duties very frequently without obtaining any

permission or notice to the competent authority, which has put the Bank to lot of inconvenience. Her

action constitutes misconduct as per clause 5(j) of Disciplinary Action procedure for workmen dated

10.04.2002. Hence, I hold that the charge is PROVED”.

11.

To evaluate the correctness of the Enquiry Report the documentary evidence which were dwelled upon

by the Enquiry Officer was required; unfortunately the documents exhibited during enquiry are not made

available by the 2nd Party. It was an ex-parte enquiry and no burden can be entrusted on the 1st Party to produce

the copies of the documents marked during the enquiry. The 2nd Party on the direction issued by this Court

produced 80 documents, they are all leave applications, medical certificates / fitness certificates, previous

punishment orders, memos etc. One thing is certain from these documents that, throughout her service was not

on smooth sail, she is a habitual absentee. Unfortunately, I do not find any mark on any of these documents for

having been produced during the Domestic Enquiry and exhibited as Management Document. Hence, these

documents cannot be counted upon to evaluate the correctness of the Enquiry Record. In that view of the

matter, this Tribunal is disabled to either uphold or reject the correctness of the Enquiry Report. Consequently,

the punishment order imposed on the workman acting on the Enquiry Report cannot be endorsed.

Hence, it is inevitable to record a finding to the referred issue that, the action of the management of

Central Bank of India in dismissing the services of Smt. K Sudha Rani w.e.f 12.11.2007 is not legal and not

justified. Having said so, the immediate task is, to frame the relief.

12.

It is not her case that on each occasion she had gone on leave by submitting leave letters or she had

worked on the dates which are considered as unauthorised leave by the 2nd Party. Going by her claim statement

averments all her leave was directly connected to medical issue of herself, her husband and family problems, as

her husband who was an employee of State Bank of India was posted at the place away from her. She has not

disputed two minor punishments suffered by her on the previous occasions.

13.

The punishment order is not interfered on its merits but due to the lapses on the part of the 2nd Party for

not producing the documents marked during the Enquiry. As per her affidavit evidence given before this Court

on 30.09.2019 she is not employed anywhere for gain and is aged 50 years that is to say that she is eligible to

render service on reinstatement. Though she has contended that after the dismissal from her service she could

not get alternate employment, in the peculiar facts of the circumstances, I am not inclined to order back wages.

AWARD

The Reference is accepted.

The action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing the services Smt. K. Sudha Rani

w.e.f. 12.11.2007 is not legal and not justified.

2nd Party is directed to reinstate the workman to her original post without back wages with continuity

of service only for the purpose of calculating her terminal benefits on her attaining superannuation.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 01st December, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3169

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2020

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

ljdkj cSad vkQ cMkSnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 61@2014½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-12011@39@2013-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2020

S.O. 1089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of

Baroda, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.12.2020.

[No. L-12011/39/2013 -IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR.

Present: Sri B. C. Rath,LL.B., Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar

I.D.Case No.61 of 2014

This the 14th day of ,October,2019

1.

The Regional Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,

Orissa Region, Ispat Bhawan, Unit-IV,

271,Bidyut Marg, Bhubaneswar.(Orissa)-751001.

2.

The Senior Branch Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Patnagarh Branch,

P.O. Patnagarh, District –Bolangir. (Orissa).

…1st Party Managements

-Versus-

The General Secretary,

All Orissa Bank of Baroda Karmachari Saangh,

C/o. Bank of Baroda , Sector-19, Rourkela.

District-Sundargarh.

…2nd Party Union

AWARD

This Industrial Dispute Case is registered in the event of the reference received from the Government

of India Ministry of Labour and Employment in exercising its authority conferred under clause(d) of sub-

section(1) and sub-section(2A) of Section 10 of the I.D.Act,1947(14 of 1947) vide their Letter

No. L-12011/39/2013-IR(B-II) Dated 17.7.2013 for adjudication:-

“Whether the claim of the All Orissa Bank Of Baroda Karmachari Sangh in allowing the workman

Sri Jogeswar Meher to appear for the interview for the post of Sweeper-cum-Peon in Bank of

Baroda for rendering more than 2 years continuous service at Patnagarh Branch of the Bank is

legal and or justified? What relief the workman is entitled to ?”

“Whether the claim of the All Orissa Bank of Baroda Karmachari Sangh in allowing the workman

Sri Jogeswar Meher to give preference over other candidate and to regularize him in the post of

Sweeper – cum- peon even if he has crossed the age limit, has not obtained the required

qualification or has not been sponsored through Employment Exchange but, for his satisfactory

3170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

work done for continuously more than two years in Patnagarh branch of Bank of Baroda? What

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

2.

Neither party is present. It is seen from the record that after filing of statement of claim by the 2nd

Party Union and the written statement by the Management Bank date was fixed to 11.7.2018 for hearing on

settlement of issues and admission of documents by the parties if any. Neither the 2nd Party Union nor the

Management appeared on 11.7.2018 and on subsequent date of adjournments five in numbers. The case is fixed

to day as a matter of last chance giving opportunity to the Union to proceed with their claim on the pleadings

advanced in the statement of claim. Since the 2nd Party failed to appear and adduce his evidence in support of

the claim advanced in the statement of claim, there is no material before this Tribunal on the basis of which

the dispute under reference can be adjudicated judicially.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that until adjudication of the dispute referred to by the authority

concerned, there is no provision in the Act to pass a no dispute award or nil award due to failure of the

disputant to make his appearance and to prosecute his claim. Passing of no dispute or Nil award in absence of

the disputant or both the parties as per the settled principles would be a misconception and the above

position is settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in the case between M/s. IDL Chemicals Limited –

Versus- P.O. Labour Court, Sambalpur reported in 72(1991) CLT 73 and in the decision of the Calcutta High

Court in the case of B.R. Bermen and Mohatta (India) Pvt. Ltd., -Versus- Seventh Industrial Tribmunal,West

Bengal and others (short noted in 1977 Lab. I.C.(NOC) 13 (CAL) the Hon’ble High Courts have held that so

long as the dispute remains unsettled and the proceeding came to an end without adjudication of the dispute

between the parties , the dispute persist and there is no bar under the Act whereby the Government is precluded

from referring the dispute over and again so that there may be an industrial adjudication as contemplated by

the Act. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances as well as the settled principles it is just and

appropriate to dismiss the case registered on the reference of the dispute with no award due to default of the 2nd

Party Union and the reference is disposed of accordingly.A copy of this order be sent to the Government of

India Ministry of Labour for necessary action at their end.

Dictated & corrected by me.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2020

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

ljdkj U;w eaxyksj iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 02@2020½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-45011@02@2019-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2020

S.O. 1090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

New Mangalore Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.12.2020.

[No. L-45011/02/2019 IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : दिसम् बर 19, 2020/अग्रिायण 28, 1942

3171

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED :1st DECEMBER 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

C R No. 02/2020

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

New Mangalore Port& Dock Workers

Union,Market Building, Panambur,

MANGALORE – 575 010.

TheSecretary,

New Mangalore Port Trust,

NMP Wharf Co-operative Canteen, Panambur,

MANGALORE – 575 010.

Appearances:

I Party :

None

II Party :

None

1.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labourvide order No. L-45011/02/2019-IR(B-II) dated

23.12.2019in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) (14 of 1947) referred the following

Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the new Mangalore Port & Dock Worker’s Union, Panambur to grant

Earned Leave, Casual Leave and Overtime Wages to 9 Casual / daily rated Employees (as per

annexure) working in New Mangalore Port Wharf Co-operative Canteen Limited over New

Mangalore Port Trust, as extended to monthly rated regularly employees of the canteen, is legal,

justified & proper? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference order, notice was issued to both parties and served. But they have not

appeared nor did anybody represented them.

3.

In the circumstance, it is inevitable to hold that the 1st Party failed to justify their demand and

concerned workmen are not entitled for any relief.

AWARD

Reference is Rejected.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on1st DECMBER 2020)

JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2020

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

eaxyksj iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼01@2020½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-12-

2020 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-45011@01@2019-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2020

S.O. 1091.—In. pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

New Mangalore Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14.12.2020.

[No. L-45011/01/2019 IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

3172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 19, 2020/AGRAHAYANA 28, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED :1st DECEMBER 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

C R No. 01/2020

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

New Mangalore Port Staff Association, Behind

NMPT Co-operative Canteen, Panambur,

MANGALORE – 575 010.

TheChairman,

New Mangalore Port Trust,

Panambur,

MANGALORE – 575 010.

Appearances :

I Party :

None

II Party : Sh. Ramesh Upadhyaya, Advocate

1.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labourvide order No. L-45011/01/2019-IR(B-II) dated

23.12.2019in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) (14 of 1947) referred the following

Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the New Mangalore Port Staff Association, Panambur, for granting of 3rd

MACP to Sh. Sudhakara, Junior Assistant, New Mangalore Port Trust if correct? And

Whether the demand of the Union for regularization of adhoc service of the workman w.e.f.

01.11.1980 in New Mangalore Port Trust, is legal, justified and proper?

If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference order, notice was issued to both parties. Notice was served on the 1st Party.

2nd Party though appeared through their Counsel have not filed their statement

3.

In the circumstance, it is inevitable to hold that the 1st Party failed to justify their demand and

concerned workmen are not entitled for any relief.

AWARD

Reference is Rejected.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on1st DECEMBER 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. MANOJ KUMAR

VERMA

Digitally signed by MANOJ

KUMAR VERMA

Date: 2020.12.28 11:39:00

+05'30'