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'