This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

click here for IIIF manifest

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-07012021-224259

CG-DL-W-07012021-224259

xxxGIDExxx

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 49] नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 27, 2020—जनवरी 2, 2021, शनिवार/ पौष 6— पौष 12, 1942

No. 49] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 27, 2020 – JANUARY 2, 2021, SATURDAY/ PAUSHA 6–PAUSHA 12, 1942

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर, 2020

का. आ. 1105.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन, सीमाशुल्क आयुक्त कार्यालय : निर्यात, नई दिल्ली, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक ञानान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है।

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

किरण घिल्डियाल, उप निदेशक (राजभाषा)

6236 GI/2020

(3225)3226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2020

S.O. 1105.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, Office of the Commissioner of Customs : Export, New Delhi, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

KIRAN GHILDIYAL, Dy. Director (OL)

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1106.—कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 29 अगस्त, 2020 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 719, तारीख 27 अगस्त, 2020 के प्रकाशन पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णिंत भूमि और ऐसी भूमि, (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है), में के सभी अधिकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यंतिक रूप में के न्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे ;

और, के न्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, कि वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, नागपुर, महाराष्ट्र (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त कं पनी कहा गया है), ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का, जो के न्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है ।

अत: अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है, कि इस प्रकार निहित भूमि 974.98 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 2409.17 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार तारीख 29 अगस्त, 2020 से के न्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाए, निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सरकारी कं पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे, अर्थात् :-

(1) सरकारी कं पनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन और अन्य सुसंगत विधि के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज, नुकसानियों आदि से संबंधित और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत् किए गए सभी संदायों की प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी;

(2) शर्त (1) के अधीन, सरकारी कं पनी द्वारा संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजनों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा और ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय सरकारी कं पनी द्वारा वहन किए जाऐंगे और इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में अपीलों आदि जैसी सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत् उपगत, सभी व्यय भी, सरकारी कं पनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे ;

(3) सरकारी कं पनी, के न्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी, जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में, के न्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;

(4) सरकारी कं पनी को के न्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना उक्त भूमि में इस प्रकार निहित पूर्वोक्त

अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी ; और

(5) सरकारी कं पनी, ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का पालन करेगी, जो के न्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा, जब कभी आवश्यक हो,

उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं ।

[फा. सं. 43015/07/2019-एलए एण्ड आईडी]

राम शिरोमणि सरोज, उप सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2020

S. O. 1106.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number S.O. 719, dated the 27th August, 2020, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub- section (ii), dated the 29th August, 2020, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all rights in or over the land described in the schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act ;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the said land measuring 974.98 hectares (approximately) or 2409.17 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over the said land so vested shall with effect from 29th August, 2020 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-

(1) The Government Company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest, damages, etc. and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant law;

(2) A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts payable by the Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings including appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights in or over the said lands, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government Company.

(3) The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested.

(4) The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested, to any other persons without the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5) The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/07/2019-LA&ID]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2020

.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957

(1957 का 20), (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात्‌ उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 7 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1817, तारीख 10 अक्तूबर, 2019 तथा जो भारत सरकार के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 12 अक्तूबर, 2019 में प्रकाशित की गई थी और तत्पश्चात़ का.आ. संख्यांक 592, तारीख 30 जुलाई, 2020 द्वारा संशोधित की गयी थी, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की 1042.73 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 2575.54 एकड़ (लगभग) भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ;

और, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार की, पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्‌ और झारखण्ड सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्‌्‌ यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 1042.73 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 2575.54 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि अर्जित की जानी चाहिए ;

अतः, अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में यथावर्णित 1042.73 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 2575.54 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि और ऐसी भूमि मंें या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किये जाते है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले सम्पूर्ण क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या पीवीयूएनएल/ बीएएन/एसईसी-9(1), तारीख 26 अक्तूबर, 2020 का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त, जिला लातेहार-829206, झारखण्ड के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट कोलकाता 700001 के कार्यालय में या उप-महाप्रबन्धक (सीएम-सिविल ), पतरातु विधुत उत्पादन निगम लिमिटेड, पतरातु, जिला रामगढ़-829119, झारखण्ड या अपर महाप्रबन्धक (सीएम), पतरातु विद्युत उत्पादन निगम लिमिटेड, पतरातु, जिला-रामगढ़-829119, झारखण्ड के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

बनहरदी कोयला ब्लॉक

औरंगा कोलफील्ड

जिला लातेहार, झारखण्ड़

[रेखांक संख्या पीवीयूएनएल/बीएएन/एसईसी-9(1), तारीख 26 अक्तूबर, 2020]

(क) कुल राजस्व भूमि : 874.86 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) = 2160.89 एकड़ (लगभग) (ख) कुल वन भूमि : 167.87 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) = 414.65 एकड़ (लगभग)

1.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 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(भाग), 61(भाग), 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(भाग), 161, 162, 163, 164(भाग), 165, 166, 167(भाग), 168(भाग), 169(भाग), 171(भाग), 176(भाग), 177(भाग), 178, 179(भाग), 180, 181, 182(भाग), 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192(भाग), 193, 194(भाग), 201(भाग), 202(भाग), 203, 204(भाग), 205, 206(भाग), 207(भाग), 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(भाग), 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248(भाग), 249, 250(भाग), 251(भाग), 254(भाग), 255(भाग), 256(भाग), 273(भाग), 275(भाग), 276(भाग), 385(भाग), 1087, 1095, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1110, 1111, 1112

2.

348(भाग), 349(भाग), 350(भाग), 351(भाग), 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360(भाग), 380(भाग), 381(भाग), 382(भाग), 383, 384, 385(भाग), 386(भाग), 396(भाग), 605(भाग), 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624(भाग), 628(भाग), 629, 630(भाग), 631(भाग), 632(भाग), 669(भाग), 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685(भाग), 686, 687, 688, 689(भाग), 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703(भाग), 704(भाग), 705(भाग), 708(भाग), 709(भाग), 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715(भाग), 716, 717, 718, 719(भाग), 724(भाग), 731(भाग), 732(भाग), 734(भाग), 735(भाग), 736, 737, 738(भाग), 739(भाग), 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, 784,3230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801(भाग), 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, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988(भाग), 989(भाग), 990(भाग), 991(भाग), 992, 993, 994(भाग), 995(भाग), 996, 997, 998(भाग), 999(भाग), 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003(भाग), 1005(भाग), 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038(भाग), 1129(भाग), 1130(भाग), 1131(भाग), 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147(भाग), 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152(भाग), 1153(भाग), 1154(भाग), 1156(भाग), 1157(भाग), 1158(भाग), 1161(भाग), 1191(भाग), 1192(भाग), 1193(भाग), 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197(भाग), 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1470(भाग), 1471, 1472(भाग), 1473(भाग), 1542(भाग), 1543(भाग), 1555(भाग), 1556(भाग), 1557(भाग), 1558(भाग), 1563(भाग), 1566(भाग), 1567(भाग), 1568(भाग), 1569, 1570, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1575, 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 1580, 1581, 1582, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593(भाग), 1594(भाग), 1599(भाग), 1638(भाग), 1643(भाग), 1647(भाग), 1648(भाग), 1649, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660(भाग), 1663(भाग), 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670(भाग), 1671, 1672(भाग), 1673, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1677(भाग), 1678(भाग), 1685(भाग), 1686, 1687(भाग), 1689, 1695(भाग) 1696(भाग), 1698(भाग), 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1704, 1705, 1706, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1729, 1730, 1731,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3231 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2049, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2056, 2057, 2058(भाग), 2059(भाग), 2060, 2061, 2062, 2063, 2064, 2065, 2066, 2067, 2068, 2069, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2079, 2080, 2081, 2082(भाग), 2083, 2084, 2085, 2086, 2087.

3.

8(भाग), 9(भाग), 10(भाग), 11(भाग), 12(भाग),14(भाग), 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26(भाग), 27, 28(भाग), 29(भाग), 31(भाग), 32(भाग), 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, 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(भाग), 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, 173(भाग), 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196(भाग), 197(भाग), 198(भाग), 199, 200, 201, 202, 203(भाग), 204(भाग), 205(भाग), 206(भाग), 208(भाग), 210(भाग), 211(भाग), 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224(भाग), 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242(भाग), 243(भाग), 244, 245, 246(भाग), 247(भाग), 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, 313,3232 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 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, 479(भाग), 480(भाग), 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 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, 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, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016(भाग), 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066(भाग), 1067(भाग), 1070(भाग), 1090(भाग), 1091(भाग), 1092(भाग), 1093(भाग), 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100(भाग), 1101, 1102(भाग), 1103(भाग), 1104(भाग), 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3233 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1470, 1471, 1472, 1473, 1474, 1475, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1481(भाग), 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492(भाग), 1493, 1494(भाग), 1511(भाग), 1512(भाग), 1513(भाग), 1514(भाग), 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519(भाग), 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1528, 1529, 1530, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1536, 1537, 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1544, 1545, 1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1555, 1556, 1557, 1558, 1559, 1560, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566, 1567, 1568, 1569, 1570, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1575, 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 1580, 1581, 1582, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593, 1594, 1595, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607, 1608, 1609, 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1638, 1639, 1640, 1641, 1642, 1643, 1644, 1645, 1646, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672, 1673, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1698, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1704, 1705, 1706, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1729, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787(भाग), 1788(भाग), 1789(भाग), 1790(भाग), 1794(भाग), 1826(भाग), 1827, 1828, 1829(भाग), 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845(भाग), 1846(भाग), 1848(भाग), 1850(भाग), 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857,3234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910(भाग), 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916(भाग), 1917(भाग), 1930(भाग), 1937(भाग), 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941(भाग), 1942(भाग), 1950(भाग), 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962(भाग), 1964(भाग), 1971(भाग), 1987(भाग), 1988(भाग), 1989(भाग), 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010(भाग), 2011(भाग), 2012(भाग), 2013(भाग), 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055(भाग), 2057(भाग), 2058(भाग), 2059, 2060(भाग), 2061(भाग), 2066(भाग), 2067, 2068(भाग), 2069(भाग), 2070(भाग), 2071, 2072, 2073(भाग), 2074(भाग), 2075(भाग), 2078, 2079(भाग), 2080(भाग), 2101(भाग), 2155(भाग), 2156(भाग), 2157(भाग), 2158(भाग), 2159(भाग), 2160(भाग), 2161(भाग), 2162, 2163, 2164, 2165, 2166, 2167, 2168, 2169, 2170, 2171, 2172, 2173, 2174(भाग), 2177(भाग), 2797(भाग), 2798, 2799(भाग), 2800, 2803, 2805, 2806, 2807, 2809(भाग) 2811, 2813, 2815, 2816, 2817, 2818, 2819, 2820, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2825, 2826, 2827, 2828, 2829, 2830, 2831(भाग), 2833, 2835, 2836.

4.

1,(भाग), 2, 3(भाग), 4(भाग), 5(भाग), 6(भाग), 7, 8(भाग), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13(भाग), 14(भाग), 15(भाग), 35(भाग), 39(भाग), 145(भाग), 146, 147(भाग), 148, 149(भाग), 180(भाग), 181(भाग), 182(भाग), 183, 184(भाग), 185, 186, 187, 188(भाग), 509(भाग).

5.

1, 3, 4, 5, 6(भाग), 7(भाग), 9 (भाग), 10(भाग), 11(भाग), 12(भाग), 69(भाग).

918(भाग), 919(भाग), 920, 921(भाग), 925(भाग), 928(भाग), 932(भाग), 933(भाग), 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944(भाग), 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955(भाग), 956, 957, 958(भाग), 960(भाग), 964(भाग), 965(भाग), 970(भाग), 971, 972(भाग), 973(भाग), 977(भाग), 978(भाग), 998(भाग), 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003(भाग), 1006(भाग), 1007, 1008, 1009(भाग), 1011(भाग), 1042(भाग), 1594.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16(भाग), 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31(भाग), 34(भाग), 115(भाग), 116(भाग), 117(भाग), 118, 119, 120(भाग), 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128(भाग), 129, 130, 131, 132(भाग), 135, 136, 140, 141, 142(भाग), 143, 144, 145(भाग), 165(भाग), 166(भाग), 168, 169, 170, 171, 172(भाग), 173(भाग), 174(भाग), 176(भाग), 177, 178(भाग), 179(भाग), 203(भाग), 444(भाग), 447(भाग), 621(भाग).

1. ग्राम ़ एटे : 24. 2.ग्राम बारी : 1303, 62, 9, 6(भाग), 5(भाग), 4(भाग), 1281, 1283, 35, 187, 91, 116, 93, 114, 1310(भाग), 771(भाग).

3.ग्राम सुरली : 296(भाग), 305. 4.ग्राम टोटा : 2 (भाग), 144(भाग).

रेखाः-क-क1-ख-ख1-ख2-ख3-ख4-ख5-ख6-ख7-गः रेखा ग्राम बनहरदी (थाना चंदवा) में प्लाट संख्या 732 में बिंदु 'क' से आरम्भ होते हुए उत्तर पूर्व दिशा में प्लाट संख्या 732 में बिंदु 'क1' तक हैं। इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा पूर्व दिशा में बढ़ती हुए 'क1' से बिंदु 'ख' तक बनहरदी के प्लाट संख्या 719, 685, 1563, 1648, 1687 से गुजरते हुए पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा दक्षिण पूर्व दिशा में बिंदु 'ख' से बढ़ती हुए ग्राम सुरली के वन भूमि प्लाट संख्या 16, 31, से गुजरती हुए ग्राम सुरली में बिंदु ख1 में प्लाट संख्या 120 तक हैंं । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ख1 से दक्षिण पूर्व दिशा में ग्राम सुरली के प्लाट संख्या 120 और 128 से होते हुए बिंदु ख2 ग्राम सुरली के प्लाट संख्या 128 तक पहुँचती है। इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ख2 से ग्राम सुरली प्लाट संख्या 115, 166, 172, 447 और ग्राम बारी प्लाट संख्या 1016, 1066 से गुजरती हुए दक्षिण पूर्व दिशा में ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 1066 में बिंदु ख3 तक पहुँचती है। इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ख3 से दक्षिण पूर्व दिशा बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 1093, 1100, 1103, 1104 से गुजरती हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 1788, में बिंदु ख4 तक पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ख4 से दक्षिण पूर्व दिशा में बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 1789, 1787, 1826, 1845 से गुजरती हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 1848 में बिंदु ख5 तक पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ख5 से ग्राम बारी प्लाट संख्या 1916, 1910, 1950, 1962 से गुजरते हुए दक्षिण पूर्व दिशा में ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 1964, में बिंद ख6 तक पहुँचती है। इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ख6 से ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 1987, 1988 और ग्राम रामपुर के प्लाट संख्या 918, 919, 928 से गुजरती हुए दक्षिण पूर्व दिशा में ग्राम रामपुर प्लाट संख्या 944 में बिंदु ख7 तक पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा दक्षिण पूर्व दिशा में बढ़ती हुए ग्राम रामपुर के प्लाट संख्या 972, 955, 1009 से गुजरती हुए ग्राम रामपुर के प्लाट संख्या 1011 में बिंदु 'ख' तक पहुँचती है।

रेखाः- ग-ग1-ग2-ग3-ग4-ग5-घः रेखा ग्राम रामपुर के प्लाट संख्या 1011 में बिंदु 'ग' से दक्षिण दिशा में बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 2010 में बिंदु ग1 तक पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ग1 दक्षिण पश्चिम दिशा में बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बारी प्लाट संख्या 2012, 2075, 2074 से गुजरते हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 2080 में बिंदु ग2 तक पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ग2 से दक्षिण पश्चिम दिशा में बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 2080, 2073 से गुजरती हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 2073 बिंदु ग3 तक पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा दक्षिण पश्चिम दिशा में बढ़ती हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 2060, 2058, 2156, 2159, 2174, 1514, 1492 और ग्राम एटे के प्लाट संख्या 385, 273, 275, 206, 201 से गुजरती हुए ग्राम एटे के प्लाट संख्या 192, में बिंदु ग4 तक पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ग4 दक्षिण पश्चिम दिशा में बढ़ती हुए ग्राम एटे के प्लाट संख्या 194, 179, 164, 1106 और ग्राम बरवाडीह के प्लाट संख्या 509,149,145,39 से गुजरती हुए ग्राम बरवाडीह के प्लाट संख्या 14 में बिंदु ग5 तक पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा बिंदु ग5 पश्चिम दिशा में बढ़ती हुए ग्राम बरवाडीह के प्लाट संख्या 15, 6, 3 और ग्राम टोटा के प्लाट संख्या 12, 11, 7 से गुजरती हुए ग्राम टोटा के वन भूमि प्लाट संख्या 6, में बिंदु 'घ' तक पहुँचती है ।

रेखाः-घ-घ1-घ2-घ3-घ4-घ5-घ6-घ7-घ8-घ9-घ10-घ11-घ12-घ13-घ14-ङः रेखा ग्राम टोटा के वन भूमि प्लाट संख्या 6 में बिंदु'घ' से उत्तर पश्चिम दिशा में बढ़ती हुए इसी प्लाट में बिंदु 'घ1' तक3236 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] पहुँचती है । इसके पश्चात्‌ यह रेखा में नाला के किनारे होते हुए ग्राम टोटा में प्लाट संख्या 69 में बिंदु घ2 और, घ3 और ग्राम बारी प्लाट संख्या 204 में बिंदु घ4, घ5, घ6, घ7, घ8, घ9, घ10, घ11, घ12, और घ13 से, और ग्राम बारी वन भूमि प्लाट संख्या 8 में बिंदु घ14 होते हुए ग्राम बारी के वन भूमि प्लाट संख्या 8 में बिंदु 'ङ' तक पहुँचती है।

रेखाः-ङ-कः रेखा ग्राम बारी के वन भूमि प्लाट संख्या 8 में बिंदु 'ङ' से उत्तर दिशा में बढ़ते हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 8, 9, 10, 12 में जंगल से होते हुए ग्राम बारी के प्लाट संख्या 11, 26, 29, 31 और ग्राम बनहरदी प्लाट संख्या 1193, 1131, 1005 ,991, 350, 386, 735 से गुजरते हुए ग्राम बनहरदी के प्लाट संख्या 732 में बिंदु 'क' पर समाप्त होती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/40/2017-एलए एण्ड आईडी]

राम षिरोमणि सरोज, उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2020

S. O. 1107.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1817, dated the 10th October, 2019, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 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 12th October, 2019 and subsequently amended vide number S.O. 592, dated the 30th July, 2020, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands measuring 1042.73 hectares (approximately) or 2575.54 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Go ver n me n t of Jharkhand is satisfied that the lands measuring 1042.73 hectares (approximately) or 2575.54 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule appended hereto should be acquired.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 1042.73 hectares (approximately) or 2575.54 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number PVUNL/ BAN/ SEC- 9(1), dated the 26th October, 2020 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Latehar-829206, Jharkhand or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700 001 or in the office of the DGM (CM-Civil), Patratu Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Patratu, District Ramgarh-829119, Jharkhand or in the office of the Additional General Manager (CM), Patratu Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Patratu, District Ramgarh-829119, Jharkhand.

SCHEDULE

Banhardih Coal Block

Auranga Coalfield

District - Latehar, Jharkhand

[ Plan bearing number PVUNL/ BAN/ SEC- 9(1), dated the 26th October, 2020 ]

ALL RIGHTS :

(A) REVENUE LAND:

(B) FOREST LAND:

SUMMARY:

(A)Total Revenue Land : 874.86 hectares (approximately)=2160.89 acres (approximately)

(B)Total Forest Land : 167.87 hectares (approximately) =414.65 acres (approximately)

(C )Grand Total (A+B) :1042.73 hectares (approximately) =2575.54 acres (approximately)

LIST OF REVENUE PLOTES TO BE ACQUIRED :

1. Village - ATE:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 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(Part), 61(Part), 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(Part), 161, 162, 163, 164(Part), 165, 166, 167(Part), 168(Part), 169(Part), 171(Part), 176(Part), 177(Part), 178, 179(Part), 180, 181, 182(Part), 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192(Part), 193, 194(Part), 201(Part), 202(Part), 203, 204(Part), 205, 206(Part), 207(Part), 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(Part), 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248(Part), 249, 250(Part), 251(Part), 254(Part), 255(Part), 256(Part), 273(Part), 275(Part), 276(Part), 385(Part), 1087, 1095, 1099, 1100, 1101,1110, 1111, 1112.

2. Village–BANHARDI:

348(Part), 349(Part), 350(Part), 351(Part), 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360(Part), 380(Part), 381(Part), 382(Part), 383, 384, 385(Part), 386(Part), 396(Part), 605(Part), 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612,613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624(Part), 628(Part), 629, 630(Part), 631(Part), 632(Part), 669(Part), 670, 671, 672, 673,674, 675, 676, 677,678, 679,680,681,682,683, 684, 685(Part), 686, 687, 688, 689(Part), 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697,698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 70 3(part),704 (Part), 705(Part), 708(Part), 709(Part), 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715(Part), 716, 717, 718,719(Part), 724(Part), 731(Part), 732(Part), 734(Part), 735(Part), 736, 737, 738(Part), 739(Part), 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(Part), 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, 849,3238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952,953, 954, 955,956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971,972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988(Part), 989(Part), 990(Part), 991(Part), 992, 993, 994(Part), 995(Part), 996, 997, 998(Part), 999(Part), 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003(Part), 1005(Part),1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038(Part), 1129(Part), 1130(Part), 1131(Part), 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147(Part), 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152(Part), 1153(Part), 1154(Part), 1156(Part), 1157(Part), 1158(Part), 1161(Part), 1191(Part), 1192(Part), 1193(Part), 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197(Part), 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323 ,1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328 ,1329 ,1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335 ,1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414 ,1415, 1416 ,1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1470(Part), 1471, 1472(Part), 1473(Part), 1542(Part), 1543(Part), 1555(Part), 1556(Part), 1557(Part), 1558(Part), 1563(Part), 1566(Part), 1567(Part), 1568(Part), 1569, 1570, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1575, 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 1580, 1581, 1582, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1586 ,1587, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593(Part), 1594(Part), 1599(Part), 1638(Part), 1643(Part), 1647(Part), 1648(Part), 1649, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653 ,1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660(Part), 1663(Part), 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1668), 1669, 1670(Part), 1671, 1672(Part), 1673, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1677(Part), 1678(Part), 1685(Part), 1686, 1687(Part), 1689, 1695(Part), 1696(Part), 1698(Part), 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1704, 1705, 1706, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725 ,1726 ,1727 ,1728 ,1729, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3239 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2049, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2056, 2057, 2058(Part), 2059(Part), 2060, 2061, 2062, 2063, 2064, 2065, 2066, 2067, 2068, 2069, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2079, 2080, 2081, 2082(Part), 2083, 2084, 2085, 2086, 2087.

3. Village – BARI:

8(Part), 9(Part), 10(Part), 11(part), 12(Part),14(Part), 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26(Part), 27, 28(Part), 29(Part), 31(Part), 32(Part), 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, 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(part), 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, 173(part), 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196(part), 197(part), 198(part), 199, 200, 201, 202, 203(part), 204(part), 205(part), 206(part), 208(part), 210(part), 211(part), 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224(part), 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242(part), 243(part), 244, 245, 246(part), 247(part), 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, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400,401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411,412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431 ,432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 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, 479(part), 480(part), 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 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, 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, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951,3240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016(Part), 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066(Part), 1067(part), 1070(part), 1090(Part) ,1091(Part), 1092(Part), 1093(Part), 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100(Part), 1101, 1102(Part), 1103(Part), 1104(Part), 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1470, 1471, 1472, 1473, 1474, 1475, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1481(Part), 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492(Part), 1493, 1494(Part), 1511(Part), 1512(Part), 1513(Part), 1514(Part), 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519(Part), 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1528, 1529, 1530, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1536, 1537, 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1544, 1545, 1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1555, 1556, 1557, 1558, 1559, 1560, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566, 1567, 1568, 1569, 1570, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1575, 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 1580, 1581, 1582, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589,1590, 1591, 1592, 1593, 1594, 1595, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607, 1608, 1609, 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1638, 1639, 1640, 1641, 1642, 1643, 1644, 1645, 1646, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672, 1673, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1698, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1704, 1705, 1706, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1729, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787(part), 1788(Part), 1789(part), 1790(part), 1794(Part), 1826(part), 1827, 1828, 1829(part), 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845(part), 1846(Part), 1848(part), 1850(Part), 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910(part), 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916(Part),[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3241 1917(Part), 1930(Part), 1937(part), 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941(Part), 1942(Part), 1950(Part), 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962(Part), 1964(Part), 1971(Part), 1987(part), 1988(Part), 1989(Part), 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010(Part), 2011(Part), 2012(Part), 2013(Part), 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055(Part), 2057(Part), 2058(Part), 2059, 2060(Part), 2061(Part), 2066(Part), 2067, 2068(Part), 2069(Part), 2070(Part), 2071, 2072, 2073(Part), 2074(Part), 2075(Part), 2078, 2079(Part), 2080(Part), 2101(part), 2155(Part), 2156(Part), 2157(Part), 2158(Part), 2159(Part), 2160(Part), 2161(Part), 2162, 2163, 2164, 2165, 2166, 2167, 2168, 2169, 2170, 2171, 2172, 2173, 2174(Part), 2177(Part), 2797(part), 2798, 2799(Part), 2800, 2803, 2805, 2806, 2807, 2809(Part), 2811, 2813, 2815, 2816, 2817, 2818, 2819, 2820, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2825, 2826, 2827, 2828, 2829, 2830, 2831(Part), 2833, 2835, 2836.

4. Village –BARWADIH:

1(Part ), 2, 3(Part), 4(Part), 5(Part), 6(Part), 7, 8(Part), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13(Part), 14(Part), 15(Part), 35(Part), 39(Part), 145(Part), 146, 147(Part), 148, 149(Part), 180(Part), 181(Part), 182(Part), 183, 184(Part), 185, 186, 187, 188(Part) ,509(Part).

5. Village –TOTA:

1, 3, 4, 5, 6(Part), 7(Part), 9 (Part), 10(Part), 11(Part), 12(Part), 69(Part).

6. Village - RAMPUR:

918(Part), 919(Part), 920, 921(Part), 925(Part), 928(Part), 932(Part), 933(Part), 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944(Part), 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955(Part), 956, 957, 958(Part), 960(Part), 964(Part), 965(Part), 970(Part), 971, 972(Part), 973(Part), 977(Part), 978(Part), 998(Part), 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003(Part), 1006(Part), 1007, 1008, 1009(Part), 1011(Part), 1042(Part), 1594.

7. Village - SURLI:

1, 2, 3, 6, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16(Part), 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31(Part), 3 4 (Part), 115(Part), 116(Part), 117(Part), 118, 119, 120(Part), 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128(Part), 129, 130, 131, 132(Part), 135, 136, 140, 141, 142(Part), 143, 144, 145(Part), 165(Part), 166(Part), 168, 169, 170, 171, 172(Part), 173(Part), 174(Part), 176(Part), 177, 178(Part), 179(Part), 203(Part), 444(Part), 447(Part), 621(Part).

List of Forest Cadastral Survey Plot numbers to be acquired: 1. Village Ate : 24.

2. Village Bari : 1303, 62, 9, 6 (Part), 5 (Part), 4 (Part), 1281, 1283, 35, 187, 91, 116, 93, 114, 1310 (Part), 71 (Part).

3. Village Surli : 296 (Part), 305.

4. Village Tota : 2 (Part), 144(Part).

Boundary description:

Line A – A1 – B – B1 - B2 – B3 – B4 – B5 – B6 – B7 – C : The line starts from point 'A' inside the plot no.732 of Banhardi village (Thana Chandwa ) moves in North-east direction to point A1 inside plot no.732 of Banhardi village. Line moves in East direction from point A1 to point B through plot nos.719, 685, 1563, 1648, 1687 in Banhardi village. Further line moves to Southeast direction from Point B to B1 in Plot no.120 of Surli village3242 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] through Plot nos. 16, 31 in forest land of Surli village. From point B1 line moves in Southeast direction to point B2 in plot no.128 of Surli village through plot no.128 in Surli village. From point B2 line moves in Southeast direction to point B3 in Plot no.1066 in Bari village through Plot nos.115, 166, 172, 447 in Surli village and through Plot nos.1016, 1066 in Bari village. Line moves further in Southeast direction from point B3 to point B4 in Plot no.1788 in Bari village through Plot nos.1093, 1100, 1103, 1104 in Bari village. Further block boundary line moves in Southeast direction form point B4 to point B5 in Plot no.1848 in Bari village through Plot nos.1789, 1787, 1826, 1845 in Bari village. Further line moves in Southeast direction from point B5 to point B6 in Plot no.1964 in Bari village through Plot nos. 1916, 1910, 1950, 1962 in village Bari. Further line moves in Southeast direction through Plot nos. 1987, 1988 in Bari village and Plot nos. 918, 919, 928, in Rampur village form point B6 to point B7 in Plot no.944 in Rampur village. Line moves in Southeast direction from point B7 to point C in Plot no.1011 in Rampur village, through Plot nos. 972, 955, 1009 in Rampur village.

Line C- C1- C2 – C3 – C4 – C5 – D :The line moves in South direction from point C in Plot no.1011 in Rampur village to point C1 in Plot no.2010 in Bari village. Further line moves in Southwest direction from point C1 to point C2 in Plot no.2080 in Bari village through Plot nos.2012, 2075, 2074 in Bari village. Line moves in Southwest direction from point C2 to C3 in Plot no.2073 in Bari village through plot nos.2080, 2073 in Bari village. Further line continue to move in Southwest direction from point C3 to point C4 in Plot no.192 in Ate village through Plot nos. 2060, 2058, 2156, 2159, 2174, 1514, 1492 in Bari village and Plot nos. 385, 273, 275, 206, 201 in Ate village. Further line moves in Southwest direction from point C4 to point C5 in Plot no.14 in Barwadih village through Plot nos.194, 179, 164, 1106 in Ate village and Plot nos.509, 149, 145, 39 in Barwadih village. From point C5 line further moves in West direction to point D in Plot no.6 in forest land of Tota village through Plot nos.15, 6, 3 in Barwadih village and Plot nos. 12, 11, 7 in Tota village.

Line D – D1 – D2 –D3 –D4 –D5 –D6 –D7 –D8 –D9 –D10 –D11 –D12 -D13 -D14 –E : Line moves in Northwest direction from point D to point D1 in Plot no.6 in forest land of Tota village. Further line moves along the Nala in Tota village Plot no.69 through point D2, & D3 and through point D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, and D13 in Plot no. 204 in Bari village and through point D14 in Plot no.8 in forest land of Bari village to point E in Plot no.8 in forest land of Bari village.

Line E-A : The Line moves in North direction from point E in Plot no.8 in forest land of Bari village to end at point A in Plot no.732 in Banhardi village through Plot nos. 8,9, 10, 12 in forest land of Bari village and Plot nos. 11, 26, 29, 31 in Bari village and Plot nos. 1193, 1131, 1005, 991, 350, 386, 735 in Banhardi village.

[F. No. 43015/40/2017-LA&ID]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ .—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एम एस ईरकान ईनटरनेशनल लिं प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 23/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/08/2009-आई आर (बी-1)]

डी. गुहा, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3243

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 16th December, 2020

S.O. 1108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. IRCON International Ltd . and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.12.2020.

[No. L-41012/08/2009-IR(B-1)]

D. GUHA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 23/2009

Ref. No. L-41012/08/2009-IR(B-I) dated: 25.06.2009

BETWEEN :

Shri Bipin S/o Shri Tapeshwari Shivaji Nagar Petrol Pump Baliya Nala Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra (UP)

AND

The Managing Director M/s. IRCON International Ltd. C 4, District Centre, Saket New Delhi – 110017

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41012/08/2009-IR(B-I) dated: 25.06.2009 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 Bipin S/o Shri Tapeshwari, Shivaji Nagar Petrol Pump Baliya Nala, Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra (UP) and the Managing Director, M/s IRCON, International Ltd., C 4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi for adjudication to this CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"WHETHER THE DEMAND OF SHRI BIPIN S/O SHRI TAPESHWARI, EX-EMPLOYEE OF

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. FOR REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL BACK WAGES, IS

JUST, FAIR AND LEGAL? IF YES, TO WHAT RELIEF HE IS ENTITLED TO?"

3. The case of the workman, in brief, is that the workman, had initially been appointed as peon on 19.04.1984 after completing all formalities, on casual basis on daily rate for a period of six months by the Project Manager, Vindhya Nagar, District Sidhi (MP); however, his appointment was extended from time to time and was grated scale of payment @ Rs. 196/- plus dearness allowance vide order dated 09.05.1985. he workman has submitted that he was attached to the Anpara Project of the management; moreover, he was treated as permanent employee and was given regular scale by the Project Manager, Vidhya Nagar vide order dated 28.04.1989. The workman has also stated that he had been transferred form Vihya Nagar Project to Rihand Nagar Project vide order dated 28.12.1993. It is stated by the workman that he had been served upon a notice dated 04.02.1998; whereby his services were dispensed due to closure of the Project and accordingly, his services had been terminated in wake of notice dated 04.02.1998; without following statutory provisions of Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman has pleaded that the opposite party has ongoing projects all over the country therefore, he could have adjusted in some other Project; but the management did not do so though promised in the notice dated 04.02.1998. Therefore, the workman has prayed that his termination notice dated 04.02.1998 be set aside and he be reinstated with consequential benefits, including continuity in services and back wages etc.

3. The management of the IRCON 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 management has pleaded that the workman after termination of his services w.e.f. 06.02.1998, vide notice dated 04.02.1998, field a writ petition3244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] No. 6522 of 1998 with 75 other workmen before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court; and said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2002 with liberty to the workman to file a fresh petition; but the workman did not take any action thereafter. However, he approached the Conciliation Officer i.e. ALC (C), Allahabad on 21.10.2008 and on failure of the conciliation proceedings, the workman, on reference by the appropriate government, filed his claim before this Tribunal in the year 2009, with any explanation about his sitting idle from 23.01.2002 to 21.10.2008.

The management has stated that the workman had not been appointed by the Company in terms of Recruitment Rules, as he did not apply against any notification of vacancy or was issued a call letter for selection; rather he was locally appointed by the Project manager on daily rate basis for a six months; moreover, the Project Authorities were not competent to engaged any person against permanent posts in the Company. The management has contended that mere placing a project employee in a regular pay scale does not make him a regular employee of the Company and for regularization/absorption of a project employee, engaged locally by the project authorities, such project employees have to go through a prescribed process as and when there is such requirement in regular establishment of the Company; and the workman had not been considered in a selection process for regularization in the Company, in terms of the Recruitment Rules of the Company. The management has submitted that the services of the workman had been terminated through notice dated 04.02.1998 on closure of the projects in 1998 and no recruitment in the skills possessed by the workman has been made by the Company; moreover, the Company has number of projects at different places; but there is no legal right conferred by any rule or law in favour of the workman, mandating his being employed in any of those projects. The management has pleaded that the services of many other employees, viz. Lal Mohamad & others, were terminated in similar circumstances on closure of Anpara Projects; and on their termination the workmen sought legal remedy before Hon'ble High Court and finally before Hon'ble Apex Court; however, the Hon'ble Apex Court pleased to dismiss the writ petitions filed by Lal Mohammad & others vide order dated 11.01.2007 and the same holds good in the present case also. Accordingly, the management of IRCON has prayed that the case of the workman suffers with the vice of delay & latches and is liable to be rejected also being devoid any merit.

4. The workman has filed its rejoinder and apart from reiterating the averments already made by him, in his statement of claim, has submitted that his case is not identical to that of Lal Mohammad case as he was transferred from one project to the other.

5. The parties have adduced documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective pleadings. The workman examined himself whereas the management examined, Shri Kabir Hussain Khan, Manager (Legal). The parties availed opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses of each other; apart from forwarding oral as well as written submissions.

6. Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties at length; and perused entire evidence on record.

7. The learned authorized representative of the workman has submitted that the workman had been appointed as Peon on daily rate basis initially for a period of six months by the Project Manager, Vindhya Nagar, Sidhi (MP) on 19.04.1984; and his term was extended from time to time. The learned counsel has also submitted that the workman was granted regular scale of pay w.e.f. 01.07.1988 and was transferred from Vindhya Nagar Project to Rihand Nagar Project, District Sonbhadra vide letter dated 28.12.1993. The learned counsel has stated that the workman had been served upon and noted dated 04.02.1998 regarding termination of his services on account of closure of the Project; however, it was mentioned in the said notice dated 04.02.1998 that on availability of any vacancy in future, he will e given preference in appointment. It has been submitted by the workman that the workman along with other 74 similarly situated workmen, filed a Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1990 before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, which pleased to allow a compensation of Rs. 3 Lacs to each of the petitioner vide order dated 22.01.2002; but the workman declined the same as he wanted reinstatement instead of reinstatement, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition in respect of workman with liberty to file the case before this Tribunal. The workman has also contended that he did not get any benefit in consonance of notice dated 04.02.1988; moreover, the learned counsel of the workman has also argued vehemently that the workman was given regular status and was being transferred from one place of posting to the other, therefore, his case is different from that of the Lal Mohammad case; hence cannot be treated at par with him. The learned counsel has also stated that after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1990 he kept pursuing his case before different forums and there is no delay in his part in raising the present dispute before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the workman has relied upon:

I. Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. & another

1999 (82) FLR 137.

II. Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad judgment dated 04.08.2005 in Writ Petition No. 9762 of 2003

IRCON International Ltd. vs. Shri Baikunth Nath Dubey & others.

III. Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 01.09.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 5781 of 2007.

8. In rebuttal, the learned counsel of the management has argued that the workman has raised present industrial dispute before this Tribunal in the year 2009 with an unexplained inordinate delay of more than 6 ½ years; hence, barred with limitation. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the management has submitted that the workman had been appointed by Project Manager as Peon on casual basis on daily rates for a period of six months and was given a consolidated wages @ Rs. 196/- per month plus DA. The learned counsel has submitted that the workman had been given pay scale of Rs. 196-232 w.e.f. 01.07.1988 without any change of to his status and term of appointment. It has been submitted that on completion of project, the project establishment was closed w.e.f. 06.02.1988 and the services of the employees working therein were terminated vide notice dated 04.02.1988; however, the statutory payments were made to each workmen whose name was there in the notice dated 04.02.1988; but the workman did not accept the sum offered.

It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the management that the workman with other 74 similarly situated workmen filed a Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1998 Laxman & 74 others before Hon'ble Allahabd High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 23.01.2002 for 73 workmen by way of settlement and was dismissed for two workmen, including workman, as the workman did not accede to the settlement regarding compensation instead of reinstatement, with liberty to file fresh writ petition. The learned counsel for the management has vehemently argued that the number of workmen who were terminated through termination notice dated 04.02.1998, field different Writ Petitions No(s). 32651/1993, 32500/1993, 18561/1993, 34786/1993 and 44416/1993 before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and the all were dismissed by the Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 21.05.2004; and the Civil Appeal filed against order dated 21.05.2004 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 11.01.2007 in Lal Mohammad & others vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. & others JT 2007 (2) SC 456, thereby affirming the judgment dated 21.05.2004 of the Hon'ble High Court; hence the judgment dated 11.01.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also applicable in the present case. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the management that Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad vide its order dated 27.02.2018 in Special Appeal No. 70 of 2018 also required that this Tribunal should consider and decided the matter in light of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Mohammad Case (supra). In reply to the contention of the workman that he had been transferred from one project to other, the learned counsel has submitted that in the Lal Mohammad Case (supra) too, the workmen were subject to transfer and their other service conditions were also similar to that of the workman, therefore, the workman cannot be kept outside the purview of the judgment in Lal Mohammad Case (supra). The management of IRCON has relied upon:

I. Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Babu Ram 2006 AIR (SCW)

3457.

II. Hon'ble Apex Court in The Management of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Prahlad 2000

AIR (SCW) 3880.

III. Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 14.12.2012 in W.P. (C) No. 669/2012 Krishan Kumar vs. Delhi

Jal Board.

IV. Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Mohammad & others vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. &

others JT 2007 (2) SC 456.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, in support of their respective stand, and scanned the entire evidence available on record in light thereto and also the case laws relied upon by them.

11. In nutshell, the workman has come up with a case that though he was appointed by the Project Manager for a fixed term on casual basis on daily rates; but his term of appointed was extended from time to time and he was granted regular pay scale by passage of time and was also transferred from one project to other as a regular employee, therefore, his termination vide termination notice dated 04.02.1998 was illegal and requires to be set aside and he be reinstated with consequential benefits. On the issue of delay the workman has come up with pleading that the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad dismissed the Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1990 vide order dated 22.01.2002 on alternative ground, therefore, the preferred the present industrial dispute before this Tribunal. As regards, applicability of Lal Mohammad Case (supra) in his case, the workman has asserted that the footings of his case is different with that of the Lal Mohammad Case (supra); as he was transferred from one project to other as regular employee, therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Mohammad Case (supra) is not applicable in his case.

12. Per contra, the case of the management of IRCON is that the present industrial dispute, raised by the workman, is barred by the limitation as the same has been raised after an unexplained inordinate delay of more than six years. As regards the merits of the case, the stand of the management is that the workman who was initially appointed by the Project Manager as Peon on casual basis on fixed term on daily rate basis, his term of appointment was extended from time to time; and on completion of the Project, the workman was given notice dated 04.02.1998 with other similarly placed workmen; accordingly, the services of the workmen, whose name3246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] was there in the notice dated 04.02.1998, including workman, had been terminated w.e.f. 06.02.1998 after paying notice pay and compensation to each workmen; but the workman did not accept the payment. The management has heavily relied upon the Lal Mohammad Case (supra) and has claimed to be the identical to the present industrial dispute.

13. Before entering to the merits of the case, it is has to be looked into that the management of the railways has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the case due to inordinate delay of more than six years in raising the present dispute in terms of provisions contained in Section 2A (3) of the Act. The management has submitted that after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1998 Laxman & 74 others before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 23.01.2002, the workman was given liberty to file afresh; but the workman approached to the Conciliation Officer i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Allahabad on October, 2008 with a delay of about 6 ½ years. The management has submitted that the workman has not given any satisfactory explanation regarding keeping his cause alive, therefore, the present industrial dispute is not maintainable before this Tribunal.

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 workman has also stated that after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1998 Laxman & 74 others vide order dated 23.01.2002, he filed an application on 29.08.2002 before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad which was decided on 04.10.2006; however due to inaction of his counsel, the workman came to know about the order dated 04.10.2006 only on 15.09.2008, therefore, he filed application before Conciliation Officer thereafter.

The learned counsel for the management has vehemently opposed the submission of the workman that he filed an application on 29.08.2002 before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1998 Laxman & 74 others vide order dated 23.01.2002 and he came to know about disposal of the application dated 29.08.2002 on 15.09.2008, though the same had been disposed on 04.10.2006. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no such application dated 29.08.2002 before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad or disposal of the same through order dated 04.10.2006. the learned counsel for the management has submitted that the workman has come forwarded with a false and fabricated story to explain the delay which is not acceptable.

Admittedly, the workman with other workmen whose services have been terminated through termination notice dated 04.02.1998 and the workman with other workmen assailed the same through Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1998 Laxman & 74 others before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the name of the workman was at serial No. 31 in the array of the petitioners. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2002, which is reproduced as under:

"In view of the aforesaid statement of Shri Pankaj Lal, Learned counsel for the writ petitioners no.

31 and 61, it is ordered that the writ petitioners no. 31 and 61 shall be at liberty to file a fresh

petition.

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed

of finally with the direction that the writ petitioners, except writ petitioners no. 31 and 61, shall

submit the Proforma Agreement duly signed by them with the respondent no. 1 within four weeks

from today and the Respondent Company shall make payment of Rs. 3 lacs after adjusting the

amount which is found due against the petitioners and the terminal benefits, already paid to the writ

petitioners, within four weeks thereafter.

With the above directions the writ petition stands disponed of finally and, against the writ petitioners

no. 31 and 61, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file afresh."

Thus, from perusal of above quoted order dated 23.01.2002 of the Hon'ble High Court, it transpires that workman was ought to file the petition, challenging his termination, afresh before the Hon'ble High Court or to file a conciliation application before Conciliation Officer being Competent Authority under law; but he failed to avail the same up to October, 2008, when he moved conciliation application before the Conciliation Officer i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). The explanation submitted by the workman for this delay is unacceptable for the want of any order of the competent forum. Also, the workman has argued that the provisions of 2A (3) are not applicable in his case and has relied upon Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. & another 1999 (82) FLR 137.

The Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 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.

Moreover, 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.' 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 a delay of about 6 ½ but in view of the statutory provisions, quoted above, law pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court & Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and discussions, made hereinabove, the objection of the management of the management regarding non-maintainability of the case due to delay in raising present industrial dispute is not tenable in the eye of law.

14. Now coming to the merits of the case, it is the case of the workman that the management of IRCON terminated his services through notice dated 04.02.1998, without following due statutory procedure, ignoring the fact that he was required to be given treatment at par with the regular employees of the Company. The workman has come up with a case that his service conditions were not a par with that of casual labourers as he had been transferred from one project to the other, therefore, he had to be adjusted at some other project instead of being retrenched.

Per contra, the management has come up with case that the workman had been appointed by a Project Manager and his services were liable to be terminated with the end of the Project and is mere transfer from one project to other does not places him at par with the other regular employees of the Company; moreover, he had been offered notice pay and other terminal benefits through notice dated 04.02.1998. The management has heavily relied upon the case of Lal Mohammad (supra).

15. Admittedly, the workman had been appointed by the Project Manager as Peon on casual basis on daily rate, initially for a fixed term; however, the term of appointment was extended from time to time. The workman3248 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] was also transferred from one project to other and his services have been terminated w.e.f. 06.02.1998 vide termination notice dated 04.02.1998. The workman was offered notice pay and compensation, which he refused to accept.

The management of IRCON filed Special Appeal No. 70 of 2018 M/s IRCOn International Limited Thru Chairman & MD vs Bipin & others; wherein Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad vide order dated 267.02.2018, dismissing the Special Appeal, pleased to pass following order:

"Suffice to mention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also cited a judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Lal Mohammad & other reported in JT 2007 (2) SC 456

holding wherein a termination order of similar nature pertaining to a co-employee was considered

and decided and the petitioner's case stands on the same pedestal as to the Lal Mohammad and

others (supra). This issue too shall be considered and decided by the Labour Court while deciding

the dispute referred."

However, the workman has submitted that the Lal Mohammad & others (supra) is not applicable in his case, he had been transferred from one project to the other whereas there was no such condition with the Lal Mohammad & others (supra); moreover his service conditions were at par with that of the employees of the Company. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant in the Lal Mohammad Case (supra), were employed with the IRCON and had been retrenched/terminated in pursuance to notice dated 04.02.1998 same as the workman in the instant case had been treated. The terms of appointment in respect of appellant in Lal Mohammad Case (supra) and that of the workman in the present case has to be taken up minutely and accordingly, the contents of the appointment letter of the workman is reproduced hereunder:

"INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

(a Government of India Undertaking)

Office of the

Regional Manager

P.O. Anpara, District

Mirzapur (UP)

No. IRCON/ANP/ED A/15/A Dated: 29.5.1986

To

Shri Bipin

Peon

IRCON, Baijpur.

Dear Sir,

1. On completion of your training you are hereby brought onschale of pay in the grade of

Rs. 260-600 (Rs.) ………… in the initial pay of Rs. ………. p.m. with effect from ………..

2. You have been brought on the scale of pay in the grade of Rs. 196-237 in the initial pay of Rs.

196/- P.M. with effect from 19.04.1984.

3. You will be eligible for all the allowances and benefits as per Rules/Orders issued by the

Company from time to time.

4. You should produce the following documents at your own expense.

(a) A medical certificate of health and physical fitness of prescribed proforma from a qualified

Registered Medical Practitioner.

(b) Original certificates in support of your educational and other professional qualification,

documentary proof, in respect of date of birth etc. together two copies thereof.

(c) Attestation form in triplicate (enclosed) after filling.

(d) In case you belong to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe, one of the following certificates in

original should be produced. Matriculation or School Leaving Certificates or birth

certificate given our caste/community and place of residence.

Or

A certificate in the prescribed form issued by the Competent Authority.

5. You will be liable for transfer to any of the Office Project site under the control of the company

in India.

6. You will not save with the prior permission of the Competent Authority, apply for any

appointment outside the company. You will have to withdraw your application for appointment

elsewhere made prior to the date of issue of these orders and will not appear for interview or

accept any employment is offered.

7. You will not save with the express permission from the company, engage in any trade or

business or undertake any other work or any employment elsewhere full time or part time while

in the service of the company.

8. In regard to any matters not specifically covered in the foregoing paragraphs, you will be

governed by the rules and orders applicable to the employees of the company.

9. If any declaration given or information furnished by you proves to be false, or it is found that

you have willfully suppressed any material information you will be liable to removal from

services forthwith without any notice and without assigning any reason therefore,

notwithstanding any action taken against you as the Company may deem necessary.

For & on Behalf of

Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.

Regional Manager

IRCON-ANPARA

Copy for information & necessary action to:

1. Group general Manager (T), IRCON, NEW DELHI.

Regional Manager

IRCON-ANPARA"

Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Mohammad Case (supra) with regard to the terms of service of the appeallants has observed as under:

"10. So far as the second and third questions are concerned, the crucial question to be decided is

whether they were employees of the Project or of the Company. In this connection the finding was

given by the Full Bench that there were employees of the Project and not of the Company. Learned

counsel for appellants laid much stress on appointment orders of appellants that there are employees

of the Company and not of the Project. He has taken us through various orders issued from time to

time and some of the samples, are reproduced as under:

INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

(a Government of India Undertaking)

GRAM: RAILCONST

RATTAN JOYTI

18, RAJENDRA PLACE

NEW DELHI – 110008 (INDIA)

NO. IRCON/ESTT./35 DATED: 25/8/84

Shri Lalmohammad

S/o Ajimuddin

Vill: Dllumandaltola

Dt. Makla.

You are hereby offered appointment in Anpara Project. Project on a Casual adhoc basis on a

consolidated monthly emoluments of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred). You are directed to report to

Project Manager IRCON at Anpara.

In this connect, the following instructions are issued.

1. Your training period will be for a period of 12 months after you report for duty.

2. On satisfactory completion of the training you will be required to pass a written and oral

examination.

3. On passing your above examination, you will be brought to grade Rs. 260-400/-.

4. During your training period you will be entitled to an additional monthly emolument of

Rs. 50/- if you are posted in Delhi, Bombay or Calcutta.

5. The above appointment is subject to verification of our age, qualifications for which should

produce original documents while reporting.

Sd/-

(N. SWAMINATHAN)

COMPANY SECRETARY, IRCON

INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

(a Government of India Undertaking)

GRAM: RAILCONST

RATTAN JOYTI

18, RAJENDRA PLACE

NEW DELHI – 110008 (INDIA)

No. IRCON/PP/35A DATED: 22-10-83

Md. Intas Hussain

S/o Md. Yahim Ali,

Vilage, Chandigachil, P.O. Singhia,

Dt. Malda.

You are hereby offered appointment in Anpara Project. Project on a Casual adhoc basis on a

consolidated monthly emoluments of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred). You are directed to report to

Project Manager V.S.T.V.P. IRCON at Anpara.

In this connect, the following instructions are issued.

1. Your training period will be for a period of 12 months after you report for duty.

2. On satisfactory completion of the training you will be required to pass a written and oral

examination.

3. On passing your above examination, you will be brought to grade Rs. 260-400/-. You will also

be eligible for payment of all allowances as per the rules of the company;

4. Your regular appointment in the Company will be governed by the Recruitment Rules of the

Company.

5. You are liable to be posted any where in India.

6. During your training period you will be entitled to an additional monthly emolument of

Rs. 50/- if you are posted in Delhi, Bombay or Calcutta.

Sd/-

(N. SWAMINATHAN)

COMPANY SECRETARY,

IRCON

INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

(a Government of India Undertaking)

Office of the

Regional Manager

P.O. Anpara, District

Mirzapur(UP)

Dated: 19.5.1988

No. IRCON/ANP/ESTT/15/AL

To

Shri Meghu Seikh

Artisun,

IRCON, Baijpur.

Dear Sir,

1. On completion of your training you are hereby brought onschale of pay in the grade of

Rs. 260-600 (Rs.) in the initla pay of Rs. 260/- p.m. with effect from 11.10.1984.

You have been brought on the scale of pay in the grade of Rs. In the initial pay of Rs. Pm with

effect from.

2. You will be eligible for all the allowances and benefits as per Rules/Orders issued by the

Company from time to time.

3. You should produce the following documents at your own expense.

(a) A medical certificate of health and physical fitness of prescribed proforma from a qualified

Registered Medical Practitioner.

(b) Original certificates in support of your educational and other professional qualification,

documentary proof, in respect of date of birth etc. together two copies thereof.

(c) Attestation form in triplicate (enclosed) after filling.

(d) In case you belong to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe, one of the following certificates in

original should be produced. Matriculation or School Leaving Certificates or birth

certificate given our caste/community and place of residence.

Or

A certificate in the prescribed form issued by the Competent Authority.

4. You should take an Oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India in the appropriate form.

5. You will be liable for transfer to any of the Office Project site under the control of the company

in India.

6. You will not save with the prior permission of the Competent Authority, apply for any

appointment outside the company. You will have to withdraw your application for appointment

elsewhere made prior to the date of issue of these orders and will not appear for interview or

accept any employment is offered.

7. You will not save with the express permission from the company, engage in any trade or

business or undertake any other work or any employment elsewhere full time or part time while

in the service of the company.

8. In regard to any matters not specifically covered in the foregoing paragraphs, you will be

governed by the rules and orders applicable to the employees of the company.

9. If any declaration given or information furnished by you proves to be false, or it is found that

you have willfully suppressed any material information you will be liable to removal from

services forthwith without any notice and without assigning any reason therefore,

notwithstanding any action taken against you as the Company may deem necessary.

For & on Behalf of

Indian Railway Construction Co.

Ltd.

Page 0787

-sd/-

Regional Manager

IRCON-ANPARA

Copy for information & necessary action to:

2. Group general Manager (T), IRCON, New Delhi.

11. Other appointment letters are on the same pattern. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by reproducing all of them. On the basis of these letters learned Counsel submitted that a perusal of these appointment orders clearly shows that appointments were made by the Company and they were directed to report to the Project Officer of the Company. It was submitted that after the necessary training and passing required examination the incumbents were entitled to regular pay scale of Rs. 260-400/- along with all allowances as per the rules of the company, that incumbent can be posted at any were in India on any project, no employment could taken up by incumbent without prior permission of the company, that incumbent is no required to engage in a trade or business, that they will be governed by the rules of the company, that group insurance was also taken out by the company, that they were required to take oath of allegiance to the constitution. On the basis of these salient features the learned Counsel submitted that it leads to only and only inference that the petitioners were employees of the Company and not of the Project. It was submitted that since each incumbent has to work on the Project and that they were directed to report to the project officer, that does not mean that they were employee of the project and not of the Company."

Thus, on having a close look at the appointment/offer letter, issued to the workman, in the instant case, and that to Meghu Seikh, reproduced in the Lal Mohammad Case (supra), it is apparent on the face of record, that both had same term of appointment i.e. at serial No. 05 which provided that the appointee shall be liable for transfer to any of the Office Project site under the control of the company in India. Hence, it could be well presumed that the Lal Mohammad Case (supra) is fully applicable in the present case also.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Mohammad Case (supra) after considering the factual matrix of the case, which is identical to the instant case in hand, has held as under:

"14. We have bestowed our best of consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. We regret to say that we have failed to be persuaded by the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants to infer that the appellants were the employees of the Company and not of Project. In the appointment orders it was mentioned that appointment was adhoc and they were directed to join the Project. Therefore, these conditions, which have been stressed by the learned Counsel does not lead us to the inference that incumbents were employees of the company. Employment to the company is regulated by the service rules and none of the posts which has been mentioned against these persons is in the list annexed to the Schedule appended to the Rules. That apart an opportunity was given to the petitioners to appear for regular selection in the company and they failed to avail that opportunity. Therefore, from these facts, it is more than apparent that the petitioners were not employees of the company but they were employees of the Project. Since it is a public sector company and it is governed by its own rules and those rules clearly contemplate a method for recruitment into service and that opportunity was given to the incumbents for being regularly recruited in the company but they failed to avail the same. Simply because the company had said that these persons will not be permitted to take any other employment or business without prior permission, their group insurance was made and were placed in the pay scale of the company that does not mean that they will be deemed employees of the Company. Simply because they adopted the basis for giving them the benefit of the Company as was being given to other employees who have been duly recruited in accordance with the rules, by such conferment of benefit will not be deemed to be employees of the Company. The regular recruitment Rules have been framed with the approval of the government, as the company is a public sector undertaking. These rules may not be given a status of statutory rules but those rules are binding on the company and company cannot take departure from acting under the rules, for all purposes, they are almost analogous to the statutory rules. These rules have a legal sanctity as they have been framed in terms of memorandum and articles of association with the approval of the Government. Therefore, they have a binding force for the company and company cannot make a departure for recruitment except than following these rules. As per the provisions pointed out above, there is methodology provided under the rules and that was not followed in the present case. They were appointed being the local hand as workmen were required for completion of the project and there after they were appointed for the project and as soon as the project was over they cannot claim as a matter of right to be permanent employees or to be regularised in the company. A distinction has to be borne in mind who is employee of the company and who is employee of the Project. The services of project employees come to an end as soon as the project is over and they cannot be given permanent status. Since they were employees of the project their services have to be terminated after completion of the project. In this connection the Full Bench has considered the necessary provisions of the rules and after a detailed discussion on the matter has rightly come to the conclusion that they are employees of the project and they are not the employees of the company. There is no question of violating of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India in the matter as they were employees of the project and at

the end of the project they have taken their benefits as are admissible in accordance with the

Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, there is no violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution

of India. So far as question with regard to Article 12 is concerned, the same is not relevant in this

matter because the whole service conditions of the employees are governed by the Industrial

Disputes Act. Therefore, it is purely an academic question whether company is a State within the

meaning of Article 12 or not."

Therefore, from the discussions made and law quoted hereinabove, it could be well inferred that the workman was not employee of the company as he had been appointed as adhoc employee and was directed to join the Project. It has been pleaded by the management of IRCON that the employment to the company is regulated by the service rules, which provide a due procedure for recruitment into service. Also, giving service conditions at par with the regular employees does not mean that the workman will be deemed employee of the Company if he has not followed due procedure provided under recruitment rules. Further, since the management of IRCON provided all benefits extended to the other employees who have been duly recruited in accordance with the rules, by such conferment of benefit the workman will not be deemed to be employees of the Company.

Moreover, it is crystal clear from the evidence available on record that the recruitment process provided under the recruitment rules was not followed in the present case; however, the workman had been appointed being the local hand as working hands were required for completion of the project and therefore, the workman had been appointed for the project; and as soon as the project was over he cannot claim as a matter of right to be permanent employees or to be regularised in the company. The services of project employees come to an end as soon as the project is over and they cannot be given permanent status; since they were employees of the project their services have to be terminated after completion of the project.

16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Mohammad Case (supra) case has further held that:

"Therefore, this is nearer to our case in hand that one this project is completed that it is not

incumbent on the company to necessarily employ these persons at other projects in any other part of

the country. Our attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in M.D., U.P. Land Dev.

Corpn. And Another Vs. Amar Singh and Others, wherein it has been held that employees working

under a scheme/project have no vested right so as to claim regularisation of their services with

regular pay scales. It was observed that when the scheme/project comes to an end, the services of

the employees working the project also come to an end."

Hence, it in view of the law cited above, it could be well inferred that there was nothing illegal in notice dated 04.02.1998 and the services of the workman had rightly been retrenched by the management of IRCON on completion of the project.

16. Now coming to the issue, regarding relief which could be granted to the workman. In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Mohammad Case (supra) has directed that:

"21. Before parting with the case, we may clarify that if any compensation amount has not been

paid to the workers then that should be determined and be paid to them forthwith, if not paid so far.

Therefore, in the light of discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the

Full Bench is correct. The petitioners are not entitled to be regularised their services in the

Company and they are not employees of Company. They are only entitled to compensation as

indicated above. The above appeals and writ petitions filed by workers are dismissed."

Also, it may be pertinent to mention here that the workman with other 74 similarly situated employees filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1998 Laxman & 74 other vs IRCON International Limited & three others; which culminated into a settlement between the petitioners, except two petitioners, including workman and the respondents; and accordingly, to which each of the petitioner was to be paid Rs. 3 lacs after adjusting the terminal benefits which had already been paid and other dues found due and payable by the petitioners.

On applying the above matrix to the present case in hand, it is inferred from the documents available on record that the management of IRCON offered the terminal benefits vide notice dated 04.02.1998; and also it has been specifically pleaded by the management of IRCON itself vide para 1.4 of its written statement that 'the workman is entitled for compensation only as per provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, which was officer to him at the time of retrenchment of his services, but the same was not accepted by him'. This factum was reiterated by the management witness viz. Shri Kabir Hussain Khan, Manager (Legal) vide para 18 of his affidavit; wherein he has stated on oath that 'the settlement dues which were payable to the workman as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were tendered with the termination notice, but the same was not accepted by him'.

As regards the amount of compensation his co-workers were granted compensation amount to 3 lacks by way of settlement with the management before Hon,ble High Court , Allahabad vide order dated 23.01.2002 in Writ Petition No. 6522 of 1998. The present workman probably ill advised ,tried his luck by coming out of3254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] compromise and raising dispute but could not succeed as some pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex court intervend in between . In spite of all liberalisation and so called ecomic reforms , we are still socialist democracy. A public Sector Undertaking/Companies is not expected to be as profit hungry at the cost of labour welfare as private sector companies' sole aim to be as to earn profit. Moreover, a labour dispute is a fight between David and Goliath in which poor David has always to suffer. Keeping in view aforesaid facts in mind and also the fact that the workman was not granted any retrenchment compensation; and that the amount would have earned interest since last more than 20 years had it been timely paid, therefore, I quantify a lump sum compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs (Rupees Two Lacks Fifty Thousand Only ) payable to the workman. No order as to cost.

17. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

18. 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, 21 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1109.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स डिवीजनल इंजीनियर (टेलीग्राफ), दूर संचार विभाग, सवाईमाधोपुर; जयपुर (राज) और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 92/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को 09.10.2020 को प्राप्त हुए थे ।

[सं.एल- 40012/221/94 -आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2020

S.O. 1109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/2006) 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 Divisional Engineer, (Telegraph) Telecom, Sawaimadhopur, Jaipur (RaJ) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 09.10.2020.

[No. L-40012/221/94-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

न्यायालय, जयपुर सी.जी.आई.टी.

प्रकरण सं. 92 / 2006

पीठासीन अधिकारी : राधामोहन चतुर्वेदी

रेफरेन्स नं. L-40012/221/94–IR(DU) दिनांक 15/11/2006

जगदीश प्रसाद सैनी पुत्र श्री अम्बालाल गांव जटवाडा-(कलां), तहसील व जिला सवाईमाधोपुर।

बनाम

डिवीजनल इंजीनियर (टेलीग्राफ), दूर संचार विभाग, जिला-सवाईमाधोपुर।

उपस्थित :

प्रार्थी की ओर से ः श्री सुरेश कश्यप-एडवोकेट

अप्रार्थी की ओर से ः कोई नहीं

: अधिनिर्णय : दिनांक : 25.02.2020

1. श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 15.11.2006 को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (जिसे आगे मात्र अधिनियम कहा जावेगा) की धारा 10 उपधारा (1) (d) के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों के प्रयोग में निम्नांकित विवाद इस अधिकरण को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित किया गया :-

"Whether the action of the management of TDE, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sawaimadhopur in terminating the services of their workman Shri Jagdish Prasad Saini, w.e.f. 31.7.87 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. उपर्युक्त विवाद प्राप्त होने पर अधिकरण द्वारा उभयपक्ष को आहूत करते हुए प्रार्थी को निर्देश दिये गये कि वह अपने दावे का अभिकथन प्रस्तुत करें।

3. तदुपरान्त पीठासीन अधिकारी का पद रिक्त रहा। अन्ततः दिनांक 5.2.2010 को प्रार्थी की और से दावे का अभिकथन प्रस्तुत किया गया। जिसके संक्षिप्त अभिवचन इस प्रकार हैं। प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति दिनांक 14.10.86 को श्रमिक/हेल्पर के पद पर हुई थी। विपक्षी ने अपने मौखिक आदेश दिनांक 31.7.87 द्वारा प्रार्थी को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया और कोई कारण नहीं बताया। विपक्षी ने मई से जुलाई 87 में जगराम माली से कार्य करवाया है। जो प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ था और वह अब भी कार्यरत है।

4. प्रार्थी ने अपनी सेवामुक्ति का विवाद समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया। विवाद में समझौता ना होने पर असफल वार्ता/प्रतिवेदन केन्द्र सरकार को भेजा गया लेकिन केन्द्र सरकार ने विवाद को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित नहीं किया। तत्पश्चात प्रार्थी के निवेदन पर माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने केन्द्र सरकार को न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु विवाद प्रेषित करने का आदेश दिया।

5. प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 14.10.86 से 31.7.87 तक 240 दिन से ज्यादा कार्य किया है। प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ श्रमिक कार्यरत रहे है और नियमित हो चुके है। प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ), (जी) तथा नियम 77 व 78 के विरूद्ध है। अतः प्रार्थी को सेवा में बहाल करते हुए समस्त सेवा लाभ दिलवाये जावें।

6. दिनांक 20.5.2010 को विपक्षी ने वादोत्तर में यह कहा है कि यह दावा 22 वर्ष पश्चात प्रस्तुत किया गया है। जो विलम्ब के आधार पर ही अस्वीकार किया जावें। प्रार्थी को दिनांक 16.10.86 से अस्थायी रूप से कार्य हेतु रखा गया था। कार्य होने पर ही प्रार्थी से कार्य करवाया जाता था। दिनांक 31.7.87 के बाद प्रार्थी के कार्य की आवश्यकता नहीं3256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] रहीं और प्रार्थी से कार्य नहीं लिया गया। प्रार्थी को न तो कभी नियुक्ति पत्र दिया गया और न ही कभी सेवामुक्त किया गया। प्रार्थी ने कभी भी 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य नहीं किया। विपक्षी ने अधिनियम के किसी प्रावधान का उल्लंघन नहीं किया। अतः दावा निरस्त किया जावें।

7. प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 9.2.2011 को अतिरिक्त कथन प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह कहा है कि वादोत्तर के कथन गलत हैं। प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 14.10.86 से हेल्पर के स्थायी पद पर कार्य किया था। अतः दावा स्वीकार किया जावें।

8. प्रार्थी ने अपने साक्ष्य में स्वंय प्रार्थी जगदीश प्रसाद सैनी को परीक्षित किया। प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-1 से डब्ल्यू-8 तक प्रलेख प्रदर्शित कियें। प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 21.10.14 को साक्ष्य में अतिरिक्त शपथ पत्र अधिकरण की अनुमति से प्रस्तुत किया था। जिस पर विपक्षी ने कोई प्रतिपरीक्षा नहीं करना चाहा। तत्पश्चात विपक्षी ने 16.12.14 को रामविलास बैरवा S.D.O.T. का शपथ पत्र साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत किया। किन्तु 11.6.2019 अर्थात 4 वर्ष से अधिक अवधि तक विपक्षी ने उक्त साक्षी को प्रतिपरीक्षा हेतु प्रस्तुत नहीं किया। इसलिये दिनांक 11.6.2019 को विपक्षी की लगातार अनुपस्थिति को दृष्टिगत रख विपक्षी साक्ष्य का अवसर समाप्त कर दिया गया। अन्ततः दिनांक 3.2.2020 को प्रार्थी के अभिभाषक के तर्क सुने गये और उपलब्ध साक्ष्य का अवलोकन किया गया।

9. प्रार्थी के अभिभाषक का यह तर्क है कि प्रार्थी को दिनांक 14.10.86 को मौखिक रूप से विपक्षी ने श्रमिक के पद पर नियुक्त किया था। दिनांक 31.7.87 को बिना कोई कारण बताये उसे सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया। इस अवधि में प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन से अधिक की सेवा पूर्ण कर ली थी इसलिये सेवामुक्ति के पूर्व अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के अन्तर्गत एक माह का नोटिस या नोटिस वेतन एवं छंटनी प्रतिकर का भुगतान प्रार्थी को किया जाना आवश्यक था जो विपक्षी ने नहीं किया। इसके अतिरिक्त प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ श्रमिक जगराम माली को प्रार्थी के बाद भी सेवा में रखा गया। जिसका प्रमाण प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-3 से डब्ल्यू-8 मस्टररोल हैं। जिन्हें प्रार्थी ने अपनी साक्ष्य में प्रदर्शित किया है और विपक्षी ने इस पर कोई प्रतिपरीक्षा नहीं की है। जगराम माली का नाम मस्टररोल में प्रार्थी से नीचे है। जो उसकी कनिष्ठता दर्शाता है। अतः वाद स्वीकार किया जावें।

अपने तर्क के समर्थन में प्रार्थी ने निम्नांकित न्यायिक दृष्टान्त प्रस्तुत किये।

(1) 2010 Lab. I.C. 1089 (सुप्रीम कोर्ट) डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मिनल डिवीजन बनाम भीखू भाई मेघाजी भाई चावडा।

(2) 2017 (154) एफ.एल.आर. 598 (राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय) डिप्टी फोरेस्ट कन्जर्वेटर व अन्य बनाम जज लेबर कोर्ट-नं. 2 जयपुर ।

(3) 2017 (154) एफ.एल.आर. 144 स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर बनाम सीजीआईटी. जयुपर।

(4) 2017 (2) सीडीआर 914 (राजस्थान) गोपाल लाल पाराशर बनाम पी.ओ. आई.

टी. भीलवाड़ा।

10. मैनें प्रार्थी के तर्कों पर साक्ष्य के सन्दर्भ में विचार किया।

11. इस विवाद में निम्नलिखित विचारणीय बिन्दु उत्पन्न हुए है :-

विचारणीय बिन्दु संख्या 1 :- क्या प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 14.10.86 से 31.7.87 तक विपक्षी के अधीन 240 दिन से अधिक सेवा पूर्ण की है और विपक्षी द्वारा अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों का अनुपालन न करते हुए सेवा समाप्त की गई ? ............ प्रार्थी

विचारणीय बिन्दु संख्या 2 ः- क्या विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ श्रमिक जगराम माली को प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति के पश्चात भी सेवा में रखा। जो अधिनियम की धारा 25 (जी) का उल्लंघन है ? ....... प्रार्थी

विचारणीय बिन्दु संख्या 3 :- अनुतोष ?

विचारणीय बिन्दु संख्या 1 :-प्रार्थी ने अपनी साक्ष्य में दिनांक 14.10.86 से सेवामुक्ति की तिथि 31.7.87 तक लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक अवधि तक कार्य करना कहा है। प्रतिपरीक्षा में जगदीश प्रसाद सैनी ने कोई नियुक्ति पत्र जारी होना नहीं कहा है। प्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-2 विपक्षी द्वारा सहायक श्रम आयुक्त केन्द्रीय कोटा के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किये गये प्रतिउत्तर दिनांक 3.8.94 को प्रदर्शित किया है। इस प्रतिउत्तर में विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी द्वारा 196 दिन तथा 30 दिन ऑफ के कुल 226 दिन कार्य करना स्वीकार किया है किंतु यह कहा है कि चूंकि प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन की सेवा अवधि पूर्ण नहीं की इसलिये वह किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है। इस प्रतिउत्तर के साथ ही एक पत्र और विपक्षी ने संलग्न किया है जो प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-2 / 4 है। इस पत्र में प्रार्थी की मासिक उपस्थिति तथा अवकाश के दिन वर्णित किये गये है। उल्लेखनीय यह है कि इस पत्र में अक्टूबर 86 माह के उपरान्त सीधे ही दिसम्बर 86 माह का विवरण दिया गया है तथा नवम्बर 86 में किये गये कार्य का विवरण अंकित न करते हुए लुप्त कर दिया है। नवम्बर 86 माह का अंकन करते हुए यह भी नहीं लिखा है कि नवम्बर माह में प्रार्थी पूर्ण रूप से अनुपस्थित रहा हो। विपक्षी का यह अभिवचन भी नहीं है कि नवम्बर 86 में प्रार्थी ने कार्य नहीं किया। इसलिये प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-2 प्रतिउत्तर दिनांक 3.8.94 के आधार पर यह उपधारित किया जाता है कि विपक्षी द्वारा नवम्बर 86 माह में की गई प्रार्थी की सेवा का उल्लेख इसी कारण नहीं किया गया कि नवम्बर 86 के कार्य दिवस जोड़ने पर प्रार्थी की कुल सेवा अवधि 240 दिन से अधिक न हो जायेें। इस तथ्यात्मक परिदृश्य में जबकि विपक्षी द्वारा कोई साक्ष्य प्रार्थी के साक्ष्य में खण्डन में प्रस्तुत ही नहीं की गई है, मैं प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-2 पत्र से संलग्न तालिका के आधार पर 226 दिनों में नवम्बर 86 माह की कार्यअवधि 30 दिन और मानते हुए यह निष्कर्षित करता हुँ कि प्रार्थी ने अक्टूबर 86 से 31.7.87 तक 256 दिन विपक्षी के अधीन कार्य किया है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने डायरेक्टर फिशरीज टर्मिनल डिवीजन/भीखू भाई मेघाजी भाई चावडा के निर्णय में यह कहा है कि जब कर्मकार दावा करें व कहे कि उसने 240 दिन कार्य किया है, तो नियोजक पर यह सिद्धि भार अंतरित हो जाता है कि वह कर्मकार द्वारा विहित अवधि में लगातार 240 दिन कार्य न करना प्रमाणित करें। विपक्षी की विखंडन साक्ष्य के अभाव में उपर्युक्त निष्कर्ष अखंडित रहता है।

12. विपक्षी ने अपने अभिवचन में यह कहीं नहीं कहा है कि उन्होनें प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्त करने के पूर्व कोई नोटिस या नोटिस वेतन एवं छंटनी प्रतिकर का भुगतान किया हो। इसलिये यह प्रमाणित है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा अधिनियम की धारा 25 बी (2) के अनुसरण में एक कैलेण्डर वर्ष की अवधि में सेवासमाप्ति की तिथि से पूर्व 240 दिन से अधिक अवधि तक सेवा की है। अतः यह प्रमाणित है कि विपक्षी ने अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों का अनुपालन किये बिना ही प्रार्थी की सेवासमाप्ति अवैध छंटनी के रूप में की। अतः यह बिन्दु प्रार्थी के पक्ष में निर्णित किया जाता है।

विचारणीय बिन्दु संख्या 2 :-प्रार्थी ने इस बिन्दु के सन्दर्भ में यह कहा है कि जगराम माली उससे विपक्षी की सेवा में कनिष्ठतर था जिसे सेवामुक्ति के बाद भी सेवा में रखा गया। जगराम माली की कनिष्ठता के सन्दर्भ में प्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-4, 6 और 7 मस्टररोल को आधार बनाया है। जिसमें जगराम माली का नाम मई व जून 1987 माहों के मस्टररोल में प्रार्थी के नाम से नीचे अंकित है। उक्त मस्टररोल का परीक्षण करने पर यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि मस्टररोल में लिखे गये नाम किसी प्रकार वरिष्ठता क्रम में नहीं लिखे गये हैं। प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-4 में प्रार्थी के तुरन्त उपर जगनाथ मीणा का नाम है। जबकि प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-6 और 7 में क्रमशः हजारी लाल वर्मा और जितेन्द्र प्रसाद के नाम अंकित हैं। इसी प्रकार प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-4 में जिस घनश्याम का नाम क्रम संख्या 2 पर अंकित है उसी घनश्याम का नाम प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-6 में क्रम संख्या 10 पर लिखा गया है व प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-7 में वर्णित ही नहीं है। इस प्रकार विभिन्न मस्टररोल में श्रमिकों का नाम भिन्न भिन्न क्रम संख्याओं पर अंकित किये जाने से यह प्रमाणित होता है कि इन मस्टररोल में अंकित श्रमिकों के नाम किसी वरिष्ठता अनुक्रम में नहीं हैं। इन मस्टररोल्स पर यह प्रमाण पत्र भी अंकित नहीं है कि श्रमिकों के नाम वरिष्ठता अनुक्रम में अंकित किये गये है। इसलिये प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-4, 6 एवं 7 के आधार पर श्रमिक जगराम माली का प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठतर श्रमिक होना प्रमाणित नहीं होता है। इस स्थिति में जगराम माली को दिनांक 31.7.87 के उपरान्त भी यदि कार्य पर विपक्षी ने रखा हो तो इसे अधिनियम की धारा 25 (जी) एंव नियम 77 का उल्लंघन नहीं माना जा सकता है। इस स्थिति में प्रार्थी जगदीश के अतिरिक्त शपथ पत्र दिनांक 10. 6.2014 जिसे 21.10.2014 को प्रस्तुत किया गया है में वर्णित तथ्य प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य से किसी प्रकार पुष्ट नहीं होते हैं। प्रार्थी ने अन्य कोई प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य जिसमें जगराम माली को दिनांक 31.7.87 के उपरान्त विपक्षी द्वारा नियुक्त किया जाना वर्णित किया हो, प्रस्तुत नहीं की है। इस साक्ष्य के विवेचन से विपक्षी द्वारा अधिनियम की धारा 25 (जी) के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन प्रमाणित न होने पर यह बिन्दु प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध निर्णित किया जाता है।

विचारणीय बिन्दु संख्या 3 :- प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने प्रार्थी को विगत वेतन सहित सेवा में बहाल करने का निवेदन किया व माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा डिप्टी फोरेस्ट कन्जर्वेटर व अन्य बनाम जज लेबर कोर्ट-नं. 2 तथा स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर बनाम सीजीआईटी. जयुपर के निर्णयों का अवलंब लिया-इन निर्णयों में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने अवैध छंटनी प्रमाणित होने पर श्रमिक को सेवा में बहाल करने व 25 प्रतिशत विगत वेतन देने का निर्देश दिया है। किंतु माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने अपने निर्णय (स्वंय अधिकरण द्वारा उद्‌धृत) 2018 एल.एल.आर. 1285 मैनेजमेंट एच. एम. टूल्स लि. /घनश्याम शर्मा में यह कहा है कि श्रमिक की एक वर्ष की अल्प सेवावधि तथा नियोजक द्वारा यह प्रमाणित न करने पर कि श्रमिक सेवासमाप्ति के पश्चात लाभार्थ नियोजित रहा है-सेवा में बहाली के स्थान पर रू. 50,000/- एकमुश्त क्षतिपूर्ति दिलवाना उचित है।

13. प्रार्थी के सम्बन्ध में कोई लिखित नियुक्ति पत्र जारी नहीं किया गया है। प्रार्थी ने यह भी नहीं कहा है कि उसकी नियुक्ति स्वीकृत रिक्त पद पर नियमित रूप से विहित चयन प्रक्रिया अपनाते हुए की गई हो। इसलिये प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति स्थायी एवं नियमित प्रमाणित नहीं होती है। प्रार्थी ने अक्टूबर 86 से जुलाई 87 तक एक वर्ष से भी कम अवधि यथा 256 दिन मात्र कार्य किया है। प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति को लगभग 32 वर्ष पूर्ण हो चुके है। ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनः पदस्थापित किये जाने का कोई विधिक औचित्य नहीं है।

14. प्रार्थी ने अपने दावे के अभिकथन में यह नहीं कहा है कि सेवामुक्ति के पश्चात वह बेरोजगार रहा हो इसलिये विपक्षी को इस तथ्य का खण्डन करने का कोई अवसर भी प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है। प्रार्थी ने अपने अतिरिक्त कथन दिनांक 9.2.2011 में भी सेवामुक्ति के पश्चात अनियोजित रहने या कोई धर्नाजन न करने का कथन नही किया किन्तु अपने साक्ष्य शपथपत्र में यह कहा है कि सेवामुक्ति की तिथि से वह बेरोजगार है और काफी प्रयास के बाद भी उसे रोजगार नहीं मिला। प्रथम तो अभिवचन के अभाव में साक्ष्य विधितः ग्राहय नहीं हैं, दूसरे प्रतिपरीक्षा में प्रार्थी ने अपने ही कथन का खण्डन करते हुए वर्तमान में मजदूरी करना स्वीकार किया है किन्तु यह स्पष्ट नहीं करवाया गया है कि उसे जो पारिश्रमिक मिल रहा था वह उससे कम अर्जित कर रहा है या अधिक। ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनः पदस्थापित किये जाने और विगत वेतन का भुगतान करवाने के स्थान पर एकमुश्त धनराशि प्रतिकर के रूप में दिलवाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है। प्रार्थी 13 रूपये प्रतिदिन की दर से दैनिक वेतन भोगी था। इस न्यून दर को वर्तमान मुद्रास्फीति एवं महगांई के परिप्रेक्ष्य में दृष्टिगत रखते हुए प्रार्थी को एकमुश्त प्रतिकर के रूप में पचास हजार रूपये विपक्षी से दिलवाया जाना उचित है।

15. अतः श्रम मन्त्रालय केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद का प्रतिउत्तर देते हुए विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 31.7.87 को की गई प्रार्थी की सेवासमाप्ति अधिनियम की धारा 25 (एफ) के प्रावधानों के विपरीत प्रमाणित होती है कि न्तु प्रार्थी को सेवा में पुनः स्थापित किये जाने के स्थान पर विपक्षी से पचास हजार रूपये प्रतिकर दिलवाये जाने का अधिनिर्णय पारित किया जाता है। विपक्षी इस राशि का भुगतान तीन माह में प्रार्थी को करें अन्यथा प्रार्थी इस राशि पर नौ प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज दर से भुगतान किये जाने तक ब्याज भी प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा।

16. अधिनिर्णय तद्‌नुसार पारित किया जाता है। श्रम मन्त्रालय द्वारा इस मामले में न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु संदर्भित विवाद का उत्तर उपर्युक्तानुसार दिया जाता है।

17. अधिनिर्णय की प्रतिलिपि केन्द्रीय सरकार को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 की धारा 17 (1) के अन्तर्गत प्रकाषनार्थ प्रेषित की जावे।

राधा मोहन चतुर्वेदी, पीठासीन अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1110.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स महानिदेशक, (वक्र्स) सीपीडब्ल्यूडी, नई दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली -1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 182/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को हार्ड और सॉफ्ट कॉपी 21.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुए थे ।

[सं.एल-42011/91/2015 -आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2020

S.O. 1110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 182/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court New Delhi -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers3260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] in relation to The Director General, (Works) CPWD, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government with Hard and Soft Copy on 21.12.2020.

[No. L-42011/91/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 182/2015

Date of Passing Award- 20th February, 2020

Between:

Smt. Rani W/o Bishan, Represented by the General Secretary, CPWD Mazdoor Union Room No. 95, Barracks No.1/10, Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi- 110011. … Claimant

Versus

Director General, (Works) CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri B. K. Prasad (A/R) : For the claimant None for the management (A/R) : For the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between employer i.e. the management of CPWD, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42011/91/2015 (IR(DU) dated 20.08.2015 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

"Whether Smt. Rani W/o Shri Bishan is entitled to be regularized as Sweeper in Group D category and if so from which date and what direction are necessary in this respect?"

As stated in the claim statement the claimant Rani is working as a part time sweeper with the management since the year 1987 and the current remuneration paid to her is 1300/- per month. CPWD is an establishment covered under the schedule of Employment of Minimum Wages Act 1948 as it discharges the function like construction and maintenance of Roads, Buildings, etc. As such the persons employed in this management for work are entitled to the minimum wage notified by the government from time to time in respect of the work done by them. Under the provisions of section 15 of the Minimum Wages Act if an employee whose minimum rate of wage has been fixed under this Act by the day works on any day on which he is employed for a period of less than the requisite numbers of hours constituting a normal working day, he shall be entitled to receive wages in respect of the work done by him on that day as if he had worked for a full normal working day. Thus, the action of the management describing the claimant as a part time sweeper and thereby, denying him the minimum wage of an unskilled worker or the pay scale given to the regular sweeper amounts to unfair labour practice. In the year 1986 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of surrender Singh and others vs. Engineer in Chief CPWD while dealing with unfair labour practice had directed for regularization of all such workers working as casual workers by launching a special scheme. While implementing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the management created 8982 posts in different categories in the work charge establishment of CPWD and regularized the persons w.e.f 30.09.1992. Though as per the said judgment the claimant is entitled to regularization of her service in Group D category, the management in total defiance of the direction of the Supreme Court and different circulars issued at different times by the Ministry of Home Affairs and DOPT discriminated the workman. Though persons standing in the same footing with that of the claimant[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3261 have been regularized in service. It has also been stated that the claimant was selected as a sweeper in the year 1987 pursuant to notification of the vacancy in the notice board and after qualifying in the interview. Thus, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh vs. Engineer in Chief CPWD she is entitled to regularization of service and equal pay for equal work. By citing various circulars of the government issued from time to time the claimant has prayed that he has been subjected to unfair labour practice and discrimination by the management. A direction need to be issued to the management to regularize her as a sweeper in Group-D category and to pay her salary at par with the regular employees drawing in the same post. The further prayer is that the direction should be given for regularization w.e.f 30.09.1992.

The management CPWD filed WS refutting the claim of the workman. It has been stated in the WS that the claimant is working as a part time sweeper since the year 1987 and the nature of work discharged by him hardly justifies one or two hours in a day. Accordingly she was being paid remuneration for such part time work on hand receipt. She had never worked as a temporary/casual or muster roll employee. Being a part time worker she was working in the Electrical Construction Division-IV CPWD and at times in other division too. She was not appointed being sponsored by the employment exchange nor had ever enrolled herself in the employment exchange. Thus, she has not fulfilled the minimum requirement to be appointed against any Group-D post of the Central Government Office or establishment. It has also been stated that no discrimination has been shown to the claimant in respect of payment of remuneration as she is being paid for the hours of the work done on hand receipt. On 11.03.2011 CPWD had issued an order as one time measure for regularization of muster roll/hand receipt and casual workers of CPWD and the case of the workman being found not eligible, her service was not regularized. While citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi the stand taken by the management is that the claimant since had made a back door entry is not entitled to regularization of her service. It has also been stated that the claimant admittedly had started working for CPWD in the year 1987 and the scheme was launched for regularizing the service of those persons engaged before 07.05.85. Hence the judgment of Surinder Singh has no applicability for the claim of the present claimant. Thereby the management has pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi.

On the rival pleading the following issues were framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

1. Whether the claim petition by the workman is misconceived and not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections.

2. In terms of reference.

The claimant examined herself as WW1and filed a series of documents marked as WW1/1 to WW1/9. In addition to that she has also filed photocopies of several circular marked as F,G,H and I. On behalf of the management its Executive Engineer testified as MW1 and proved the documents MW1/1 to MW1/6.

FINDINGS

ISSUE No. 1

In order to answer this issue it is necessary to decide whether the workman was appointed as a part time sweeper or she is entitled to be held as a full time sweeper. Management has admitted that the claimant is working in Electrical Construction Division-IV CPWD since the year 1987. Whereas the claimant has stated that she is working as a full time sweeper the management has taken a stand describing her as the part time sweeper. Thus, it is to be seen if the management is justified in describing the claimant as a part time sweeper and thereby denying her the daily rated wage payable to a sweeper as per the government notification.

The claimant in his oral testimony has stated that she is working for the management continuously since the year 1987 and getting Rs. 1300/- per month only as the management has given her the name of part time sweeper. When the other persons engaged for sweeping by the management are getting the full wage she has been denied on the plea of part time sweeper. She has further stated during cross examination that her work as a sweeper starts from 08.00 AM and ends at 09.00 A.M during which she has to cover 10 to 12 rooms and toilets every day. For the remaining hours of the day she remains in the office and attends the directions given by the employer. Of course no document has been filed by the claimant to prove that she remains present and works during the regular office hours. In this regard the workman has explained that no record of arrival and departure is being maintained though she used to put her signature on the attendance register daily. This statement of the claimant has not been denied by the management. Thus from the evidence it is evidently clear that the claimant is working for the management since the year 1987 and attending the work of sweeping. There is no document about the engagement of the claimant as a part time sweeper. But the hand receipts and payment3262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vouchers filed by the management describes the claimant as a part time sweeper. Thus, it is necessary to examine whether such description will influence the entitlement of the claimant.

The Ld. A/R for the claimant pointed out that the state government from time to time notifies the minimum wage payable to the daily rated workers. In the said notification there is no mention about part time or full time workers. Moreover the establishment of CPWD engaged in construction and maintenance of Road and Buildings is dealing with scheduled employment as per section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act 1948. The provision of section 15 of the said Act provides that if for an employee a minimum rate of wage has been fixed under this Act by the day work and or any day for which he is employed to work would get the minimum wage as notified by the government. If for the Scheduled employment somebody works for a period of less than the requisite number of hours constituting a normal working day, he shall save as otherwise provided, be entitled to receive wages in respect of the work done by him on that day as if he had worked for a normal working day. This provision is subject to the exception where the workman fails to work for the normal working hours for his unwillingness and not by the omission of the employer to provide him with the work.

Taking assistance of the provision of section 15 of the Minimum Wages Act the Ld. A/R submitted that the CPWD since providing scheduled employment cannot retain the claimant as a part time sweeper and such description given to her is only designed to deprive her of the legitimate dues. On behalf of the management no evidence has been laid to show that the CPWD is authorized to engage part time workers and pay them less than the minimum wage payable to the daily rated workers. Thus, it is concluded that the claimant is working for the management since 1987 and she has been denied the minimum wage payable to the full time sweeper which has been admitted by the management.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Surinder Singh and another vs. The Engineer in Chief CPWD and others reported in ATR 1986 SC Page 76 have clearly held in the following manner:-

"Equal pay for equal work- daily rated employee performing the same duty if entitled to be paid the same salary and allowances as are paid to the regular and permanent employee- principle for equal pay for equal work if not an abstract or vital and vigorous doctrine? The petitioners and all other daily rated employee were directed to be paid the same salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employee w.e.f the date when they were respectively employed? And express the hope that the government would take appropriate action to regularize the service all those who have been in continuous employment for more than 6 months."

In this case it is thus held that the claimant/workman since working as a full time sweeper since the year 1987 but not getting the wage at par with the regular sweepers working for the CPWD is entitled to equal pay at par with the regular employees employed as sweepers.

The next question is whether the workman is entitled to be regularized as a sweeper in the Group D category of the management? In the written statement the management has taken a serious objection that she was neither employed before 1985 to be exempted from being sponsored through the Employment Exchange nor her engagement in the year 1987 was through the Employment Exchange. As such she is not entitled to be regularized as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh referred supra. The further stand taken by the management is that the CPWD in compliance to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had launched a scheme for regularization of the muster roll/hand receipt casual workers of CPWD. An order to that effect was issued on 11.03.2011. During that time the claimant was found not eligible and as such her name was not included in the list. In reply the Ld. A/R for the workman pointed out that in the case of Surinder Singh vs. CPWD refereed supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed for paying equal remuneration for equal work and also for regularizing the service of the causal workers by launching a scheme. Even prior to that the Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a memorandum bearing no. 16/05/68-ESST (D) dated 05th July 1968 giving a clear direction that the part time casual labours who were recruited in an office directly, without being referred by the Employment Exchange and who are working on the date of issue of this office memorandum should not be considered for appointment to the regular establishment unless they get themselves registered with the Employment Exchange, rendered continuous service as a part time casual worker for a minimum period of 4 years from the date of registration or subsequently sponsored by the Employment exchange. But this circular is not applicable to the claimant since she was never a part time sweeper nor the management is authorized to engage part time sweeper.

The Ld. A/R representing the management strenuously argued on the basis of this office memorandum to say that in the year 1988 when the judgment of Surinder Singh was implemented and the Ministry of DOPT had issued a office memorandum to that effect on 7th June 1988 and the Ministry of Labour and Employment also issued a notification in the same line on 23rd August 1988 the claimant since was found not eligible, left out of regularization.

It is true that in the office memorandum of Ministry of Home Affairs dated 5th July1968 a line has been drawn between the persons sponsored by the Employment Exchange and not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. But that circular has lost its force since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam Krishna District vs. K.B.N Visweshwara Rao and others reported in 1987- 1LLJ 545SC, have clearly held that the selection of the candidate through the Employment Exchange alone is not proper. Simultaneous public notification through public newspapers, notice board etc need to be made for wide circulation to consider the cases of all the candidates desirous to apply. If this procedure is adopted fair play would be sub served. The workman of this case in his oral testimony has stated that pursuant to a notice published in the notice board she made application and her selection was made before appointment. No appointment letter has been filed by the workman. But that would not defeat the stand taken by the appellant since it is a fact commonly noticeable that the management/ government offices never issue appointment letter/engagement letter to the persons engaged as daily wager or casual workers. Thus it is held that the claimant/workman was engaged in work pursuant to a notice issued in the notice board and she cannot be deprived of her right of regularization solely on the ground that her name was not sponsored by the employment exchange.

From the documents filed by the workman and marked as WW1/2 it is found that on 06.07.1988 DOPT had issued a guideline for regularization for engagement of casual workers and as per the said guideline casual workers can be engaged for work of casual nature and not of fulltime nature or for which regular post can be created. As per the said guideline were the nature of work entrusted to casual worker and regular employee is the same the casual worker may be paid @1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus DA and the regularization of service of the casual workers will continue to be governed by the instruction issued by that department in that regard. Again the C and A.G New Delhi in their letter No. 891-N dated 9th March 1994 issued a circular on the subject of recruitment of casual labourers on daily wage basis. According to that circular which has been filed by the workman, recruitment of the daily wage casual labour can only be made for work which is of casual or seasonal or intermittent nature and the work which cannot be entrusted to Group D employee. But as per the statement and evidence adduced by both the parties in this proceeding the claimant Rani was engaged as a casual worker of Sweeper which is not of seasonal or intermittent nature but of regular nature which can be entrusted to group D employees.

In this regard the Ld. A/R for the claimant drew the attention of the tribunal to the order passed by the Hon'ble Principal Bench of CAT New Delhi in the case of Raj Kamal and others vs. Union of India wherein the Hon'ble CAT have observed in clear terms that while the existing guideline contained in office memorandum dated 07.06.1988 of DOPT may continue to be followed, the casual employees presently employed and have rendered one year of continues service in Central Government Offices other than the department of the Telecom Post and Railways may be regulated by the scheme formulated by the government for that purpose.

The Government of India in the department of personal and training framed a scheme in the name of Casual Labourers (grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme of Government of India 1993 which came into force on 01.09.1993. As per the scheme temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers in employment of the Ministry and Department of Government of India who are in employment on the date of issue of the office memorandum and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a calendar year.

Pointing out to the said scheme the Ld. A/R for the workman submitted that clause 4(ii) confers temporary status on those casual labourers who have completed 240 days in a calendar year without reference to the creation/ availability of regular Group D post. Thus he submitted that the evidence adduced on record by the claimant and the document placed on record by the management which are in the nature of several hand receipts and copies of the cash register have clearly proved that since the year 1987 the claimant is working as a sweeper with CPWD, but not getting the minimum wage and has completed 240 days in a calendar year, thereby making himself entitled to get the benefit of the scheme launched for the casual labours in the year 1993.

It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden lies with the casual labours/daily wager to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in a year. Once the said primary burden is discharged, the burden shifts upon the management to disprove the same. In this case the claimant has claimed about the continuous work done by her with the management since the year 1987. She has also filed copies of the hand receipt to support the stand that she has worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The said burden being discharged, it was upon the management to disprove the same. But the documents which are the hand receipts and the cash register filed by the management rather corroborate the stand of the claimant in this regard. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Superintending Engineer TWAD and another vs. M. Natesan and others reported in (2019)2SCC (Land S) 160. Thus all these circulars and the evidence taken together lead to a conclusion that the workman since working continuously from the year 1987 and discharging3264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] permanent nature of work as a sweeper is entitled to be conferred temporary status as per the circular of DOPT dated 07th June 1988. Not only that she is also entitled to grant of temporary status and regularization as per the scheme of Government of India 1993 effective from 01.09.1993.

In the case of Surinder Singh and Another vs. CPWD the Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the year 1986 had issued a clear guideline for grant of equal pay for equal work and to regularize the service of all those who have been in continuous employment for more than 6 months. It is also seen that the CPWD for implementation of the said order had issued an office memorandum on 21.10.1990 directing equal pay for equal work to the daily rated workers. Admittedly the present claimant though discharging permanent nature of work and entitled to temporary status has not been paid monthly emolument admissible to her regular counter parts. This is in total violation of the office memorandum dated 21.10.1990 of CPWD and the scheme launched by DOPT for grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers. Furthermore the Hon'ble CAT Principle Bench Delhi by its order dated 16.02.1990 in the case of Raj Kamal and others referred supra gave a clear direction to follow the OM dated 07.06.1988 and to grant temporary status to the casual employees who are in continuous service of the Central Government as per the scheme. The same has not been complied by the CPWD. The only stand taken by the management is that the claimant was not sponsored by the employment exchange is not accepted in view of oral testimony of the claimant that her engagement was made pursuant to a notice published in the notice board and in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent Malkapuram referred supra holding that inviting names from the Employment Exchange alone would not be sufficient in case of public employment, it is held that the claim filed by the workman is not misconceived and maintainable. She is entitled to be conferred with temporary status and regularization as sweeper in Group D category in CPWD w.e.f 30.09.1992 as per the policy of the regularization adopted by the management CPWD. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the claimant.

ISSUE No. 2

In view of the finding reached in respect of issue no.1 it is held that the claimant is entitled to be regularized in service w.e.f. 30.09.1992 and entitled to pay at par with the counterpart regular employee from that day alongwith all other consequential service benefits since she has not attained the age of superannuation during pendency of this dispute. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The claim be and the same is answered in favour of the workman. The management Director General CPWD is directed to regularize the service of the claimant w.e.f 30.09.1992 and pay her the pay at par with the counterpart regular employees from that day. It is further directed that the instruction given in this award shall be implemented within 3 months from the date when the award would become executable and the financial benefits shall be granted to her without interest within 2 months from the date of the regularization failing which the accrued amount shall carry interest @6 % per annum from the date of publication of the award till the final payment is made. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1111.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में

के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स एटीसी, टेलीकॉम इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर, बैंगलोर (कर्नाटक), और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र

के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 16/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार

को 07.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुए थे ।

[सं. एल- 40011/19/2019 -आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3265

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2020

S.O. 1111.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The ATC, Telecom Infrastructure, Bangalore (Karnataka) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.12.2020.

[No. L-40011/19/2019-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2020

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

CR 16/2019

I Party

II Party

The Management of ATC Telecom Infrastructure, At HMT Tower, 1st Floor, Magrath Road Junction, Brigade Road, Ashoknagar, Bangalore - 560001.

The President, American Telecom Tower Corporation Technician Karnataka, Suri Bhavan, No. 40/5, 2nd 'B' Main, 16th Cross, Sampangiram Nagar, Bangalore - 560027.

Appearance :

Advocate for I Party  :   None
Advocate for II Party :    None

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-40011/19/2019-IR(DU) dated 06.11.2019 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 workmen engaged by third Party contractors and their un-recognised technicians'

Union is justified in claiming that they are the employees of the ATC Telecom Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd. and are entitled to be treated and benefitted as regular employees. If not, what relief

the three workmen are entitled to?'

1. Though served 1st Party did not appear to prosecute their claim. Manager (Legal) of the 2nd Party appeared on 02.01.2020. Thereafter there is no representation for the 2nd Party. Respective Statements are not filed by them.

2. In the circumstances it is inevitable to answer that 1st Party did not justify their claim before this Tribunal that workmen engaged by 3rd Party Contractors and their un-recognised technicians are the employees of the ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited. Hence, they cannot be treated and benefitted as regular employees of the 2nd Party.

AWARD

The Reference is rejected.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 20th November, 2020)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer3266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1112.—के न्द्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (यथा संशोधित, 1987) के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय के प्रशासकीय नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ञानान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :

1. कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि संगठन क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गुरूग्राम (पश्चिम)

[सं. ई-11016/1/2017-रा.भा.नी.]

गोपाल प्रसाद, आर्थिक सलाहकार

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2020

S.O. 1112.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:—

1. Employee's provident fund organization, Regional Office, Gurugram (West).

[No. E-11016/1/2017-RBN]

GOPAL PRASAD, Economic Adviser

नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1113.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भिलाई स्टील प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकाराें के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 12/2010) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-26012/7/2009-आईआर (एम)]

नवीन वैद्य, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2020

S.O. 1113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bhilai Steel Plant, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.12.2020.

[No. L-26012/7/2009-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/2010

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Chandra Prakash Street No.5, Qtr.No.254, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai, Durg (C.G)

…Workman[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3267

VERSUS

The Deputy General Manager, SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant, Dalli Mechanical Mines, Dalli Rajhara Durg (C.G.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 18th day of December 2020)

1. As per letter dated 8-1-2020 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-26012/7/2009-IR(M)The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in terminating the services of

Shri Chandra Prakash vide order No.OMQ/DLM EST/2007/294 dated 30/1/2007 is just and legal?

To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date ."

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The parties have filed their respective claim/defence.

2. According to the workman deceased since now, he was appointed as Operator-cum-technician on 1-11-1995. During the course of his service, he was terminated from service vide order dated 30-1-2007 issued by the Deputy General Manager on the charge of willful unauthorized absence. No inquiry was conducted; hence the action of the Management is against law. He has prayed the relief of his reinstatement in service with all service benefits, setting aside his dismissal.

3. The case of the Management is that the workman committed serious misconduct, willful and habitual absence of duty without leave during the course of his employment. He was issued a charge sheet dated 20-3-2006. He did not submit any reply. The Management decided to conduct an inquiry and an Inquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer were nominated. The workman participated in the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report after inquiry, wherein he held the workman guilty of habitual, willful and unauthorized absence from duty on the basis of admissions of the workman which were made during the inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry and passed the order of dismissal from service vide order dated 30-1-2007. The workman was earlier punished for misconduct at several times, details mentioned in para-6 of the written statement of defense by the Management. According to the Management, the charges attracted the punishment of dismissal, therefore the Management prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

4. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by my Learned Predecessor vide his order dated 26-10-2016:-

Issue No.1:- Wheather enquiry conducted against workman is just, proper and legal?

Issue No. 2:-Wheather, misconduct alleged against workman are proved from evidence adduced in enquiry proceedings?

Issue No. 3:- Wheather, punishment of removal from services of workman is just, proper and legal?

Issue No. 4:- If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

5. ISSUE NO. 1

Issue No.1 was taken as preliminary issue. The workman did not produce any evidence. The Management produced its witnesses and filed affidavit which is un-cross-examined. The Management also proved documents of inquiry Exhibit M-1 to M-5.

6. Vide his order dated 26-7-2017 my learned Predecessor held the departmental inquiry legal and properly conducted. Accordingly Issue No.1 is decided against the workman. His this order is part of the award. Issue No.1 is decided accordingly.

7. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence/hearing on remaining issues. None of the parties filed any evidence. The workman died during this period and his legal heirs were substituted on record.

8. I have heard Shri A.K.Shashi, Learned Counsel for the Management. None appeared from the side of the workman. I have perused the record as well.

9. ISSUE NO. 2:

From the documents M-1 to M-5 proved by Management witness when read in the light of management witness, the charge of habitual/ willful absence is proved. The workman himself has also admitted this charge which is clear from his statement before the Inquiry Officer, copy proved as Exhibit M-4, hence there is nothing to show that the finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding proof of the charge of misconduct as stated above is unjustified in fact and law. Accordingly, affirming the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the charge of misconduct in the form of habitual , willful and unauthorized absence is held proved against the workman. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.

10. ISSUE NO.3:-

According to the Management the workman is guilty of unauthorized and willful absence on earlier occasions also, details of which are mentioned in paragraph-6 of the written statement which is being reproduced as follows:-

For willful and habitual absence:-

1. Suspension without wages for a period of four days from 28-8-2003 to 31-8-2003 by order dated 23-8-2003.

2. Reduction by one stages in the time Scale for a period of one year with cumulative effect by order dated 8-1-2004.

3. Reduction by two stages in the time scale for a period of two years with cumulative effect by order dated 19-12-2005.

OTHER MISCONDUCT:

4. Reduction by two increments in the time scale for a period of one year without cumulative effect by order dated 22-7-2006 for the misconduct of fraud or dishonesty in connection with company's business or property.

11. The settled preposition of law is that this Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority on the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and punishment awarded can be interfered with when it is shockingly dis- proportionate to the charge. In the case in hand, keeping in view the previous misconduct as mentioned and proved the punishment cannot be said to be so excessive to be categorized as shockingly dis-appropriate to the charges. Hence, holding the punishment not unjustified and excessive, Issue No.3 is decided against the workman.

12. ISSUE NO.4:-

In the light of the findings recorded earlier, the workman is held entitled to no relief. Issue No. 4 is decided accordingly.

13. Accordingly, On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in terminating the services of Shri Chandra Prakash vide order No.OMQ/DLM EST/2007/294 dated 30/1/2007 is justified and legal.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

14. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

DATE: 18.12.2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ.1114.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भिलाई स्टील प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकोंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 24/2016) का प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-26011/3/2016-आई आर (एम)]

नवीन वैद्य, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3269

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2020

S.O. 1114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bhilai Steel Plant, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.12.2020.

[No. L-26011/3/2016-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/24/2016

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The President Jai Sharam Shakti Refinery Thekedar Workers Union, 136/4, Bishan Swaroop Colony, Near Labour Office Panipat, Haryana.

…Workman

Versus

The Executive Director(P) Bhilai Steel Plant, Equipment chowk, 2nd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, P.O.-Bhilai, durg (CG-490001) …Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 16th day of December 2020)

1. As per letter dated 15-17/2/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-26011/3/2016-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai in revising the Leave

Encashment Rule without complying with the provision of the Sec.9A of Industrial Dispute Act,1947

is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ."

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

2. The notices to workman union were received back with a an endorsement that President of Union was not found residing on the address given as is mentioned in the ordersheet dated 27-4-2017. It was further ordered by my learned Predecessor on 27-4-17 that notices be served through Management and date 12-7-2017 was fixed. On that date, as it appears from the perusal of the ordersheet, Management filed a xerox copy of a report stating that no such Union was functioning with their establishment. Again registered notice were sent to the Workman/Union through Management which was returned unserved with the endorsement that no such addressee was found on the said address. There was no other address mentioned in the reference. Copy of the reference order sent by the appropriate Government to the parties including the workman/union who raised the dispute, in these circumstances, holding that the workman/Union had knowledge of the pendency of the reference and they did not appear inspite of knowledge that the case was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte against the workman/Union vide order dated 1-7-2019.

3. The Management filed its written statement of defense wherein it was pleaded that no dispute with the Management regarding change of Encashment Rules was ever raised by the President of the said Union. The Encashment rules are applicable to the regular employee of the Management and not to the Contractor's employee. In fact there is no Industrial Dispute as defined under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 with the answering Management and accordingly it was prayed that the reference be answered against the workman/Union.

4. Affidavit of Management witness was filed support.

5. At the time of argument, none was present from the side of the workman/Union, hence arguments of learned counsel for Management Shri A.K.Shashi were heard. I have gone through the record as well.

6. The Reference is the point in issue in the case in hand.

7. The initial burden to prove its case lies on the party who asserts it. In this case the burden lies on the workman/Union in which they have utterly failed. Hence the reference is liable to be answered against the workman/Union.

8. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai in revising the Leave Encashment Rule without complying with the provision of the Sec.9A of Industrial Dispute Act,1947 is held to be legal and Justified.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

DATE: 16.12.2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1115.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भिलाई स्टील प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 49/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-26011/21/2017-आई आर (एम)]

नवीन वैद्य, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2020

S.O. 1115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bhilai Steel Plant, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.12.2020.

[No. L-26011/21/2017-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/49/2019

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The President,

Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC)

Nandni Branch, Qtr.No.37/B,

Street No.7, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh-490006. …Workman

Versus

The Executive Director (Mines)

M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL,

Post Bhilai, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh-490001.

…Management[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 2, 2021/पौष 12, 1942 3271

AWARD

(Passed on this 15th day of December 2020)

1. As per letter dated 25-4-2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-26011/21/2017-IR(M) The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Nandini Mines, Bhilai Steel Plant(SAIL) in withholding

the promotion of Shri Umesh Kumar Mishra, Union President and neglecting & discriminating the

Office bearers Shri Umesh Kumar Mishra, Union President and Shri Yunush Mashih, General

Secretary of the Union(Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC), Bhilai) on the ple of misconduct of

disclosing information/publishing news in local print media is proper, legal and justified? If not,

what relief the Union Office bearers and the President of the Union are entitled to ? ."

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served.

2. The President of the Workman/Union Umesh Kumar Mishra appeared with his learned counsel Mr. K.B.Singh and filed an application with affidavit and vakalatnama of his learned counsel, wherein he has stated that the dispute has been settled outside Court and now no dispute exists as such, hence, the reference be decided as such in the light of his application and affidavit.

3. Learned Counsel for Management, Shri A.K.Shashi has no objection as he also admits that the dispute exists no more.

4. In the light of admissions by the parties, that the dispute no more exists, now the reference has become infructuous and a no dispute award is required to be passed.

5. Accordingly passing a no dispute award, the matter is closed.

6. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

DATE: 15.12.2020

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1116.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भिलाई स्टील प्लांट के प्रबंधतंत्र, संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 98/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.12.2020 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-26012/6/2008-आई आर (एम)]

नवीन वैद्य, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2020

S.O. 1116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bhilai Steel Plant, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.12.2020.

[No. L-26012/6/2008-IR(M)]

NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director

ANNXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/98-2008

Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary, Chhattisgarh Sangrami Shramik Sangh Indira Nagar, Chaidaini Bhata, P.O. Dallirajhara, Durg (CG).

…Workman3272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

VERSUS

The Managing Director Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai, Durg (C.G.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 11th day of December 2020)

1. As per letter dated 25-7-2008 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-26012/6/2008-IR(M)The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant (SAIL) in their Iron Ore Complex,

Dallirajhara, Durg in punishing Shri T.Kanta Rao, Sr. Operator, HEME with the punishment of

Reduction of lower grade of S-6 for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect vide letter of

punishment No.OMQ/RJM/ESTT/PUN/2005/2014 dt.21/9/2005 of Dy. G.M. Dalli Mech. Mines is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

2. According to the Statement of Claim, the workman T.Kanta Rao is an Office Bearer of the Workman Union and to defer him from his union activities and from raising demands of workers, false charges were leveled against him and a departmental inquiry conducted was against all principles of law and natural justice.

The workman was wrongly held guilty for mis-conduct and the punishment awarded was disproportionate.

Accordingly, it was prayed that the reference be answered in favour of the workman, holding the inquiry and punishment not justified in law.

3. The case of the Management is that the workman committed serious misconduct during the course of employment. He was kept under suspension vide order dated 9-2-2004 and was issued a departmental charge sheet dated 13-2-2004. The charges leveled against him were as follows:-

1. Slowing down of work-Clause-20(2xII)

2. Willful damage to Company's goods or property Clause-29-(1) (x).

3. Willful insubordination & disobedience to lawful & reasonable order of a superior Clause- 29-(1)(1).

4. Holding meeting within Mines premises without the written permission of the Management clause-29-(1)(XV).

5. Striking work and inciting others to strike work in contravention of provisions of Law Clause- 29(1)(XVI).

6. Any act subversive of discipline in Mines premises Clause-29(1) (VIII).

7. Breach of any law applicable to the Mines clause-29(1) (XIX).

4. The workman submitted his reply dated 16-2-2004. A departmental inquiry was ordered to be conducted and Mr.S.K.Sahu. CPM, Enquiry, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and Mr. A.K.Nath, AGM was appointed Prosecution Nominee vide Office Order dated 28-2-2004. The workman was allowed to engage his co-worker Shri KPG Panicker as his representative. The Management filed documents which were proved as per law. The workman was given full opportunity to participate in the inquiry and he did participate in it.

He cross-examined the inquiry witnesses. The workman was held guilty by the Inquiry Officer for the charges No.4 , 5 6 and 7. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority who agreed with the findings of the inquiry. The workman was heard on the point of sentence and keeping in view his age and tenure of service the impugned punishment of reduction of increment for two years with cumulative effect was passed. The workman did prefer an appeal against the punishment on 5-10-2008 which was dismissed by the Appellant authority after hearing.

5. Accordingly, the case of Management is that the inquiry was conducted as per law and rules, also that the findings of the Inquiry Officer regarding the charges cannot be faulted in law and fact and the sentence itself was so lenient that it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman, holding the inquiry and punishment as per law.

6. Following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor on the basis of pleadings vide order dated 5-9-2013:-

(1) Whether the inquiry conducted against workman is proper and legal?

(2) Whether, the misconduct alleged against the workman are proved from evidence in inquiry proceedings?

(3) Whether, the punishment of reduction in lower grade for the period of two years is proper and legal? and

(4) What relief the workman is entitled to ?

7. ISSUE NO.1:-

Issue No.1 was taken as the preliminary issue and on the basis of evidence on record my learned Predecessor held the inquiry conducted against the workman legal and proper vide his order dated 28-10-2016.

This order is part of this Award.

After giving opportunity of hearing and providing evidence to both the parties on remaining issues, final arguments were heard. The workman side absented itself at the stage of arguments; hence arguments were heard of Shri A.K.Shashi, learned Counsel for the Management. I have also perused the record. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

8. ISSUE NO.2:-

The Management has proved the inquiry papers which are as under :-

Exhibit (M-1):- Statement of allegation and charges.

Exhibit (M-2):-Reply of the workman.

Exhibit (M-3):- Order regarding appointment of Inquiry Officer and Prosecution Nominee.

Exhibit (M-4):- 37 pages, proceedings of inquiry including the documents.

Exhibit (M-5):- Inquiry Report.

Exhibit (M-6):-Letter of punishment.

Exhibit (M-7):-Memo of appeal against the punishment order.

Exhibit (M-8):-Decision on appeal.

9. The proceedings of inquiry Exhibit(M-4) which is of 37 pages reveals on perusal that prosecution witnesses have supported the charges in their statements and they are further corroborated by documents, hence the findings of the Inquiry Officer, holding the charges proved as above, cannot be faulted in law and facts. Accordingly the finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding the proof of charges as stated above is affirmed.

Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE NO.3:-

The charges of misconduct proved attracts a maximum punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment awarded is reduction to lower grade of S-6 for a period of two years with cumulative effect, in no way it can be said so shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved so as to warrant interference of this Tribunal. The settled law on this point is that this Tribunal does not sit in appeal of order of the Competent Authority with3274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 2, 2021/PAUSHA 12, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] regard to punishment since there is no perversity in the punishment order, it cannot be faulted in law and fact, hence affirming the sentence Issue No. 3 is decided against the workman.

11. ISSUE NO. 4:-

On the basis of the findings recorded above, the workman is held entitled to no relief. Accordingly 12. Issue No.4 is decided.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A. The action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant (SAIL) in their Iron Ore Complex, Dallirajhara, Durg in punishing Shri T.Kanta Rao, Sr. Operator, HEME with the punishment of Reduction to lower grade of S-6 for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect is held justified in law and fact.

B. The workman is held entitled to no relief.

13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

DATE: 11.12.2020

P. K. S RIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर, 2020

का.आ. 1117.—राष्ट्रप‎ति, श्री पुर्णेन्दु कु मार श्रीवास्तव, पीठासीन अ‎धिकारी, के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्यो‎गिक अ‎धिकरण सह श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर को ‎दिनांक 25.12.2020 से छ : माह तक की अवधि अथवा नियमित पदाधिकारी के पदभार ग्रहण करने तक अथवा अगले आदेशो तक के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्यो‎गिक अ‎धिकरण सह श्रम न्यायालय, भुबनेश्वर के पीठासीन अ‎धिकारी के पद का अतिरिक्त प्रभार सौंपते है ।

[सं. अ-11016/08/2020-सीएलएस-II]

सतीश चन्दर, अवर स‎चिव

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2020

S.O. 1117.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar to Shri Purnendu Kumar Srivastava, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for a period of six months with effect from 25.12.2020 or till joining of a regular incumbent or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/08/2020-CLS-II]

SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.