5056 GI/2022

(1457)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 31]

नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 31— अगस्ट् त 6, 2022, िजनवार/ श्रावण 9— श्रावण 15, 1944

No. 31]

NEW DELHI, JULY 31—AUGUST 6, 2022, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 9–SRAVANA 15, 1944

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

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

को ला मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 2 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 705.—केन्री सरकार को ि प्रतीत िोता िज दक इससे उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित ृररक्षेत्र की भूजम में

से को ला अजभप्राप्त िोने की संभावना िज ;

और उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूजम के क्षेत्र के जववरण को अंतर्विष्ट करने वाला रे ांक सं्‍ ांक आरईवी/07/2022,

तारी 25 िून, 2022 का जनरीक्षण सेंरल कोलफील््स जलजमटेड (भूजम और रािस्ट्व जवभाग), िरभंगा िाउस, रााँची –

834029 (झार ण्ड) के का ािल में ा मिाप्रबंिक, सेंरल कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, ना ि करणृुरा क्षेत्र, जिला रााँची

(झार ण्ड) ा उृा ुक्त, जिला रांची, झार ंड के का ािल में ा मिाप्रबंिक ( ोि प्रभाग) आर.आई.-III, केन्री ान

ोिना एवं जडिाईन संस्ट् ान जलजमटेड, गोंडवाना ृजलेस, कांके रोड, रााँची (झार ंड) के का ािल में ा को ला जन ंत्रक,

1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता- 700001 के का ािल में दक ा िा सकता िज ;

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-18082022-238177

CG-DL-W-18082022-238177

1458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अतः अब, केन्री सरकार, को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अििन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे

इसमें इसके ृश्चात उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज ) की िारा 4 की उृ-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए,

उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूजम में को ले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आि की सूचना िेती िज ;

ऊृर उजल्लज त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूजम में जितबद्ध कोई व्यजक्त –

(i)

उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 4 की उृ-िारा (3) के अिीन की गई दकसी कारिवाई से हुए दकसी नुकसान क्षजत

ा संभाजवत नुकसान के जलए, अजिजन म की िारा 6 के अिीन प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा; अ वा

(ii) उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृ - िारा (1) के अिीन प्रभावी न रिने ृर ृूवेक्षण अनुज्ञजप्त ों के संबंि

में ा उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृ - िारा (4) के अिीन प्रभावी न रिने ृर नन ृट्टे के जलए

प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा और उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृिारा (1) के ण्ड (i) से ंड (iv) में

जवजनर्ििष्ट मिों के संबंि में उृगत व्य को उृिर्िित करने के जलए ृूवोक्त भूजम से संबंजित सभी मानजचत्रों,

सारजण ों और अन् िस्ट्तावेिों को,

इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से नब्बे दिनों के भीतर मिाप्रबंिक, सेंरल कोलफील््स

जलजमटेड, ना ि करणृुरा क्षेत्र, जिला रााँची (झार ण्ड) ा मिाप्रबंिक, सेंरल कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, भूजम और रािस्ट्व

जवभाग, िरभंगा िाउस, रााँची – 834029 (झार ण्ड) को सुृुिि करेगा।

अनुसूची

रोजिणी करकट्टा 10 एमटीवाई ओृनकास्ट्ट ृरर ोिना

जिला - रााँची (झार ण्ड)

( रे ांक सं्‍ ांक आरईवी/07/2022, तारी 25 िून, 2022 )

ब्लॉक

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम

ाना

सं.

अंचल

जिला

अििन के अिीन क्षेत्र

रटप्ृणी

एकड़ में

िेक्टे र में

ए

1.

नावाडीि

4

लारी

रााँची

996.06

403.09

भाग

2.

तुमांग

5

लारी

रााँची

1572.55

636.39

भाग

3.

करकट्टा

6

लारी

रााँची

211.35

85.53

भाग

4.

मा ाृुर

7

लारी

रााँची

100.05

40.49

भाग

5.

िेसालौंग

2

लारी

रााँची

01.11

0.45

भाग

कुल क्षेत्र (ब्लॉक – ए)

2881.12

1165.95

बी

1.

िेसालौंग

2

लारी

रााँची

16.43

6.65

भाग

2.

नावाडीि

4

लारी

रााँची

3.09

1.25

भाग

कुल क्षेत्र (ब्लॉक - बी)

19.52

7.90

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1459

सी

1.

नावाडीि

4

लारी

रााँची

0.07

0.03

भाग

कुल क्षेत्र (ब्लॉक - सी)

0.07

0.03

अििन के अिीन कुल क्षेत्र (ए + बी + सी)

2900.71

एकड़

(लगभग)

1173.88 िेक्टे र

(लगभग)

सीमा वणिन:

ब्लॉक

सीमा रे ा

सीमा वणिन

ए

ए1- ए 2- ए 3- ए 4- ए 5-ए6 –ए7-ए8-ए9-

ए10-ए11-ए12-ए13-ए14-ए15-ए16-

ए17- ए18- ए19- ए20- ए21- ए22- ए23-

ए24- ए25- ए26- ए27- ए28- ए29- ए30-

ए31- ए32- ए33- ए34- ए 35-ए36 –ए37-

ए38-ए39- ए40- ए41-ए42 –ए43-ए44-

ए45- ए46- ए47-ए48 –ए49-ए50-ए51-

ए52- ए53-ए54 –ए55-ए56- ए1.

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ए1’ से आरंभ िोकर ए2, ए3, ए4, ए5, ए6,

ए7, ए8, ए9, ए10, ए11, ए12, ए13, ए14, ए15,

ए16, ए17, ए18, ए19, ए20, ए21, ए22, ए23, ए24,

ए25, ए26, ए27, ए28, ए29, ए30, ए31, ए32, ए33,

ए34, ए35, ए36, ए37, ए38, ए39, ए40, ए41, ए42,

ए43, ए44, ए45, ए46, ए47, ए48, ए49, ए50, ए51,

ए52, ए53, ए54, ए55 और ए56 से गुिरते हुए

आरंजभक जबन्िु ‘ए1’ ृर जमलती िज।

बी

ए25-बी1-बी2-बी3-बी4-बी5-बी6-ए25.

रे ा जबन्िु ‘ए25’ से आरंभ िोकर जबन्िु बी1, बी2, बी3,

बी4, बी5 और बी6 से गुिरते हुए आरंजभक जबन्िु ‘ए25’

ृर जमलती िज।

सी

बी5-सी1-सी2-बी5.

रे ा जबन्िु ‘बी5’ से आरंभ िोकर जबन्िु सी1 और सी2 से

गुिरते हुए आरंजभक जबन्िु ‘बी5’ ृर जमलती िज।

[फा. सं. 43015/10/2022-एलएएण्डआईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2022

S.O. 705.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in

the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And, whereas, the plan bearing number Rev/07/2022, dated the 25^th June, 2022, containing details of the

areas of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land

and Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager,

Central Coalfields Limited, North Karanpura Area, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the office of the Deputy

Commissioner, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), RI- III,

Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the office of

the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700 001;

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

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may –

1460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i)

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

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

(ii)

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

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

effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure

incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, North Karanpura Area, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

or General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029

(Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

ROHINI KARKATTA 10 MTY OPENCAST PROJECT

DISTRICT- RANCHI (JHARKHAND)

[plan bearing number Rev/07/2022, dated the 25^th June, 2022 ]

Block

Serial

num-

ber

Village

Thana

number

Circle

District

Area under acquisition

Rem-

arks

in acres

in hectares

A

1.

Nawadih

4

Khalari

Ranchi

996.06

403.09

Part

2.

Tumang

5

Khalari

Ranchi

1572.55

636.39

Part

3.

Karkatta

6

Khalari

Ranchi

211.35

85.53

Part

4.

Mayapur

7

Khalari

Ranchi

100.05

40.49

Part

5.

Hesalong

2

Khalari

Ranchi

01.11

0.45

Part

Total Area of Block – A:

2881.12

1165.95

B

1.

Hesalong

2

Khalari

Ranchi

16.43

6.65

Part

2.

Nawadih

4

Khalari

Ranchi

3.09

1.25

Part

Total Area of Block – B:

19.52

7.90

C

1.

Nawadih

4

Khalari

Ranchi

0.07

0.03

Part

Total Area of Block – C:

0.07

0.03

Total Area under acquisition (A+B+C) :

2900.71

acres

(approxi-

mately)

1173.88

hectares

(approxi-

mately)

Boundary description:

Block

Boundary line

Boundary description

A

A1–A2–A3–A4–A5–A6-A7-A8-A9-A10-A11-A12-

A13-A14-15-A16-A17-A18-A19-A20-A21-A22-

A23-A24-A25-A26-A27-A28-A29-A30-A31-A32-

A33-A34-A35-A36-A37-A38-A39-A40-A41-A42-

A43-A44-A45-A46-A47-A48-A49-A50-A51-A52-

A53-A54-A55-A56-A1.

Line starts from point ‘A1’ and passes through

points A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10,

A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19,

A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A25, A26, A27, A28,

A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37,

A38, A39, A40, A41, A42, A43, A44, A45, A46,

A47, A48, A49, A50, A51, AS2, A53, A54, A55

and A56 and meets at starting point ‘A1’.

B

A25-B1-B2-B3-B4-B5-B6-A25.

Line starts from point ‘A25’ and passes through

points B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 and B6 and meets at

starting point ‘A25’.

C

B5-C1-C2-B5.

Line starts from point ‘B5’ and passes through

points C1 and C2 and meets at starting point ‘B5’.

[F. No. 43015/10/2022-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Director

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1461

ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 27 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 706.— ृेट़्रोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का अििन) अजिजन म 1962,

(1962 का 50) (इसके बाि उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 2 की उृ-िारा (ए) के अनुसरण में, केन् र सरकार उक्त

अजिजन म के अिीन जनम् न ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में उजल्लज त क्षेत्रों के संबंि में कॉलम (3) में उजल्लज त प्रचालनरत

ृेरोजल म ृाइृलाइनों के जलए इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड िेतु उक्त अजिजन म के अंतगित सक्षम प्राजिकरण के

का ों के जन्‍ृािन के जलए जनम्न ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लज त व्यजक्त को प्राजिकषत करती िज : —

व्यजक्त का नाम और ृता

क्षेत्राजिकार का क्षेत्र

ृेरोजल म ृाइृलाइन (न् स) का

नाम

ृररविन दकए िाने वाले

उत्ृाि / उत्ृािों

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

श्री आर बालमुरुगण

वररष्ठ प्रचालन प्रबंिक,

इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड

चेन्नई बैंगलोर ृाइृलाइन

आंध्र प्रिेि राज्

चेन्नई बैंगलोर ृाइृलाइन

एमएस, एचएसडी,

ृीसीके, ऐटीएफ

इससे ृूवि दिनांक 18 जसतंबर 2017 के भारत के रािृत्र में प्रकाजित दिनांक 23 जसतंबर 2017 के का.आ .

2226 के अंतगित आंध्रा प्रिेि राज् में इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए अजिसूजचत सक्षम प्राजिकारी,

श्री के वी एस मूर्ति, प्रचालन प्रबंिक को डी-नोरटफाइड समझा िाए।

ि अजिसूचना िारी िोने की तारी से लागू िोगी ।

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

ृी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2022

S.O. 706.—In pursuance of sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition

of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said Act), the Central Government hereby

authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the functions of the Competent

Authority under the said Act for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in respect of areas mentioned in column (2) for the

operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in Column (3) of the said Table:—

Name and Address of the Person

Area of Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum

Pipeline(s)

Product/products

being transported

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Shri R Balamurugan

Senior Operations Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Chennai Bangalore Pipeline

Andhra Pradesh sector

Chennai Bangalore Pipeline

MS, HSD, PCK, ATF

Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the State of Andhra Pradesh,

Shri K V S Murthy, Operations Manager, vide S.O. 2226 dated 18^th September 2017 published in the Gazette of India

dated 23^rd September 2017 stands de-notified.

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/19/2018-OR-1/E-27024]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

1462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 27 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ.707.—ृेट़्रोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का अििन) अजिजन म 1962,

(1962 का 50) (इसके बाि उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 2 की उृ-िारा (ए) के अनुसरण में, केन् र सरकार उक्त

अजिजन म के अिीन जनम् न ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में उजल्लज त क्षेत्रों के संबंि में कॉलम (3) में उजल्लज त प्रचालनरत

ृेरोजल म ृाइृलाइनों के जलए इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड िेतु उक्त अजिजन म के अंतगित सक्षम प्राजिकरण के

का ों के जन्‍ृािन के जलए जनम्न ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लज त व्यजक्त को प्राजिकषत करती िज : —

व्यजक्त का नाम और ृता

क्षेत्राजिकार का क्षेत्र

ृेरोजल म ृाइृलाइन (न् स) का

नाम

ृररविन दकए िाने वाले

उत्ृाि / उत्ृािों

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

श्री िोजभत उृाध् ा

अनुरक्षण प्रबंिक,

इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड

बरौनी कानृुर ृाइृलाइन

उत्तर प्रिेि राज्

बरौनी कानृुर ृाइृलाइन

एमएस, एचएसडी,

ृीसीके

इससे ृूवि दिनांक 17 अगस्ट्त 2019 के भारत के रािृत्र में प्रकाजित दिनांक 23 िुलाई 2019 के का.आ .1466

के अंतगित उत्तर प्रिेि राज् में इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए अजिसूजचत सक्षम प्राजिकारी, श्री जवन कुमार,

सिा क प्रबंिक (तकनीदक सेवाए) बीकेृीएल इलािाबाि को डी-नोरटफाइड समझा िाए।

ि अजिसूचना िारी िोने की तारी से लागू िोगी ।

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

ृी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2022

S.O. 707.—In pursuance of sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition

of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said Act), the Central Government hereby

authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the functions of the Competent

Authority under the said Act for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in respect of areas mentioned in column (2) for the

operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in Column (3) of the said Table:—

Name and Address of the Person

Area of

Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum

Pipeline(s)

Product/products

being transported

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Shri Shobhit Upadhyay

Operations Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Barauni Kanpur Pipeline, Barauni

Uttar Pradesh

sector

Barauni Kanpur Pipeline

MS, HSD, PCK

Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the State of Uttar Pradesh,

Shri Vinay Kumar, Assistant Manager (Technical Services), BKPL Allahabad, vide S.O. 1466 dated 23^rd July 2019

published in the Gazette of India dated 17^th August 2019 stands de-notified.

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/19/2018-OR-1/E-27024]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1463

नई दिल्ली, 27 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 708.—ृेट़्रोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का अििन) अजिजन म 1962,

(1962 का 50) (इसके बाि उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 2 की उृ-िारा (ए) के अनुसरण में, केन् र सरकार उक्त

अजिजन म के अिीन जनम् न ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में उजल्लज त क्षेत्रों के संबंि में कॉलम (3) में उजल्लज त प्रचालनरत

ृेरोजल म ृाइृलाइनों के जलए इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड िेतु उक्त अजिजन म के अंतगित सक्षम प्राजिकरण के

का ों के जन्‍ृािन के जलए जनम्न ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लज त व्यजक्त को प्राजिकषत करती िज : —

व्यजक्त का नाम और ृता

क्षेत्राजिकार का

क्षेत्र

ृेरोजल म ृाइृलाइन (न् स) का

नाम

ृररविन दकए िाने वाले

उत्ृाि / उत्ृािों

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

श्री वेंकटराम रामावत

जनमािण प्रबंिक,

इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड

ृारािीृ िजिराबाि ृाइृलाइन

तेलंगना राज्

ृारािीृ िजिराबाि ृाइृलाइन

एमएस, एचएसडी,

ृीसीके, ऐटीएफ,

ररफॉमैट

ि अजिसूचना िारी िोने की तारी से लागू िोगी ।

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

ृी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2022

S.O. 708.—In pursuance of sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition

of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said Act), the Central Government hereby

authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the functions of the Competent

Authority under the said Act for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in respect of areas mentioned in column (2) for the

operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in Column (3) of the said Table:—

Name and Address of the Person

Area of

Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum Pipeline(s)

Product/products

to be transported

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Shri Venkatram Ramavath

Construction Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline

Telangana

sector

Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline

MS, HSD, PCK, ATF,

Reformate

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/19/2018-OR-1/E-27024]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 1 अगस्ट् त, 2022

का.आ. 709.—केन् री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म

10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन साविजनक क्षेत्र के

उृक्रम के जनम् नजलज त का ािल में का ि बंि िो िाने के कारण अनजिसूजचत करती िज।

इंिीजन सि इंजड ा जलजमटेड,

सीआरएल ऐरोमेरटक ृरर ोिना,

डाकघर अम्बालामुगल,

जिला कोचीन, जृन 682302 (केरल)

[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-ओएल]

िोभना श्रीवास्ट् तव, उृ जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

1464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2022

S.O. 709.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby denotifies the following office of the Public Sector undertaking

under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, due to work closure.

Engineers India Limited

CRLAeromatic Project

PO Ambalamugal

District Kochin, Pin – 682302 (Kerla)

[F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL]

SHOBHANA SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Director (OL)

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 28 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 710.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार िेवी

इंिीजन ररंग कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, रांची के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और कामगारों, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्री सरकार esa

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] िनबाि ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 03 of 2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा

िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 24.06.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42011/155/2017- आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2022

S.O. 710.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03 of 2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour–1, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Heavy

Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi and The Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 24.06.2022.

[No. L-42011/155/2017- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

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

Reference: No. 03/2018

Employer in relation to the management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Employer

: Sri Kiran, Dy. Manager.

For workman

: Sri Bhawan Singh, Representative.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Heavy Industry

Dated : 24.02. 2022

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1465

AWARD

By Order No.L-42011/155/2017 (IR(DU)) dated 21.03.2018, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (HECL) Ranchi in

entertaining Hatia Project Workers’ Union and by ignoring three trade unions for joint bargaining is

an unfair labour practice under the ID Act, 1947? If yes, what directions are necessary in the case?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed. The President of Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU)

Sri Bhawan Singh has filed its written statement of claim on 14/03/2019 and the management of Heavy Engineering

Corporation Limited, Ranchi has filed its written statement cum rejoinder on 18/10/2019.

3.

The President of Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU) Sri Bhawan Singh has filed rejoinder to the written statement

of the management on 08/11/2019.

4.

The claim of the President of Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU) as per its written statement is as follows:-

That in the year 1960 Hatia Project Workers Union (INTUC) came into existence in the management of

Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited and was recognized by the management. Later on, the union was registered

under the Trade Union Act. Subsequently other unions came into existence which were registered under the Trade

Union Act and the Hatia Mazdoor Union (INTUC) was one them. The followers/members of Hatia Project Workers

Union started decreasing with the passage of time but its recognition continued. The Hatia Project Workers and other

trade unions of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Ranchi had been approaching the management of Heavy

Engineering Corporation Ltd. Ranchi to find out solution of the issue which would be fair, reasonable and legal but

even after expiry of 60 years, the management had not taken any step for the betterment of the workers, till today as a

result of which strike and lock out took place. The Hatia Mazdoor Union had also drawn the attention of the State

Labour Department on the point of recognition and the State Government took initiative for verification of the

membership of all the registered Trade Unions of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Ranchi. The Govt. Of

Jharkhand had communicated the result of verification vide letter no. 2/T-2-10-32/ dated 09/02/2016 to the

management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Ranchi for necessary action and as per result of the membership

verification, the existing recognized trade union, the Hatia Project Workers Union (INTUC) stood at third position as

it could secure only 19% of the total votes and the position of other trade unions namely Hatia Mazdoor Union

(INTUC) and Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch secured 20% each higher than the recognized trade union as a result the

Hatia Project Workers Union became inoperative w.e.f. 09/02/2016 as per Judgment of Delhi High Court. In the

meantime Hatia Mazdoor Union had sent letter to the Chairman cum Managing Director on 07/03/2016 to recognize

the following trade unions:- i)Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU) ii)Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch jointly but the notice was

not taken by the management and the status of Hatia Project Workers Union continued as it was. After that the Hatia

Mazdoor Union (CITU), Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch and Hatia Kamgar Union (AITUC) had jointly requested the

management of H.E.C. Ltd. to constitute a Joint Bargaining Committee Vide Letter Dated 03/10/2016 but the

management had not taken any notice on their request. The Central Public Sectors like Damodar Valley Corporation,

Bhilai Steel Plant (SAIL), Neyvelilignite Corporation Ltd. and BSNL had constituted Joint Recognition Committee

wherever the membership of the concerned trade union is very low. The Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU) had invoked

the provision made U/S 4 of the I.D. Act for mediating and promoting the settlement of Industrial Dispute but the

H.E.C Ltd. Ranchi denied the demand of the unions as a result Conciliation Officer has submitted failure report

resulting to reference on this case.

5.

On the other hand the case of the management as per its written statement is as follows:-

That this case is not maintainable and a mistake and error is apparent on the face of record, so the reference is

not sustainable in eye of law and liable to be dismissed in limine. The grant of recognition of the union cannot be

brought under section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act and it cannot be the subject matter of the Industrial Dispute.

The trade union has neither common law right nor statutory right which enables and entitles it to compel an employer

to give recognition to it as the bargaining agent of its members. The grant of recognition of union is not a fundamental

rights of any union claiming violation of his right to be recognized is completely unjustified in law. The union is

delusioned and mistaken of the fact that registration and recognition are two sides of the same coin and the Trade

Union Act, 1926 except for providing registration of the union do not oblige any employer to recognise any particular

union and no procedure has been prescribed for grant of any recognition. The securing of maximum votes in

membership verification of the workmen does not automatically accord the status of recognized union and the

membership verification has very limited effect of according a union only registration, not recognition. The H.E.C.

Ltd. Ranchi has started its production activities in the year 1963 and since then it had faced many problems of

multiplicity of trade unions. There is no statutory provision for recognition of Trade Unions in Trade Unions Act,

1926 but the H.E.C. Ltd. Ranchi had provided equal status and opportunity to every registered Trade Union to

1466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

exercise their right of collective bargaining for the social, economic and cultural upliftment of the workers. The

H.E.C. Ltd. Ranchi from time to time had conducted meetings and discussions with all the registered trade unions to

resolve issues and hear grievances in respect of service conditions of its members. The committee on issues related to

production, productivity, safety, welfare and wage administration had been formed comprising of representatives of

the management and two/three representatives of each registered Trade Unions in the company and till date four

number of meetings had been held with the said committee with the management representative.

The trade unions have developed inter-union rivalries and they are in constant competition against each

other, so the unions are more concerned with the dominance of their respective unions rather than raising any genuine

concern related to the interest of the workers. The last membership verification, which was held on 22/12/2015

through secret ballot and as per result submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the six registered unions

namely Hatia Project Workers Union got 133 votes, Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch got 136 votes, Hatia Mazdoor Union

got 136 votes, Hatia Kamgar Union got 106 votes, H.E.C.L Sharmik Karmachari Union got 133 votes and Janta

Mazdoor Union got 39 votes. The result shows that none of the unions has got 50% of votes or more members of

union and two number of unions have secured maximum 18.18% of votes and two number of unions have secured

17.78% of votes, so on the basis of such result of the membership verification, Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU), Hatia

Mazdoor Lok Manch and Hatia Kamgar Union (AITUC) had requested the management to provide recognition of

them. There is no concept of forming an alliance of different Trade Unions and union should either operate separately

or dissolve itself completely and merge into another and from a different entity all together. The Hatia Mazdoor Union

along with H.E.C Vetan Punarikshan Manch and four other registered unions had given one day strike on 03/09/2019

and in this regard a conciliation meeting was held in the Office of Regional labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi on

27/08/2019 where the Conciliation Officer requested all union to refrain from the proposed strike and advised the

management and the Unions to constitute a committee to examine the affordability and sustainability pertaining to

wage revision 2017 in H.E.C. Ltd. Ranchi. Subsequently H.E.C. Vetan Punarikshan Manch comprising Hatia

Mazdoor Lok Manch and Hatia Kamgar Union had taken decision to withdraw the strike called by them on

03/09/2019 but Hatia Mazdoor Uunion stood to their demands and accordingly went on strike on 03/09/2019. The

concept of Joint Recognition Committee is not applicable in HEC as all the three plants and the headquarters are

situated in Ranchi itself. The management of H.E.C. Ltd. Ranchi after considering the inter rivalry among the

different trade unions and also on the completion of three years of membership verification which was held on

22/12/2015 had approached the Labour Department, Government of Jharkhand for conducting Membership

Verification by secret ballot and the same was being conducted on 15/10/2019 but President of Hatia Mazdoor Union

(CITU) had made a request to postpone the membership verification. The President of Hatia Mazdoor Union has also

not submitted their nominations pertaining to a committee constituted for wage revision 2017 in HEC. The President

of Hatia Mazdoor Union used to instigating its member for strike, gheraos of the members of the managerial staff,

staging demonstrations at the Headquarters and Plants Gates resulting distributing of plant activities.

A prayer has been made to dismiss the reference case.

6.

The Hatia Mazdoor Union has filed its rejoinder in which it has denied all the averments made by the

management of HEC Ltd. Ranchi in its written statement.

7.

The representative of Hatia Mazdoor Union and the management of H.E.C. Ltd. Ranchi have neither adduced

any witness nor proved any documents in support of their case.

8.

The representative of the union namely Hatia Mazdoor Union, Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch and Hatia Kamgar

Union have submitted before the Tribunal that the Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU) and other trade unions are registered

under Trade Union Act, 1926 and thereafter none of the unions have sufficient workforce to claim recognition. He has

also submitted that the State Government in 2004 had conducted membership verification on the request of

management of the company and found five trade unions namely Hatia Project Workers’ Union (INTUC), Hatia

Mazdoor Lok Manch, Hatia Mazdoor Union (CITU), Hatia Kamgar Union (AITUC) and Heavy Engineering Workers

Union were found having more than 100 workmen and all the unions remained operative in the Company. He has also

submitted that the membership verification of the trade unions was again conducted on 22/12/2015 and in that

verification membership of Hatia Project Workers Union was found 133 whereas membership of other trade unions

namely Hatia Mazdoor Union and Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch had been found 136 members each and Hatia Kamgar

Union had 106 members but the management did not take any action on the basis of the result of the membership

verification for recognition of the Trade Unions for the purposes of the sole bargaining agent on the behalf of the

workmen. He has also argued that Hatia Project Workers’ Union had secured only 19.24% of the total votes polled

and thus lost the representative character but the management had tacitly allowed the recognition of the Hatia Project

Workers’ Union. He has also submitted that the all the three unions namely Hatia Mazdoor Union, Hatia Mazdoor

Lok Manch and Hatia Kamgar Union had requested the management of the Company for Joint Recognition of the

trade unions and for constituting a Joint Committee of Trade Unions but the management did not consider it and

thereafter the Hatia Mazdoor Union requested the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Govt. of India for

intervention in this matter. He has also argued that the Deputy Chief labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad and

Conciliation Officer initiated a conciliation proceeding between the management of the Company and the trade unions

but the dispute was not be settled. He has also argued that the management had allowed the continuation of the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1467

recognition of Hatia Project Workers’ Union and that amounts to unfair labour practice as per clause 2 of the Fifth

Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the management of the company is showing partiality and granting

favour to one of the several trade unions namely Hatia Project Workers’ Union, so it is an “Industrial Dispute” defined

Under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the reference is maintainable in the eyes of law. He has

also submitted that the Trade Union having representative character is being recognized by the management of that

Industry on the basis of its membership and management cannot recognize any trade union of its choice arbitrarily and

whimsically. He has also submitted that there is no justification for continuation of recognition of Hatia Project

Workers’ Union after verification of the membership. He has further argued that the claim of the management that it is

providing equal status and opportunity to every trade unions to exercise their right of collective bargaining is farce and

is a blatant lie as the management is giving status of recognition to the Hatia Project Workers’ Union. He has also

submitted that it is not a fact that most of the trade unions have developed inter-union rivalries and the purpose of

raising this dispute is to stop the unfair labour practices.

9.

On the other hand the learned representative of the management has submitted before Tribunal that this

reference is not maintainable and there is a mistake and error apparent on the face of the record. He has also argued

that this reference case is not covered under 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act as the trade unions have been excluded

for becoming a party to the Industrial Dispute. He has also argued that neither the Trade Unions Act, 1926 nor any

other statutory enactment envisages regarding the provision of recognition of a trade union and no procedure has been

prescribed for grant of any recognition. He has also submitted that the claim of the union that it should be recognized

on the basis of the result of membership verification is not sustainable in the law and the management had provided

equal status and opportunity to every registered union to exercise their right for collective bargaining for the social,

economic and cultural upliftment of the workers. He has also submitted that the management of HEC had conducted

meetings and discussions with all the registered unions to resolve issues and hear grievances/ allegation of union in

respect of service condition of members. He has also argued that the management of HEC only entertained Hatia

Project Workers’ Union by ignoring other trade unions for joint bargaining is completely wrong. He has also

submitted that there is no concept of forming an alliance of different trade unions and a union should either operate

separately or dissolve itself completely and merge into another. He has lastly submitted to dismiss this reference case

as it is not an Industrial Dispute.

10.

Now, the only point of consideration in this case is whether the action of management of Heavy Engineering

Corporation Ltd. (HECL) Ranchi in entertaining Hatia Project Workers’ Union and by ignoring three trade unions for

joint bargaining is an unfair labour practice under the I.D. Act, 1947.

FINDINGS

11.

At the outset of discussion it is required to mention here that it is an admitted fact that there are six registered

unions namely Hatia Project Workers’ Union, Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch, Hatia Mazdoor Union, Hatia Kamgar

Union, HECL Sharmik Karamchari Union and Janta Mazdoor Union working in HECL Ranchi and the membership

verification was held on 22/12/2015 through secret ballot in which Hatia Project Workers’ Union got 133 votes

(18.095%), Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch got 136 votes (18.503%), Hatia Mazdoor Union got 136 votes (18.503%),

Hatia Kamgar Union got 106 votes (14.421%), HECL Sharmik Karmachari Union got 133 votes (18.095%) and Janta

Mazdoor Union got 39 votes (5.306%).

12.

At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the Unfair Labour Practices has been defined under section 2

(ra) of the Industrial Dispute Act which reads as follows:-

Section 2 (ra)- ”unfair labour practice” means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule.”

Further in the Fifth Schedule of the I.D. Act there are two parts,- one part is unfair labour practices on the

part of employers and trade unions of employees and the other part is on the part of workmen and trade unions of

workmen.

The part one of the Fifth Schedule has mentioned altogether 16 points where there is unfair labour practices

on the part of employers and trade unions of employers and under point 15 it is mentioned that to refuse to bargain

collectively in good faith with the recognized trade unions.

13.

The recognition of trade union has been mentioned in Recognition Of Union, Under The Code Of Discipline

(Ministry of Labour Department of Labour Government of India).

The code provides for two types of recognition- (1) A union can claim to be recognised as representative

union for an industry as a whole in local area or (2) It can claim recognition as the majority union in the establishment.

Further rule 8 of the Code of Discipline reads as follows:-

A union can claim to be recognised as a majority union in an establishment if –

(i)

It has been functioning for a period of one year after registration under the Trade Unions Act.

The requirement need not be fulfilled if it is the only union functioning in the establishment.

1468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In case of branches of a union recognised under the code as a representative union for the industry, the

qualifying period of one year is not to be insisted upon for granting recognition to the branch union at

the unit level provided it satisfies the prescribed membership qualification and is operating in the same

local industry as the representative union.

(ii)

it considers that it commands a majority of membership – in any case not less than 15% of the workers

of that establishment,

(iii) it has not been found responsible for a breach of the Code within one year immediately before claiming

recognition,

(iv) the existing recognised union, if any, in the establishment has completed a period of two years after

recognition under the Code.

14.

Here, in this case it is required to mention here that the State Government had taken steps for verification of

the members of all the registered trade union of H.E.C, Ranchi and the result of verification communicated to the

management of H.E.C, vide letter no. 2/T-2-10-32/ dated 09/02/2016 which shows that Hatia Mazdoor Union has 136

members i.e. 18.503%, Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch has 136 members i.e. 18.503%, Hatia Project Wokers Union

(INTUC) has 133 members i.e. 18.095%, H.E.C.L Sharmik Karmachari Union has 133 members i.e. 18.095%, Hatia

Kamgar Union has 106 members i.e. 14.42% and Janta Mazdoor Union has 39 members i.e. 5.306%.

15.

At this stage it is relevant to mention here that as per recognition of unions under the Code of Discipline it is

very much clear that an union can claim to be recognized as a majority union in an establishment if it has been

functioning for a period of one year after registration, it commands a majority of the Membership - in any case not

less than 15% of the workers, it has not been found responsible for a breach of the Code within one year and the

existing recognised union, if any has completed a period of two years after recognition under the Code.

16.

Now, in view of above verification of membership of all the registered trade union of H.E.C, Ltd. Ranchi, the

Tribunal comes to conclusion that the Hatia Mazdoor Union and Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch which have secured 136

votes each amounting to 18.503% each and as per rule 8 of Recognition of union under the Code of Discipline they

can claim to be recognized as majority union in H.E.C. Ltd. Ranchi.

17.

Now, the question arises whether the management of H.E.C.L, Ranchi in entertaining Hatia Project Workers’

Union and by ingnoring three others trade unions for joint bargaining is an unfair labour practice?

18.

Here in this case the management of H.E.C. Ltd, Ranchi has allowed Hatia Project Workers’ Union to be

represented in different committees for bargaining with the management which has 133 members less than the

members of Hatia Mazdoor Union and Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch. The three trade unions namely Hatia Mazdoor

Union, Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch and Hatia Kamgar Union have requested the management of H.E.C.Ltd., Ranchi to

constitute a joint bargaining committee but the management had not taken any notice in request.

19.

On the other hand the management in his reply has stated that there is no concept of forming of alliance of

different trade unions, so the request of the union was not accepted.

20.

Now, in this reference case it is very much clear that the two trade unions of H.E.C. Ltd. Ranchi, namely

Hatia Mazdoor Union and Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch have secured 136 votes of members each, so both the trade

unions are majority unions and as per recognition of unions under the Code Of Discipline, they can claim to be

recognised as a majority unions in the establishment of H.E.C. Ltd. Ranchi.

21.

Further the refusal to bargain collectively with the recognised trade union comes under point 15 of the Unfair

Labour Practices of Fifth Schedule of the I.D. Act.

22.

In view of above discussions the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the management of H.E.C. Ltd.,

Ranchi in entertaining Hatia Project Workers’ Union and by ignoring three trade unions for joint bargaining comes

under Unfair Labour Practice under the I.D. Act.

23.

Hence, the Tribunal directs the management of H.E.C .Ltd., Ranchi to recognise the majority unions of the

establishment namely Hatia Mazdoor Union and Hatia Mazdoor Lok Manch and allow both the unions to bargain

collectively in the affairs of the management of H.E.C. Ltd., Ranchi.

This is the Award of the Tribunal.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1469

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 711.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार अिीक्षण ृुरातत्वजवि्, भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, आगरा ( ूृी),; मिाजनिेिक, भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण,

िनृ , नई दिल्ली ( ू.ृी), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री दिलीृ कुमार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट

केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 10 of 2016) को िजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 26.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल-42012/01/2016-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2022

S.O. 711.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10 of 2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Kanpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Superintending Archeologist, Archeological Survey of India, Agra(U.P.),; The Director General, Archeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi and Shri Dilip Kumar, worker which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 26.07.2022.

[No. L-42012/01/2016-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER

PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 10 of 2016

L-42012/01/2016-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2016

BETWEEN :

Shri Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Singh,

H. No. 116, Dahtora,

AGRA (U.P)-282007

AND

1.

The Superintending Archeologist

Archeological Survey of India,

Agra Circle, 22, Mall Road,

AGRA (U.P.)-282001

2.

The Director General,

Archeological Survey of India,

Janpath, New Delhi-110011

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the

Government of India in Letter No. L-42012/01/2016-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2016.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, Agra in terminating services

of Shri Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Singh workman with effect from 01.07.2013 is just fair & legal ? If

not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? ”

1470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On receipt of notification notice was issued to the parties on 15th March, 2016. In response to the notice the

AR of the worker filed the claim statement on 22.04.2016. Later on 24.10.2016 AR of the management filed a written

statement. On 07.12.2017 A.R of the worker filed rejoinder. From thereon the case was fixed for filing of the

documents of the worker. On perusal of the record it is found that the worker failed to make his presence before this

Tribunal and did not file the documents.

On 05.04.2022, during the pendency of the dispute A.R of the worker filed a memo declining his interest to

pursue the dispute. The worker failed to communicate with the A.R despite his several futile attempts to intimate the

worker regarding the proceeding of the dispute. This clearly manifests reluctance and non interest of the workman to

pursue the case. Pleadings of the workman are not to be read as substantive evidence.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 712.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार जनिेिक, भारती प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान, िी.टी. रोड, कानृुर, ( ू.ृी), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री

घनश् ाम ृांडे , कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर

ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍ ा 43 /2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 26.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2022-20-आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2022

S.O. 712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 43/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Kanpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director, Indian Institute of Technology, G.T. Road, Kanpur, (U.P.) and Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, worker which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 26.07.2022.

[No. L-42025/07/2022- 20- IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER

PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 43 of 2021

No.K-10/2-6/2021-IR dated 26.10.2021

BETWEEN :

Shri Ghanshyam Pandey S/o Late Udai Shanker Pandey,

7/8/C, Dena Bank Colony, Nankari, I.I.T,

Kanpur-208016 (U.P.)

AND

The Director, Indian Institute of Technology,

G.T. Road, Kanpur-208016

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1471

ORDER

11.05.2022

The averments in the claim application are concisely stated as here under:-

The applicant workman was initially appointed as daily waged “Typist” dated 19.10.1983 in Microprocessor

Training Programme in the Research and Development Department of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

hereinafter referred as Opposite Party.

On the basis of excellent work and conduct of the applicant, his services were regularly extended time to time

in various departments and projects initiated by Research and Development Department of the Opposite Party on the

post of LDC-Cum-Typist.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated August 13, 1986 for filling up the post of UDC (Account) and LDC-

Cum-Typist and in furtherance of the same a Selection Committee, as approved the director IIT Kanpur, was

constituted which held its meeting on 6th October, 1986.

It is pertinent to mention here that the above posts were Sanctioned Post and were in the nature of regular and

permanent Post. The budgetary Provisions to meet out the expenses against salary and allowances of selected

employees were born out from Research and Development Fund of the Institute.

During the selection process the applicant was also interviewed by Selection Committee and a panel of

selected candidates was prepared for filling the post arising in future. The name of the applicant was at serial No. 3 for

the post of LDC-Cum-Typist in General Category. The competent authority approved the above panel for providing

temporary appointment for one year on 09.10.1986.

The applicant completed approximately 6 years of service on consolidated salary and there was a policy

decision already present for grant of regular pay scale. The Head and Coordinator of project also recommended for

grant of regular pay scale. It is pertinent to mention here that the other similarly situated persons who were appointed

by the same selection committee and process and were junior as on date of their joining, were granted the benefit of

aforesaid as per past practices developed by the Institute opposite party.

As the Administration of the opposite party has not given any heed to the request of the applicant, the

applicant was left with no option except to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad vide CMWP12415 of 1989.

As and when the opposite party on getting knowledge about the Writ Petition, terminated the services of the applicant

w.e.f 09.07.1989 without following the procedure enshrined in the Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It may be stated that the manner, in which the services of the applicant have been terminated, amounts to

retrenchment within the meaning of the word in the aforesaid Act, 1947 as he having been in continuous service for

240 days in a year therefore, he could not have been retrenched without complying with the provisions of Section 25F

in the Central Act. It may be stated that the applicant has not been paid any retrenchment compensation. He has not

been given any notice or pay in lieu thereof as is required in the aforesaid Act of 1947 nor a notice has been sent by

the Central Government. These conditions being mandatory for the retrenchment in compliance with the provision

would invalidate the very termination of the services of the plaintiff with effect from 08.07.1989 making him entitled

to reinstatement in his former post of work, with benefits of continuity of service and full back wages for the

intervening period of unemployment.

Both sides did appear. Copy of the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in writ

C.NO. 1214 of 2022 has been placed before this Tribunal. On going through the aforesaid order it is seen that

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court dealt the subject matter.

“Whether the action of management of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur in terminating the services

of Shri Ghanshyam Pandey S/o Late Udai Shanker Pandey, Clerk-cum-Typist w.e.f 09.07.1989, is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

Discussing the background of the reference it has been observed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in

following words:—

35. Therefore, there is no doubt that the adjudication made by the writ Court on the earlier occasion

covered within its sweep, the entire scope of reference now sought by means of the impugned order.

The reference/administrative order cannot seek to undo the judicial pronouncement made by the Court.

Such a reference, if allowed, to exist may only give rise to two fact eventualities. One, the Labour

Court may plainly follow the earlier adjudication made by this Court. In that case, reference made

would be futile. If the Labour Court were to choose to take a different view in face of the findings

recorded by the writ Court (that have attained finality), such adjudication or award would remain in

the teeth of the adjudication of this Court. Therefore, that award would remain inherently defective in

jurisdiction as may never be allowed to stand upon adherence to principle of judicial discipline. In

fact, no industrial dispute exists, as on date.

1472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

36. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The reference order is quashed. No order as to costs,

as the matter pertains to a workman.

Since the reference has been quashed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the order referred above no

award can be passed.

In view of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court this proceeding stands closed without

award.

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2022

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

Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50/2020½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013@01@2022-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-II½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2022

S.O. 713.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, LUCKNOW as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.08.2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 50/2020

Ref. No. D-868/AB/2020/57/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020

BETWEEN :

Shri Rakesh Kumar, S/o Shri Shambu Dayal

Village – Behta, Post – Devarkla

PS & Tehsil – Bighapur, Distt. – Unnao (UP)

AND

1.

The General Manager (Principal Employer), Food Corporation of India

Regional Office, T.C.3, V-Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow (UP)

2.

The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority)

Food Corporation of India (FCI), Distt. Officer, Shahjahanpur (UP)

3.

Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative)

M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla

Shahjanapur (UP)

AWARD

1.

This industrial dispute concerning termination of workman, Rakesh Kumar, has been raised before this

Tribunal by No. D-868/AB/2020/57/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020, issued by the Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner (C), Dehradun.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1473

2.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR S/O SHRI SHAMBHU

DAYAL, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN ROJA DEPOT OF FCI, SHAHAJANPUR, (UP) BY M/S KESHAV

SINGH, CONTRACTOR OF FCI, FOR THE PERIOD 07.08.2008 TO 23.04.2010 IS PROPER AND

JUSTIFIED. IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF, THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3.

The order of reference was endorsed to the Shri Rakesh Kumar, S/o Shri Shambu Dayal, Village – Behta,

Post – Devarkla, PS & Tehsil – Bighapur, Distt. – Unnao with direction to the party raising the dispute to file the

statement of claim along with relevant documents and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of

the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this

dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

4.

The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 19.10.2020 and the office was directed to issue

registered notice to the workman for filing the statement of claim with list of documents & list of witnesses on

03.12.2020. On the date fixed i.e. 03.12.2020 none turned up on behalf of the workman; whereas the management

appeared and filed its authority. However, the envelope containing notice to the workman had been received back in

the office unserved with remark ‘incomplete address, returned to the sender’, therefore, the service of notice was

sufficiently presumed. Further dates were being fixed in the interest of justice for filing of statement of claim. The

workman remained absent on 02.02.2021, 06.04.2021, 01.06.2021, 16.09.2021, 21.12.2021 and 18.02.2022. The

workman neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved any application for adjournment seeking

time to file the statement of claim. More than one and half years’ time has passed and the workman has failed to file

his statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the workman to

prosecute the case.

5.

In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of

which he has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is disposed of as if there is no

grievance left with the workman. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The

reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

6.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

03^rd June, 2022

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2022

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

Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg& Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49/2020½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013@01@2022-vkbZ-vkj- ¼lh,e-II½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2022

S.O. 714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, LUCKNOW as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.08.2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

1474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 49/2020

Ref. No. D-867/AB/2020/56/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020

BETWEEN :

Shri Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Bahadur Singh

Mohalla – Gadiyana, Post – Shahar Khas

PS & Tehsil – Sadar

Distt. – Shahjahanpur (UP)

AND

1.

The General Manager (Principal Employer), Food Corporation of India

Regional Office, T.C.3, V-Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow (UP)

2.

The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority)

Food Corporation of India (FCI), Distt. Officer, Shahjahanpur (UP)

3.

Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative)

M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla

Shahjanapur (UP)

AWARD

1.

This industrial dispute concerning termination of workman, Surender Kumar, has been raised before this

Tribunal by letter No. D-839/AB/2020/31/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020, issued by the Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner (C), Dehradun.

2.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI

BAHADUR SINGH, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN ROJA DEPOT OF FCI, SHAHAJANPUR, (UP) BY M/S

KESHAV SINGH, CONTRACTOR OF FCI, FOR THE PERIOD 08.07.2008 TO 23.04.2010 IS PROPER

AND JUSTIFIED. IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF, THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3.

The order of reference was endorsed to the Shri Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Bahadur Singh, Mohalla –

Gadiyana, Post – Shahar Khas, PS & Tehsil – Sadar, Distt. – Shahjahanpur (UP) with direction to the party raising the

dispute to file the statement of claim along with relevant documents and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen

days of the receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite

parties involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

4.

The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 19.10.2020 and the office was directed to issue

registered notice to the workman for filing the statement of claim with list of documents & list of witnesses on

03.12.2020. On the date fixed i.e. 03.12.2020 none turned up on behalf of the workman; whereas the management

appeared and filed its authority. However, from track report of the notice, downloaded from the internet, it comes out

that the envelope containing notice had been delivered to the workman on 05.11.2020, therefore, the service of notice

was sufficiently presumed. Further dates were being fixed in the interest of justice for filing of statement of claim.

The workman remained absent on 02.02.2021, 06.04.2021, 01.06.2021, 16.09.2021, 21.12.2021 and 18.02.2022. The

workman neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved any application for adjournment seeking

time to file the statement of claim. More than one and half years’ time has passed and the workman has failed to file

his statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the workman to

prosecute the case.

5.

In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of

which he has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is disposed of as if there is no

grievance left with the workman. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The

reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

6.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

03^rd June, 2022.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1475

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2022

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

Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53/2020½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013@01@2022-vkbZ-vkj ¼lh,e-II½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2022

S.O. 715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, LUCKNOW as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.08.2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 53/2020

Ref. No. D-860/AB/2020/49/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020

BETWEEN :

Shri Hansram S/o Shri Mool Chandra

Village – Gautiya Baldevpur

PO-Pipariya Mandap, Tehsil-Bisalpur

Distt. – Pilibhit (UP)

AND

1.

The General Manager (Principal Employer), Food Corporation of India

Regional Office, T.C.3, V-Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow (UP)

2.

The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority)

Food Corporation of India (FCI), Distt. Officer, Shahjahanpur (UP)

3.

Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative)

M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla

Shahjanapur (UP)

AWARD

1.

This industrial dispute concerning termination of workman, Hansram, has been raised before this Tribunal by

letter No. D-860/AB/2020/49/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020, issued by the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner

(C), Dehradun.

2.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF SHRI HANSRAM S/O SHRI MOOL

CHANDRA, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN ROJA DEPOT OF FCI, SHAHAJANPUR, (UP) BY M/S KESHAV

SINGH, CONTRACTOR OF FCI, FOR THE PERIOD 08.08.2008 TO 23.04.2010 IS PROPER AND

JUSTIFIED. IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF, THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3.

The order of reference was endorsed to the Shri Hansram S/o Shri Mool Chandra, Village – Gautiya

Baldevpur, PO-Pipariya Mandap, Tehsil-Bisalpur, Distt. – Pilibhit (UP) with direction to the party raising the dispute

to file the statement of claim along with relevant documents and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the

receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties

involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

1476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5.

The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 19.10.2020 and the office was directed to issue

registered notice to the workman for filing the statement of claim with list of documents & list of witnesses on

03.12.2020. On the date fixed i.e. 03.12.2020 none turned up on behalf of the workman; whereas the management

appeared and filed its authority. However, from track report of the notice, downloaded from the internet, it comes out

that the envelope containing notice had been delivered to the workman on 18.11.2020, therefore, the service of notice

was sufficiently presumed. Further dates were being fixed in the interest of justice for filing of statement of claim.

The workman remained absent on 02.02.2021, 06.04.2021, 01.06.2021, 16.09.2021, 21.12.2021 and 18.02.2022. The

workman neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved any application for adjournment seeking

time to file the statement of claim. More than one and half years’ time has passed and the workman has failed to file

his statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the workman to

prosecute the case.

5.

In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of

which he has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is disposed of as if there is no

grievance left with the workman. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The

reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

6.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

03^rd June, 2022

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2022

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

Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 54/2020½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013@01@2022-vkbZ-vkj ¼lh,e-II½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2022

S.O. 716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, LUCKNOW as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.08.2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 54/2020

Ref. No. D-839/AB/2020/31/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020

BETWEEN :

Shri Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Chote Lal

Village – Dulha Dhakia, Post – Dhakia Ragha

PS & Tehsil – Tilhar

Distt. – Shahjahanpur (UP)

AND

1.

The General Manager (Principal Employer), Food Corporation of India

Regional Office, T.C.3, V-Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow (UP)

2.

The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1477

Food Corporation of India (FCI), Distt. Officer, Shahjahanpur (UP)

3.

Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative)

M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla

Shahjanapur (UP)

AWARD

1.

This industrial dispute concerning termination of workman, Manoj Kumar, has been raised before this

Tribunal by letter No. D-839/AB/2020/31/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020, issued by the Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner (C), Dehradun.

2.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF SHRI MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHRI CHOTE

LAL, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN ROJA DEPOT OF FCI, SHAHAJANPUR, (UP) BY M/S KESHAV SINGH,

CONTRACTOR OF FCI, FOR THE PERIOD 08.07.2008 TO 23.04.2010 IS PROPER AND JUSTIFIED. IF

NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF, THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3.

The order of reference was endorsed to the Shri Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Chote Lal, Village – Dulha Dhakia,

Post – Dhakia Ragha, PS & Tehsil – Tilhar, Distt. – Shahjahanpur (UP) with direction to the party raising the dispute

to file the statement of claim along with relevant documents and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the

receipt of the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties

involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

6.

The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 19.10.2020 and the office was directed to issue

registered notice to the workman for filing the statement of claim with list of documents & list of witnesses on

03.12.2020. On the date fixed i.e. 03.12.2020 none turned up on behalf of the workman; whereas the management

appeared and filed its authority. However, from track report of the notice, downloaded from the internet, it come out

that the envelope containing notice had been delivered to the workman on 07.11.2020, therefore, the service of notice

was sufficiently presumed. Further dates were being fixed in the interest of justice for filing of statement of claim.

The workman union remained absent on 02.02.2021, 06.04.2021, 01.06.2021, 16.09.2021, 21.12.2021 and

18.02.2022. The workman neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved any application for

adjournment seeking time to file the statement of claim. More than one and half years’ time has passed and the

workman has failed to file his statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the

reluctance of the workman to prosecute the case.

5.

In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of

which he has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided as if there is no

grievance left with the workman. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The

reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

6.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

03rd June, 2022

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2022

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

Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52/2020½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013@01@2022-vkbZ-vkj ¼lh,e-II½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

1478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2022

S.O. 717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, LUCKNOW as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/08/2022

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 52/2020

Ref. No. D-861/AB/2020/50/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020

BETWEEN :

Shri Ramakant S/o Shri Salim Prasad

Village – Akhauli, PO-Amrita Khas

PS & Tehsil – Bisalpur, Distt. – Pilibhit (UP)

AND

1.

The General Manager (Principal Employer), Food Corporation of India

Regional Office, T.C.3, V-Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow (UP)

2.

The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority)

Food Corporation of India (FCI), Distt. Officer, Shahjahanpur (UP)

3.

Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative)

M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla

Shahjanapur (UP)

AWARD

1.

This industrial dispute concerning termination of workman, Rama Kant, has been raised before this Tribunal

by letter No. D-861/AB/2020/50/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020, issued by the Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner (C), Dehradun.

2.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF SHRI RAMAKANT S/O SHRI SALIM

PRASAD, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN ROJA DEPOT OF FCI, SHAHAJANPUR, (UP) BY M/S KESHAV

SINGH, CONTRACTOR OF FCI, FOR THE PERIOD 04.08.2008 TO 23.04.2010 IS PROPER AND

JUSTIFIED. IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF, THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3.

The order of reference was endorsed to the Shri Ramakant S/o Shri Salim Prasad, Village – Akhauli, PO-

Amrita Khas, PS & Tehsil – Bisalpur, Distt. – Pilibhit (UP) with direction to the party raising the dispute to file the

statement of claim along with relevant documents and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of

the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this

dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

7.

The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 19.10.2020 and the office was directed to issue

registered notice to the workman for filing the statement of claim with list of documents & list of witnesses on

03.12.2020. On the date fixed i.e. 03.12.2020 none turned up on behalf of the workman; whereas the management

appeared and filed its authority. However, from track report of the notice, downloaded from the internet, it comes out

that the envelope containing notice had been delivered to the workman on 11.11.2020, therefore, the service of notice

was sufficiently presumed. Further dates were being fixed in the interest of justice for filing of statement of claim.

The workman remained absent on 02.02.2021, 06.04.2021, 01.06.2021, 16.09.2021, 21.12.2021 and 18.02.2022. The

workman neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved any application for adjournment seeking

time to file the statement of claim. More than one and half years’ time has passed and the workman has failed to file

his statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the workman to

prosecute the case.

5.

In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of

which he has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is disposed of as if there is no

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 6, 2022/श्रावण 15, 1944

1479

grievance left with the workman. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The

reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

6.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

03^rd June, 2022

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2022

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 51/2020) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-08-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013@01@2022-vkbZ-vkj ¼lh,e-II½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2022

S.O. 718.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, LUCKNOW as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.08.2022.

[No. L-22013/01/2022–IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 51/2020

Ref. No. D-869/AB/2020/58/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020

BETWEEN :

Shri Satyendra S/o Shri Bahadur Lal

Village – Niwajpur Gauriya, Post & PS – Tilhar

Distt.- Shahjahanpur (UP)

AND

1.

The General Manager (Principal Employer), Food Corporation of India

Regional Office, T.C.3, V-Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow (UP)

2.

The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority)

Food Corporation of India (FCI), Distt. Officer, Shahjahanpur (UP)

3.

Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative)

M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla

Shahjanapur (UP)

AWARD

1.

This industrial dispute concerning termination of workman, Satyendra, has been raised before this Tribunal

by No. D-869/AB/2020/58/IRDDN Dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020, issued by the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C),

Dehradun.

2.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF SHRI SATYENDRA S/O SHRI BAHADUR

LAL, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN ROJA DEPOT OF FCI, SHAHAJANPUR, (UP) BY M/S KESHAV SINGH,

1480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 6, 2022/SRAVANA 15, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

CONTRACTOR OF FCI, FOR THE PERIOD 03.08.2008 TO 23.04.2010 IS PROPER AND JUSTIFIED. IF

NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF, THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

3.

The order of reference was endorsed to the Shri Satyendra S/o Shri Bahadur Lal, Village – Niwajpur

Gauriya, Post & PS – Tilhar, Distt.- Shahjahanpur (UP) with direction to the party raising the dispute to file the

statement of claim along with relevant documents and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of

the order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this

dispute under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.

4.

The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 19.10.2020 and the office was directed to issue

registered notice to the workman for filing the statement of claim with list of documents & list of witnesses on

03.12.2020. On the date fixed i.e. 03.12.2020 none turned up on behalf of the workman; whereas the management

appeared and filed its authority. However, the envelope containing notice to the workman had been received back in

the office unserved with remark ‘काफी तलाि करने ृर भी प्राप्तकताि का ृता निीं चला अतः प्रेषक को वाृस’, therefore, the

service of notice was sufficiently presumed. Further dates were being fixed in the interest of justice for filing of

statement of claim. The workman remained absent on 02.02.2021, 06.04.2021, 01.06.2021, 16.09.2021, 21.12.2021

and 18.02.2022. The workman neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved any application for

adjournment seeking time to file the statement of claim. More than one and half years’ time has passed and the

workman has failed to file his statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in view the

reluctance of the workman to prosecute the case.

5.

In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of

which he has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is disposed of as if there is no

grievance left with the workman. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The

reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

6.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

03^rd June, 2022

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054

ALOK KUMAR

Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2022.08.18 15:58:37 +05'30'