5177 GI/2022

(1481)

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. 32]

नई दिल् ली, अगस्ट् त 7— अगस्ट् त 13, 2022, िजनवार/ श्रावण 16— श्रावण 22, 1944

No. 32] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 7—AUGUST 13, 2022, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 16–SRAVANA 22, 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)

जविेि मंत्राल

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 1 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 719.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारती िूतावास, बगिाि मैं श्री मजबम सोमोरेन्द्रो ससंि, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी, को

20 िुलाई, 2022 से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2022(28)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-23082022-238266

CG-DL-W-23082022-238266

1482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2022

S.O. 719.— Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Maibam Somorendro

Singh, Assistant Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Bhagdad as Assistant Consular Officer to perform Consular

services with effect from July 20, 2022.

[F. No.T-4330/01/2022(28)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

नई दिल्ली, 1 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 720.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारती उच्चा ोग, ब्रुनेई िारुस्ट्सलाम मैं श्री जनतेि ससंि, कजनष्ठ सजचवाल सिा क और

श्री सौंि व कुमार झा, वररष्ठ सजचवाल सिा क, को 01 अगस्ट्त, 2022से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर

सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2022(29)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2022

S.O. 720.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Nitesh Singh, Junior

Secretariat Assistant and Shri Soundarya Kumar Jha, Senior Secretariat Assistant in the High Commission of India,

Brunei Darussalam as Assistant Consular Officers to perform Consular services with effect from August 1, 2022.

[F. No.T-4330/01/2022(29)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

नई दिल्ली, 2 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 721.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के िूतावास, कुवजत मैं श्री चंिन कुमर, कजनष्ठ सजचवाल सिा क, को 02 अगस्ट्त,

2022से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2022(30)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)

New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2022

S.O. 721.— Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Chandan Kumar,

Junior Secretariat Assistant in the Embassy of India, Kuwait, as Assistant Consular Officer to perform Consular

services with effect from August 2, 2022.

[F. No.T-4330/01/2022(30)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1483

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 722.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, टोरंटो मैं श्री संिीव कुमार और श्री सत् प्रकाि, सिा क

अनुभाग अजिकारर ो को दिनांक 08 अगस्ट्त, 2022 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारर ो के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का

जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2022(31)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, उृ सजचव (कांसुलर)

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2022

S.O. 722.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sanjiv Kumar and

Shri Satya Prakash, both Assistant Section Officers in the Consulate General of India, Toronto, as Assistant Consular

Officer to perform Consular services with effect from August 8, 2022.

[F. No.T-4330/01/2022(31)]

S.R.H. FAHMI, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

कार्मवक, लोक जिका त और ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मवक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्ट् त, 2022

का.आ. 723.—केंद्र सरकार, रािभाषा [संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग] जन मावली, 1976 ( ा

संिोजित 1987, 2007 और 2011) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में कार्मवक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग के

अिीनस्ट् का ावल केंद्री अन् वेषण ब् ूरो के अिीन जनम् नजलज त का ावल ों, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक

अजिकारर ों/कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी भाषा का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, अजिसूजचत करती िजैः—

भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक िा ा, ृटना

भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक िा ा, जिमला

भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक िा ा, िेिरािून

भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक िा ा, ल नऊ

केन्द्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो अकािमी, गाजि ाबाि

भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक िा ा, नागृुर

बैंककंग जसक् ोररटी फ्रॉड िा ा, मुंबई

[फा. सं. ई.-ई 11017/1/2022-सिंिी]

रजमम चौिरी, अृर सजचव

1484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2022

S.O. 723.—Central Government in pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of official languages [Use for

official purpose of union] Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007and 2011) hereby notifies the following offices

under the Central Bureau of Investigation, a subordinate office of Department of Personnel and Training whose more

than 80 percent staff has acquired working knowledge of Hindi language:—

1. Anti Corruption Branch, Patna

2. Anti Corruption Branch, Shimla

3. Anti Corruption Branch, Dehradun

4. Anti Corruption Branch, Lucknow

5. Central Bureau of Investigation Academy, Ghaziabad

6. Anti Corruption Branch, Nagpur

7. Banking Security Fraud Branch, Mumbai

[F. No.- E- E11017/1/2022-Hindi]

RASHMI CHOWDHARY, Addl. Secy.

ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 10 अगस्ट् त, 2022

का.आ. 724.—dsaæ ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu½ vfèkfu;e]

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh èkkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj çk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh

vfèklwpuk la[;k 2543 ¼v½ rkjh[k 15 flracj] 2014 dks vfèkØkar djrs gq,] dsaæ ljdkj ,rí~okjk Jh jes'k dqekj

jkstkljk] çcaèkd] ,pihlh,y&feÙky ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM dks mä vfèkfu;e ds rgr jkti= çdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls

xqtjkr jkT; {ks= ds Hkhrj eqaæk&cÇBMk ikbiykbu ds fy, vxys vkns'k rd l{ke çkfèkdkjh ds —R;ksa dk fuoZgu djus ds

fy, çkfèk—r djrh gSA

[फा. सं. आर-12031/2/2018-ओआर-I/ई-26406]

ृी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 10th August, 2022

S.O. 724.—In pursuance of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) and in suppression of notification number 2543(E) dated the

15th September, 2014, the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Ramesh Kumar Rojasara, Manager, HPCL-

Mittal Pipelines Limited, to perform the functions of the Competent Authority for the Mundra-Bathinda Pipeline,

under the said Act, within the territory of the State of Gujarat from the date of Gazette publication and until further

orders.

[F. No. R- 12031/2/2018-OR-1/E-26406]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1485

को ला मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 725.—केन्द्री सरकार को ि प्रतीत िोता िज दक, इससे उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में उजल्लज त ृररक्षेत्र की

भूजम में से को ला अजभप्राप्त दकए िाने की संभावना िज;

अत:, उक्त अजिसूचना में वर्णवत क्षेत्र में अंतर्ववष्ट ब् ौरे रे ांक सं्‍ ा सी-I(ई)/III/िेआर/0622/988, तारी

25 िून, 2022 का जनरीक्षण, वेस्ट्टनव कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, (रािस्ट्व जवभाग) कोल इस्ट्टेट, जसजवल लाईन्स , नागृूर-440

001 (मिाराष्ट्र) के का ावल में ा मु्‍ मिाप्रबंिक ( ोि प्रभाग), केन्द्री ान ोिना एवं जडिाइन संस्ट् ान, गोंडवाना

ृजलेस, कांके रोड, रांची -834 001 के का ावल में ा को ला जन ंत्रक, 1, काउंजसल िाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700 001

के का ावल में ा जिला कलेक्टर, जिला चन्द्रृुर (मिाराष्ट्र) के का ावल में दक ा िा सकता िज ;

अत: अब केन्द्री सरकार, को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिवन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे

इसमें इसके ृम चात् उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 4 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए,

उस भूजम में को ले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आि की सूचना िेती िज ;

उक् त अनुसूची में उजल्लज त भूजम में जितबद्ध कोई व्यजक्त -

(i)

उक् त अजिजन म की िारा 4 की उृिारा (3) के अिीन की ग ी दकसी का वािी से हुई ा िोने वाली संभाजवत

दकसी क्षजत के जलए अजिजन म की िारा 6 के अिीन प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा, अ वा

(ii) उक् त अजिजन म की िारा (13) की उृिारा (1) के अिीन ृूवेक्षण अनुज्ञजप्त ों के प्रभाविीन िोने के संबंि में ा

उक् त अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृिारा (4) के अिीन नन ृट्टे प्रभाविीन िोने के जलए प्रजतकर का िावा कर

सकेगा और उसे उक् त अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृ-िारा की उृिारा (1) के ंड (i) से ंड (iv) में जवजनर्िवष्ट मिों

की बाबत् उृगत व्य को उृिर्िवत करने के जलए ृूवोक्त भूजम से संबंजित सभी मानजचत्रों, चाटों और अन्

िस्ट्तावेिों को ृररित्त कर सकेगा।

इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से नब्बे दिन के भीतर, क्षेत्री मिाप्रबंिक, वेस्ट्टनव कोलफील््स

जलजमटेड, चंद्रृुर क्षेत्र, डाकघर चंद्रृुर, तिसील चंद्रृुर, जिला चंद्रृुर (मिाराष्ट्र) ा मिाप्रबंिक ( भूजम और रािस्ट्व),

वेस्ट्टनव कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, कोल ईस्ट्टेट, जसजवल लाईन्स, नागृुर- 440 001 (मिाराष्ट्र) के का ावल को भेि सकेगा।

अनुसूची

भटाडी जवस्ट्तार ओृनकास्ट्ट ान

चंद्रृुर क्षेत्र

जिला चंद्रृुर, मिाराष्ट्र

(रे ांक सं्‍ ा सी-I(ई)/III/िेआर/0622/988, तारी 25 िून, 2022)

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम का

नाम

ृटवारी

सर्कवल

सं्‍ ांक

तिसील

जिला

भूजम का वणवन

कुल

( िेक्टे र

में)

रटप्ृणी

जनिी

सरकारी

वन

ृा ली

भटाडी

चंद्रृुर

137.90

11.52

149.42

भाग

जचचोली

चंद्रृुर

196.47

1.32

197.79

भाग

दकटाडी

चंद्रृुर

38.63

3.50

42.13

भाग

1486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

चक

जतरवंिा

भद्रावती

चंद्रृुर

106.91

14.43

121.34

भाग

कुल :

479.91

30.77

510.68

कुल क्षेत्र : 510.68 िेक्टर (लगभग) अ वा 1261.89 एकड़ (लगभग)

(1) ग्राम ृा ली भटाडी की सीमा के भीतर के प्लॉट स्‍ ांक :

1, 3/ए, 3/1/बी, 4/2/बी, 5,6,7/1/ए, 7/2/ए, 8/बी, 9/1, 9/2, 10/1, 10/2, 11/1, 11/2, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19/1, 19/2, 19/3, 20, 21, 22, 23/1/ए, 23/1/बी, 23/1/सी, 23/1/डी, 23/2,24/1, 24/2, 24/3, 25/1/ए,

25/1/बी, 25/2/ए, 25/2/बी, 25/3/ए, 23/3/बी, 26/1,26/2, 26/3, 26/4, 26/5, 26/6, 26/7, 26/8, 26/9, 27/1,

27/2, 27/3, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3,29, 30,31/1, 31/2, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37/1, 37/2, 37/3, 37/4, 38/1,

38/2, 38/3, 38/4, 39/1, 39/2, 39/3, 40/1, 40/2, 40/3, 41, 42/1, 42/2,43/1, 43/2,103,104,

105,107,108, 109, 110, 111, 112/1, 112/2, 268, 269/1, 269/2, 269/3, 270, 271/1, 271/2, 271/3,

271/4, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278/सी और 279.

सरकारी भूजम : 2, 13, 106, निी, नाला, सड़क, ृररवर्तवत प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 26, ृा ली गाव ाण.

(2) ग्राम जचचोली की सीमा के भीतर के प्लॉट स्‍ ांक :

11, 12, 13/1, 13/2, 13/3, 13/4, 14/1, 14/2, 15/1, 15/2,16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25/1, 25/2,

25/3, 26, 27, 28, 28/2, 28/3, 28/4, 29, 30, 31/1, 31/2, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38/1, 38/2, 38/3, 38/4,

38/5, 38/6, 39, 40/1, 40/2/ए, 40/2/बी, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,

65/1, 65/2, 66, 67/1, 67/2, 68, 69, 70/1, 70/2, 71/1, 71/2, 72, 73, 74, 75/1, 75/2, 76, 77, 78, 79,

80/1, 80/2, 80/3, 81/1, 81/2, 81/3, 82, 83, 84/1, 84/2, 84/3, 84/4, 84/5, 84/6, 86, 87, 88, 89/1,

89/2, 89/3, 89/4, 89/5, 90/1, 90/2, 91/1/ए, 91/1/बी, 91/1/सी, 91/2/डी, 91/2/डी/1, 90/2/डी/2, 91/2/डी/3,

92, 93 और 94.

सरकारी भूजम : नाला और सड़क।

(3) ग्राम दकटाडी की सीमा के भीतर के प्लॉट सं्‍ ांक:

15/1, 15/2, 15/3, 15/4, 16, 17/1/ए, 17/1/बी, 17/2/ए, 17/2/बी, 30/1/ए, 30/1/बी, 30/2, 31/1, 31/2, 32,

33, 35, 37/1, 37/2, 37/3, 37/4, 63/1, 63/2,64,65,66,69,70,71,72/1 और 72/2.

सरकारी भूजम : नाला, सड़क और निी।

(4) ग्राम चक जतरवंिा की सीमा के भीतर प्लॉट सं्‍ ांक :

141/1, 141/2, 141/3, 141/4, 141/5, 141/6, 143/1, 143/2, 143/3, 144/1, 144/2, 145/2/ए/1, 145/2/ए/2,

145/2/बी, 150/1, 150/2, 151/1, 151/2, 151/3, 151/4, 152/1/ए, 152/1/बी, 152/2, 152/4, 153/1, 153/2,

153/3, 153/4, 153/5, 154, 155, 156/1, 156/2, 157/1, 157/2, 157/3, 158, 159/1, 159/2, 160, 161/1,

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1487

161/2, 161/3, 161/4, 162/1|162/2|162/4, 162/3, 163/1, 163/2, 164/1/ए,164/1/बी, 164/2, 164/3,

165/1, 165/2, 166/1|166/2/ए, 166/1|166/2/बी, 166/1|166/2/सी, 166/1|166/2/डी, 166/1|166/2/ई,

167/1/ए, 167/1/बी, 167/2, 167/3, 167/4, 167/5, 167/6, 168/1/ए/1/1, 168/1/ए/1/2, 168/1/ए/1/3,

168/1/ए/1/4, 168/2, 168/2, 168/3, 169/1/ए, 169/1/बी, 169/2, 170/1/ए, 170/1/बी, 170/2/ए, 170/2/बी,

171, 172/1, 172/2, 172/3, 173/1, 173/2/ए, 173/2/बी, 174, 253/1, 253/2 और 253/3.

सरकारी भूजम: 175, सड़क।

सीमा वणवन :

क - : रे ा ग्राम जचचोली में सबंिु ‘क’ से आरंभ िोकर प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 49, 40 और 11 की बािरी सीमा से िोते

हुए सबंिु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज।

– ग :

रे ा सबंिु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण ृजिम दििा से गुिरती हुई ग्राम जचचोली के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24 और 25 और ग्राम ृा ली भटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 5, 3, 1, 274, 272,

271 और 270 और इरई निी के बािरी दकनारे से गुिरती हुई सबंिु ‘ग’ ृर जमलती िज।

ग –घ : रे ा सबंिु ‘ग’ से आरंभ िोकर इरई निी ृार करते हुए ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 37 के उत्तर ृूवव में

सबंिु ‘घ’ ृर जमलती िज।

घ – ड. : रे ा सबंिु ‘घ’ से आरंभ िोकर ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 37 की बाह्य सीमा से गुिरती हुई सबंिु ‘ड.’

ृर जमलती िज।

ड. –च : रे ा सबंिु ‘ड.’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण दििा में गुिरती हुई ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 37 की

बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘च’ ृर जमलती िज।

च - छ :

रे ा सबंिु ‘च’ से आरंभ िोकर ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 35 की बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘छ’

ृर जमलती िज।

छ –ि : रे ा सबंिु ‘छ’ से आरंभ ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 35 और 33 की बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘ि’

ृर जमलती िज।

ि -झ :

रे ा सबंिु ‘ि’ से आरंभ िोकर ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 63 की बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘झ’ ृर

जमलती िज।

झ –त्र : रे ा सबंिु ‘झ’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण दििा से गुिरती हुई ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 63, 64, 66,

69, 72, 17, 15 और 16 के बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘त्र’ ृर जमलती िज।

त्र -ट : रे ा सबंिु ‘त्र’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजिम दििा से गुिरती हुए ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 16 और 15

की बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘ट’ ृर जमलती िज।

ट – :

रे ा सबंिु ‘ट’ से आरंभ िोकर उत्तर दििा से गुिरती हुई ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 15 और 17 की

बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज।

– ड : रे ा सबंिु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजिम दििा से गुिरती हुई ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 30 की बािरी

सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘ड’ ृर जमलती िज।

ड – ढ : रे ा सबंिु ‘ड’ से आरंभ िोकर उत्तर दििा से गुिरती हुई ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 30, 31, 32, 33

और 35 की बािरी सीमा िोते हुए सबंिु ‘ढ’ ृर जमलती िज।

1488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ढ - ण :

रे ा सबंिु ‘ढ’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजिम दििा से गुिरती हुई ग्राम दकटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 37 के बाह्य

सीमा से और इरई निी ृार करते हु े ग्राम ृा ली भटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 269 और 268 त ा रास्ट्ता

ृार करके प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 112 की बािरी सीमा से िोते िए सबंिु ‘ण’ ृर जमलती िज।

ण – त : रे ा सबंिु ‘ण’ से आरंभ िोकर उत्तर दििा िोते हुए ग्राम ृा ली भटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 122, 110 और

109, सड़क ृार करते हुए 103, 105, 42 और 43 की बाह्य सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘त’ ृर जमलती िज।

त – : रे ा सबंिु ‘त’ से आरंभ िोकर ृजिम दििा से गुिरती हुई ग्राम ृा ली भटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 40,

38, 37, 36, 31, 30 और 27 की बाह्य सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘ ’ ृर जमलती िज।

- ि :

रे ा सबंिु ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोकर ृूवव से ृजिम से गुिरती हुई ग्राम ृा ली भटाडी के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 27

की बािरी सीमा से गुिरते हुई ग्राम चक जतरवंिा के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 253, 143, 141, 145, 175, 174,

170, 169 और 150 के बािरी सीमा िोते हुई सबंिु ‘ि’ ृर जमलती िज।

ि - ि :

रे ा सबंिु ‘ि’ से िोकर ग्राम चक जतरवंिा के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 150, 151 और 152 की बािरी सीमा से

िोते हुए सबंिु ‘ि’ ृर जमलती िज।

ि – न :

रे ा सबंिु ‘ि’ से आरंभ िोकर उत्तर दििा के तरफ िोते हुए ग्राम चक जतरवंिा के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 152

और 162 की बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘न’ ृर जमलती िज।

न -ृ :

रे ा सबंिु ‘न’ से आरंभ िोकर ृूवव दििा से गुिरते हुए ग्राम चक जतरवंिा के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 162, 163,

166, 167 और 172 की बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘ृ’ ृर जमलती िज।

ृ -फ :

रे ा सबंिु ‘ृ’ से आरंभ िोकर ग्राम जचचोली के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 91, 92, 93, 94, 86 और 88 की बािरी

सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘फ’ ृर जमलती िज।

फ -क :

रे ा सबंिु ‘फ’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षण से उत्तर दििा िोते हुए ग्राम जचचोली के प्लाट सं्‍ ांक 84, 51,

38, 50 और 49 के बािरी सीमा से िोते हुए सबंिु ‘क’ ृर जमलती िज।

[फा. सं. 43015/08/2022-एल एंड आईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2022

S.O. 725.—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 C-I(E)/III/JR/0622/988, dated the 25^th June, 2022, containing details

of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Western Coalfields Limited

(Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur– 440 001 (Maharashtra) or at the office of the Chief General

Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi

– 834 001 or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700 001 or at the office of the

District Collector, District Chandrapur (Maharashtra);

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 from land described in the said Schedule ;

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

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

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,

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1489

to the Office of the Area General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Chandrapur area, Post Chandrapur, Tahsil

Chandrapur, District Chandrapur (Maharashtra) or General Manager (Land and Revenue), Western Coalfields

Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001 (Maharashtra) within a period of

ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Bhatadi Expansion Opencast Mine

Chandrapur Area

District Chandrapur (Maharashtra)

[ Plan bearing number C-I(E)/III/JR/0622/988, dated the 25^th June, 2022 ]

Sr.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

number

Tahsil

District

Description of land

Total

(in

hectares)

Remarks

Tenancy

Govern-

ment

Forest

Paili

Bhatadi

Chandrapur

137.90

11.52

149.42

Part

Chicholi

Chandrapur

196.47

1.32

197.79

Part

Kitadi

Chandrapur

38.63

3.50

42.13

Part

Chack

Tirwanja

Bhadrawati

Chandrapur

106.91

14.43

121.34

Part

Total :

479.91

30.77

510.68

Total Area : 510.68 hectares (approximately) or 1261.89 acres ( approximately).

(1) Plot numbers within boundary in village Paili Bhatadi :

1, 3/A, 3/1/B, 4/2/B, 5, 6, 7/1/A, 7/2/A, 8/B, 9/1, 9/2, 10/1, 10/2, 11/1, 11/2, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19/1, 19/2, 19/3,

20, 21, 22, 23/1/A, 23/1/B, 23/1/C, 23/1/D, 23/2, 24/1, 24/2, 24/3, 25/1/A, 25/1/B, 25/2/A, 25/2/B, 25/3/A, 25/3/B,

26/1, 26/2, 26/3, 26/4, 26/5, 26/6, 26/7, 26/8, 26/9, 27/1, 27/2, 27/3, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 29, 30, 31/1, 31/2, 32, 33, 34,

35, 36, 37/1, 37/2, 37/3, 37/4, 38/1, 38/2, 38/3, 38/4, 39/1, 39/2, 39/3, 40/1, 40/2, 40/3, 41, 42/1, 42/2, 43/1, 43/2, 103,

104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112/1, 112/2, 268, 269/1, 269/2, 269/3, 270, 271/1, 271/2, 271/3, 271/4, 272, 273,

274, 275, 276, 277, 278/C and 279.

Government land : 2, 13, 106, River, Nallah, Road, diverted plot number 26, Paili Gaothan.

(2) Plot numbers within boundary in village Chicholi :

11, 12, 13/1, 13/2, 13/3, 13/4, 14/1, 14/2, 15/1, 15/2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25/1, 25/2, 25/3, 26, 27, 28,

28/2, 28/3, 28/4, 29, 30, 31/1, 31/2, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38/1, 38/2, 38/3, 38/4, 38/5, 38/6, 39, 40/1, 40/2/A, 40/2/B,

49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65/1, 65/2, 66, 67/1, 67/2, 68, 69, 70/1, 70/2, 71/1, 71/2,

72, 73, 74, 75/1, 75/2, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80/1, 80/2, 80/3, 81/1, 81/2, 81/3, 82, 83, 84/1, 84/2, 84/3, 84/4, 84/5, 84/6, 86,

87, 88, 89/1, 89/2, 89/3, 89/4, 89/5, 90/1, 90/2, 91/1/A, 91/1/B, 91/1/C, 91/2/D, 91/2/D/1, 90/2/D/2, 91/2/D/3, 92, 93

and 94.

Government land : Nallah and Road.

(3) Plot numbers within boundary in village Kitadi :

15/1, 15/2, 15/3, 15/4, 16, 17/1/A, 17/1/B, 17/2/A, 17/2/B, 30/1/A, 30/1/B, 30/2, 31/1, 31/2, 32, 33, 35, 37/1, 37/2,

37/3, 37/4, 63/1, 63/2, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72/1 and 72/2.

Government land: Nallah, Road and River.

(4) Plot numbers within boundary in village Chack Tirwanja :

141/1, 141/2, 141/3, 141/4, 141/5, 141/6, 143/1, 143/2, 143/3, 144/1, 144/2, 145/2/A/1, 145/2/A/2, 145/2/B, 150/1,

150/2, 151/1, 151/2, 151/3, 151/4, 152/1/A, 152/1/B, 152/2, 152/4, 153/1, 153/2, 153/3, 153/4, 153/5, 154, 155,

156/1, 156/2, 157/1, 157/2, 157/3, 158, 159/1, 159/2, 160, 161/1, 161/2, 161/3, 161/4, 162/1|162/2|162/4, 162/3,

163/1, 163/2, 164/1/A, 164/1/B, 164/2, 164/3, 165/1, 165/2, 166/1|166/2/A, 166/1|166/2/B, 166/1|166/2/C,

166/1|166/2/D, 166/1|166/2/E, 167/1/A, 167/1/B, 167/2, 167/3, 167/4, 167/5, 167/6, 168/1/A/1/1, 168/1/A/1/2,

168/1/A/1/3, 168/1/A/1/4, 168/2, 168/3, 169/1/A, 169/1/B, 169/2, 170/1/A, 170/1/B, 170/2/A, 170/2/B, 171,

172/1,172/2, 172/3, 173/1, 173/2/A, 173/2/B, 174, 253/1, 253/2 and 253/3.

Government land : 175, Road.

1490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Boundary description:

A - B

Line starts from point ‘A’ in village Chicholi and passes through outer boundary of plot numbers 49 ,

40 and 11 and meets at point ‘B’.

B - C

Line starts from point ‘B’ passes in south west direction along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 11

,12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24 and 25 in village Chicholi and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers

5, 3, 1, 274, 272, 271 and 270 of village Paili Bhatadi along the Erai River and meets at point ‘C’.

C - D

Line starts from point ‘C’ crosses Erai River and meets at point ‘D’ on north- east corner of plot number

37 of village Kitadi.

D - E

Line starts from point ‘D’ passes along the outer boundary of plot number 37 of village Kitadi and

meets at point ‘E.’

E - F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and moves south direction along the outer boundary of plot number 37 of

village Kitadi and meets at point ‘F’.

F - G

Line starts from point ‘F’ passes along the outer boundary of plot number 35 of village Kitadi and

meets at point ‘G’ .

G - H

Line starts from point ‘G’ passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 35 and 33 of village Kitadi

and meets at point ‘H’.

H - I

Line starts from point ‘H’ and moves along the outer boundary of plot number 63 of village Kitadi and

meets at point ‘I’.

I - J

Line starts from point ‘I’ passes in south direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers 63, 64, 66,

69, 72, 17, 15 and 16 of village Kitadi and meets at point ‘J’.

J - K

Line starts from point ‘J’ passes in west direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers 16 and 15

of village Kitadi and meets at point ‘K’.

K - L

Line starts from point ‘K’ passes in north along the outer boundary of plot numbers 15 and 17 of

village Kitadi and meets at point ‘L’.

L -M

Line starts from point ‘L’ passes in west direction, along the outer boundary of plot number 30 of village

Kitadi and meets at point ‘M’.

M -N

Line starts from point ‘M’ passes in north direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers 30, 31,

32, 33 and 35 of village Kitadi meets at point ‘N’.

N - O

Line starts from point ‘N’ passes in west direction along the outer boundary of plot number 37 of village

Kitadi and crosses Erai River and also passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 269 and 268

and cross the road, plot number 112 of village Paili Bhatadi and meets at point ‘O’.

O - P

Line starts from point ‘O’ passes in north direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers 112, 110

and 109 and cross the road, plot numbers 103, 105, 42 and 43 and of village Paili Bhatadi and meets

at point ‘P’ .

P - Q

Line starts from point ‘P’ passes in west direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers 40, 38, 37,

36, 31, 30 and 27 of village Paili Bhatadi and meets at point ‘Q’.

Q - R

Line starts from point ‘Q’ east to west ward along the outer boundary of plot number 27 of village

Paili Bhatadi and outer boundary of plot numbers 253, 143, 141, 145, 175, 174, 170, 169 and 150 of

village Chack Tirwanja and meets at point ‘R’ .

R - S

Line starts from point ‘R’ and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 150, 151 and 152 of

village Chack Tirwanja and meets at point ‘S’.

S - T

Line starts from point ‘S’ passes in north direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers 152 and

162 of village Chack Tirwanja and meets at point ‘T’.

T - U

Line starts from point ‘T’ passes in east direction along the outer boundary of plot numbers 162, 163,

166, 167 and 172 of village Chack Tirwanja and meets at point ‘U’.

U - V

Line starts from point ‘U’ passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 91, 92, 93, 94, 86 and 88 of

village Chicholi and meets at point ‘V’.

V - A

Line starts from point ‘V’ south to north along the outer boundary of plots numbers

84, 51, 38, 50 and 49 of village Chicholi and meets at point ‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/08/2022-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Director

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1491

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 25 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 726.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार

मिाजनिेिक,इन्फैंरी /इन्फ -6 (कार्मवक),रक्षा मंत्राल (सेना) का िनरल स्ट्टाफ िा ा/िाका-I मु्‍ ाल सेना भवन, नई दिल्ली, के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती रीना, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम

न् ा ाल -1 नई दिल्ली ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 54/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 14.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42011/118/2020- आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 25th July 2022

S.O. 726.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Director General of Infantry / Inf-6(Pers),General Staff Branch/Shaka-I HQ of MOD(Army), Sena Bhawan, New

Delhi and Smt. Reena, worker,which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

14.07.2022.

[No. L-42011/118/2020- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. Parnita Mohanty

ID.NO. 54/2021

Smt. Reena W/o Late. Sh. Mahesh

Through Lok Mazdoor Sangathan A-625-626,

3^rd Floor Choukhandi Tilak Nagar,

New Delhi-110018.

…Workman

Versus

The Director General of Infantry/Inf-6(Pers)

General Staff Branch/Shaka-I HQ of MOD(Army)

Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110011

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.

L-42011/118/2020-IR-(DU) dated 06/11/2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the Sh. Ashish Kumar S/o Late Sh. Mahesh as raised by Smt. Reena W/o Late Sh. Mahesh through

Lok Mazdoor Sanghatan is entitled to employment on compassionate grounds? If yes, to what relief is he

entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days

of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that

1492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this

award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Date: 04.07.022.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 727.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री

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

नई दिल्ली ( ू.ृी), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रािृाल, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 11 of 2016) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा

ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 26.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42012/02/2016-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2022

S.O. 227.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11 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 Rajpal, worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 26.07.2022.

[No. L-42012/02/2016-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICEr CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT KANPUR

PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 11 of 2016

L-42012/02/2016-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2016

BETWEEN :

Shri Rajpal S/o Shri Khoobi Ram,

Vill-Murenda, Po-Arsena,

AGRA(U.P)-282007

AND

The Superintending Archeologist

Archeological Survey of India,

Agra Circle, 22, Mall Road,

AGRA (U.P.)-282001

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1493

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-42012/02/2016-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2016.

SCHEDULE

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

of Shri Rajpal S/o Shri Khoobi Ram workman with effect from 01.04.2013 is just fair & legal ? If not, to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? ”

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 attempts. This clearly

manifests reluctance and lack of 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. 728.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, दि फर्टवलाइिसव एंड केजमकल्स त्रावणकोर जलजमटेड, उद्योगमंडल, एनावकुलम के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और श्री ृी. के. रिन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -

एनावकुलम ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 31/2015) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42012/114/2015-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2022

S.O. 728.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - Cum-Labour Court - Ernakulum as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The General Manager, FACT Limited, Udyogamandal Ernakulam and Shri P. K. Rajan,

Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 1 Shri.P. K. Rajan

8.07.2022.

[No. L-42012/114/2015-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

1494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. V. Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 4^th day of July 2022, 13 Asadha 1944)

ID No. 31/2015

Workman

Sri. P. K. Rajan

Pattuparambil

Elamkunnapuzha P.O.

Ernakulam - 652503

By Adv. K. Balachandran

Management

The General Manager,

FACT Limited

Udyogamandal

Ernakulam - 683501

By M/s.B. S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 22.06.2022 and this Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on

04.07.2022 passed the following:

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.

L-42012/114/2015-IR(DU) dated 15.07.2015 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

The dispute referred is;

“Whether the action of the Management of FACT terminating the services of Sri.P. K. Rajan without

following the legal procedure is justified ? If not, to what relief they are entitled ?”

According to the claim statement, the workman entered the services of the Management company in the year

1981 as Helper. He was later elevated as Operator Grade II. In the year 1993, he had some mental illness due to

the pressure. He had to undergo medical treatment. The workman informed the Management the above position.

Medical certificate was also made available. He met with an accident on the way to the Management company. The

accident aggravated his mental illness. The workman could not attended the duty for some time. The absence of the

workman from service was not purposeful. He had no intention to abandon the service of the Management. He did

not come across the order removing him from the rolls of the company treating him having been voluntarily

abandoned from service. The workman was removed from service without following any legal procedure. Once the

workman realized that he lost his job, he approached the Management officials explaining the reality. He also

informed that he is perfectly fit and mentally sound. The workman was not given any opportunity by the

Management company to explain his position before removing from service. No domestic enquiry was conducted. No

charges proved against him. There was a clear violation of pimples of natural justice. He is not even paid

retrenchment compensation, gratuity etc. The workman applied under Voluntary Retirement Scheme/Golden Shake

Hand Scheme in the year 1993. This application was not properly considered. However he was removed from the

rolls of the company. Disabled persons in service are entitled to certain rights and protection under Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act. After patiently waiting for some

time and hoping for a change in attitude of the Management, the workman moved the Regional Labour Commissioner.

The conciliation proceedings failed as the Management took an adamant position. The Management had violated legal

provisions and also committed unfair labour practice. Since the workman has crossed the retirement age ie., 58 years,

the Management may be directed to pay the workman the entire arrears of wages and other monetary benefits as if he

had continued in the service till the age of superannuation with all consequential benefits.

The Management filed written statement denying the above allegations. The workman was removed from

the rolls of the Management company in the year 1993 treating as he has voluntarily abandoned the service of the

Management. The present dispute is raised after a period of 20 years. There is inordinate and unexplained delay in

raising the above dispute and the claim is stale and the reference is unsustainable.

The workman joined the services of the Management company as helper on 03.04.1981. He was promoted

as Operator Grade II on 13.09.1988. He was in the habit of absenting unauthorizedly. There were 11 incidents of

unauthorized absence between 10.05.1986 and 22.05.1993. In May 1986, action was initiated against the workman

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1495

for 36 ½ days of unauthorized absence in 1985. The action initiated against him was dropped considering it has a

first instance. On 18.04.1987 Absent Notice was issued to the workman. On 04.05.1987 the workman was warned

for 48 days unauthorized absence during 1986. On 15.06.1987 Absent Notice was issued to the workman. On

15.04.1988 action was initiated for 44 days unauthorized absence. However the proceedings were dropped taking a

lenient view. On 16.03.1989 he was awarded 3 days suspension for 89 days loss of pay in 1988. On 16.03.1989,

26.02.1993 and 18.03.1993 Absent Notice was issued to the workman. On 31.03.1993 action was initiated for 54

days unauthorized absence in 1992. On 22.05.1993 Absent Notice was issued to the workman. On 31.03.1993 the

workman was issued a charge sheet for unauthorized absence. A domestic enquiry was conducted and in the Enquiry

Report dt.23.06.1993, the Enquiry Officer returned a finding of guilt against the workman. In the written statement

filed before the Enquiry Officer, the workman stated that he was suffering from Bronchial Asthma as the reason for

absence. Subsequently the workman has been absenting from duty from 29.05.1993 onwards. Management issued

notices to the workman on 05.06.1993, 30.06.1993 and 06.07.1993 directing him to report back to duty and explain

his unauthorized absence. He was also directed to submit medical certificate and proper leave application vide letter

dt.23.07.1993. He was also directed to report for duty before 30.07.1993 failing which action would be taken under

the Certified Standing Orders. The workman vide his letter dt.30.07.1993 stated that he met with an accident. The

Management vide letter dt.11.07.1993 asked the workman to produce relevant medial certificate and report for duty

before 20.08.1993. The workman requested for time till 23.08.1993 to submit medical certificate. The workman

neither produced the medial certificate nor reported for duty on 23.08.1993 or any time thereafter. The Management

issued a notice on 25.08.1993 directing him to report for duty before 01.09.1993 and also informed to him that in the

event of failure to report for duty, it would be deemed that he had abandoned services voluntarily. The workman

received the notice but there was no response from his side. Thereafter the Management issued another notice on

22.09.1993 informing that in case he fails to report for duty before 01.10.1993, it would be taken that he had

abandoned the service voluntarily. There was no response from the workman. The Management thereafter vide order

dt.27.10.1993 removed his name from the rolls taking as voluntarily abandoned of the service of the company in

accordance with Clause 16(c) of Certified Standing Orders of the company. The order was communicated to the

workman. Even after receipt of the order, the workman did not make any representation to the Management. The

present dispute is raised after a period of 20 years. As per rules had he continued in service, he would have reached

the age of superannuation in February 2013. The prolonged unauthorized absence despite specific directions and

notices to report for duty shows that the workman was not interested in continuing the service of the Management and

he had voluntarily abandoned his work. The claim of the workman that he was terminated from service without

following procedure is not correct. The workman was served with number of notices asking him to report for duty.

He did not report for duty. He never produced any medical certificate as required by the Management. For

unauthorized absence in 1992, he was charge sheeted on 31.03.1993. The departmental enquiry that followed found

the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. On 10.11.1992, based on the request of the workman, an

NOC and verification certificate was issued for acquiring a passport. In his request for NOC dt.15.10.1992, he has

specifically stated that he wished to go aboard seeking employment. The workman or his family members never

produced any proper medical certificate inspite of issuing notice to the workman on that ground. It is learned that

there was an incident in which the medial certificate of the workman was denied by the issuing Doctor and the Doctor

proposed action against the workman for producing the medical certificate. The workman did not represent his case

before the Management even after the receipt of the order of the Management removing him from service treating his

service as voluntarily abandoned. He raised this dispute after a period of more than 20 years from the order of the

Management. The workman raised this dispute after 20 long years as an afterthought and as an experimental measure

without any bonafides. As per Clause 16(c) of the Certified Standing Orders, if a workman absents without leave or

remains absent beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his

appointment unless he returns or applies for leave within 3 days of such absence and explains to the satisfaction of the

Management or other Officers empowered in this respect, his reasons for absenting without leave. He never

approached any official of the Management regarding his unauthorized absence and he waited for 20 years to raise

this dispute. The workman never brought to the notice of the Management regarding any mental illness or produced

any certificate to substantiate the same. It is true that the workman had applied for Voluntary Retirement in 1993.

But the request was not accepted as there was no surplus in the category of Operator Grade II. The workman was

removed from service in the year 1993. Persons With Disability Act was enacted in the year 1995. Therefore the

workman cannot claim any protection under the said Act. All the amounts of workman were settled in full and the

gratuity amount was also paid. The workman raised a dispute before the Controlling Authority and the same is

pending. The workman was removed from the service of the Management in accordance with provisions of

Certified Standing Orders. The wife of the workman has made a representation for employment treating as his

dependent after the removal of workman from service. Even at that point of time the workman has not given any

representation to the Management. The workman must be put to strict proof regarding the claim of mental illness

justifying the delay of 20 years. The workman was removed from service vide order dt.27.10.1993. The workman

approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 22.03.2013 after completion of 58 years of age ie., after the age of

superannuation. This is not a case of termination under the Certified Standing Orders on an absence without or

beyond the period of sanctioned leave by only issuing a notice calling upon the employee to report for duty and on

failure to report, the orders of removal from service was issued. There were a number of notices issued by the

1496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management. The 1^st correspondence started in 05.06.1993 and the workman was removed from service only on

27.10.1993 after a period of 5 months and after 5 notices. The removal from service was in accordance with

provisions of Certified Standing Orders of the Management company. Therefore there was no discrimination,

victimization or commitment of any unfair labour practice as alleged by the workman.

During the pendency of these proceedings the learned Counsel for the Management filed M.P. no.2/2018

seeking the approval of this Court for the approval of the dismissal of Sri.C. T. Wilson, Work Assistant, Product

Handling Department in the Management company in view of the pendency of this industrial dispute. In response to

the summons issued to Sri.C. T. Wilson, his wife Smt.Diana Wilson vide her letter dt.14.03.2019 informed that the

whereabouts of Sri.C. T. Wilson is not known from June 2009. At the conclusion of the proceedings in the present

industrial dispute, the learned Counsel for the Management submitted that he may be permitted to segregate the

Miscellaneous Petition from the present industrial dispute and file a separate independent Miscellaneous Petition, in

case it is required. Hence M.P. no.2/2018 is not taken up for consideration along with this industrial dispute.

On completion of pleadings the workman examined himself as WW1 and marked Exbts.W1 to W4 and M1

to M23 through him. The Management examined MW1 and marked Exbts.M24 to M28 through the witness.

The issues to be decided in this industrial dispute are;

Whether the industrial dispute is maintainable ?

Whether the Management is justified in terminating the service of the workman without following the legal

procedure?

Relief and cost ?

Issue No. 1

The learned Counsel for the Management pointed out that the workman in this dispute will not come

within the definition of workman as per Sec 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the industrial dispute is

not maintainable. According to him the date of birth of the workman is 16.02.1955 as per Exbt.M1, application of

the workman for employment. The workman ought to have attained the age of superannuation on 16.02.2013 had he

continued in the service of the Management company. As per Exbt.M28, the notice issued by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), the workman raised the industrial dispute vide his representation dt.22.03.2013. Hence the

workman ought to have retired from the service of the Management company on 16.02.2013 and after the

retirement, an employee cannot be treated as a workman as per 2(s) of the ID Act. As per Sec 2(s)

“Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial

dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not

include any such person -

(i)

….

(ii)

…

(iii)

…

(iv)

…

It can be seen that the above definition falls in 3 parts. The 1^st part of the definition gives the statutory

meaning of the workman. The 2^nd part deals with persons who has been discharged or retrenched in connection with

an industrial dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to an industrial dispute. The 3^rd part

specifically excludes certain categories of employees such as those who are employed as per Air Force Act, Police

service etc. From part 2 of the above definition it is clear that when the services of an employee is terminated he

will continue to be a workman even after his age of retirement. In the normal course, otherwise a retired workman will

not come within the definition of employee as held by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in

Everestee Vs District Labour Officer, 1999 2 LLJ 147. In this particular case since the dispute involved is with

regard to the termination of the workman from the service of the Management company, it is not possible to

conclude that the workman ceased to be a workman under the Act since he crossed the age of superannuation when

he raised the industrial dispute on 22.03.2013.

10.

Another preliminary issue raised by the learned Counsel for the Management is with regard to the delay in

raising the industrial dispute. According to him, the workman was removed from the rolls of the Management

company w.e.f. 02.10.1993 vide Exbt.M21 order dt.25/27.10.1993. The order was communicated to the workman

and the same was acknowledged by him on 02.11.1993 as per Exbt.M20. He was also issued 5 notices prior to

issuing Exbt.M21 order. He failed to respond to any of the notices or Exbt.M21 order. According to the learned

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1497

Counsel for the Management, the industrial dispute is raised by the workman vide his representation dt. 22.03.2013

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), after a delay of 20 years. According to him the reference is liable to

the rejected on the threshold itself solely on the ground of delay.

11.

According to the workman he was undergoing some treatment for mental illness and he came to know about

the Exbt.M21 order only after he became normal in 2013 and thereafter he raised the industrial dispute. However the

workman failed to produce any documents to substantiate his claim that the workman had some mental illness for

which he had undergone treatment for almost 20 years. Further it is seen from the documents in his earlier

representation, that he had met with some accident and in another representation he has pointed out that he was

having Bronchial Asthma. Nowhere prior to raising this industrial dispute he claimed to have undergone any

treatment for mental illness. As per Sec 10 of the ID Act, there is no limitation in filing a claim. However there are

conflicting decisions by various High Courts whether a reference shall be thrown out on the ground of delay. In

North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs Abdul Salam, 2002 2 LLJ 297(Kant) the Hon'ble High

Court of Karnataka held that a reference can be treated as a stale and dead when there was an unexplained delay of 8

years by the workman in raising the dispute. In Karan Singh Vs Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing

Board, 2008 1 LLJ 289(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a dispute was raised in 2000 in respect of

termination effected in 1994, even in the absence of explanation for the delay, the lower Court cannot invalidate the

reference. Considering the above legal position, it is better that the relief if any, to the workman is moulded taking

into account the delay in raising the industrial dispute.

Hence the preliminary objections raised by the Management is decided against the Management and in

favour of the workman.

12.

Issue No. 2 & 3

The workman joined the service of the Management company as Helper on 03.04.1981. According to the learned

Counsel for the Management, the workman used to unauthorisedly absent from his duties starting from 1986. The

learned Counsel for the Management relied on Exbts.M2 to Exbt.M10 and Exbt.M24 to prove that the workman

was regularly irregular in attending his work. It is interesting to know that all the above exhibits are marked through

the workman WW1 and he admitted to the same. As per Exbt.M10, a domestic enquiry was conducted and as per

Exbt.M24 dt.23.06.1993 the charges against the workman regarding unauthorized absence was established. The

workman again remained unauthorisedly absent from 29.05.1993 onwards. The Management issued Exbt.M11

dt.05.06.1993, Exbt.M12 dt.30.06.1993 and Exbt. M13 dt.06.07.1993 directing the workman to report back for duty

and explain his unauthorized absence. Later the Management vide Exbt. M14 letter dt.23.07.1993 directed the

workman to submit medical certificate and proper leave application with a direction to report for duty before

30.07.1993. The workman was also informed that in case he failed to report for duty, action as contemplated under

Certified Standing Orders would be initiated. The Management vide Exbt.M15 dt.11.07.1993 informed the workman

that his wife produced a medical certificate from Dr. M. Chandrasekharan Nair stating that the workman was

undergoing treatment for depression from 26.06.1993 and that he will have to produce medical certificate from the

Company Doctor. The workman again informed the Management that he met with an accident on 30.07.1993. The

workman was therefore directed to report for duty before 20.08.1993 along with proper medical certificate from

Company Medical Officer and leave application, failing which action will be taken against the workman under the

relevant provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. On 20.08.1993 the workman vide Exbt.M16 informed the

Management that he may be given time till 23.08.1993 to produce the medical certificate as the Doctor who treated

him for the accident has gone to Trivandrum. The workman on the same day ie., 20.08.1993 as per Exbt.M17

informed the Management that the medical certificate produced by his family is not correct and Dr.M.

Chandrasekharan Nair never examined him. He also informed the Management vide Exbt.M17 that he is taking

action against the Doctor for having issued a wrong certificate. Inspite of all the above correspondence, the workman

failed to report for duty or produce medical certificate as directed by the Management. The Management thereafter

issued Exbt.M18 dt. 25.08.1993 directing the workman to report for duty before 01.09.1993. It was also informed

that in the event of failure to report for duty, it would be deemed that he had abandoned the service voluntarily. The

workman acknowledged the notice, however he failed to report for duty. The Management vide Exbt.M19 issued

another registered notice dt. 22.09.1993 informing that in case the workman fails to report for duty on or before

01.10.1993, it would be taken that he had abandoned service voluntarily as contemplated in Clause 16(c) of the

Certified Standing Orders of the company. The workman received the notice but did not report for duty even on

01.10.1993. The Management therefore issued Exbt.M21 order dt.27.10.1993 removing the workman from the rolls

of the Management treating as voluntarily abandonment of company service in accordance with Clause 16(c) of the

Certified Standing Orders. The order was received by the workman vide Exbt.M20 acknowledgement card from the

Postal Department. It is seen that the signature in Exbt.M20 is same as that of the workman in Exbt.M16, M17 and

M23 letters issued by the workman to the Management. The workman also admitted having received the Exbt.M21

order during his cross examination in the box. Even after receipt of the order the workman failed to raise any dispute.

The present industrial dispute is raised by the workman after 20 years.

13.

As per Clause 24(e) of Exbt.M25 Standing Orders, “ Habitual absence without leave or absence without

leave for more than 3 days “ is treated as a misconduct. As per Clause 16(c),

1498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“ If a workman absents without leave or remains absent beyond the period of leave originally granted or

subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment unless he returns or applies for leave within

3 days of such absence and explains to the satisfaction of the Management or other Officer empowered in

this respect his reasons, for absenting without leave”.

As already pointed out, the workman was in the habit of going on unauthorized absence from 1986 itself.

The Management has taken actions on various occasions but condoned the misconduct taking a lenient view. In

the year 1992 he was unauthorizedly absent for 54 days and in the departmental enquiry conducted, the workman had

taken a stand that he was suffering from Bronchial Asthma. However the workman stopped attending his duty from

29.05.1993 and the Management issued notices dt.05.06.1993, 30.06.1993, 06.07.1993 directing the workman to

report back to duty and explain his unauthorized absence. He was also directed to produce medical certificate and

proper leave application. The workman came with a new case vide his letter dt. 30.07.1993 that he met with an

accident. The workman failed to produce any medical certificate to substantiate his claim that he met with an

accident and was hospitalized. Thereafter the Management issued various notices as discussed above directing the

workman to report for duty and also produce medical certificate from company Doctor along with proper leave

application and explanation for unauthorized absence. Since the workman failed to respond to any of the notices

even after acknowledging the same, the Management issued order dt. 27.10.1993 removing the name of the workman

from the rolls of Management treating him as voluntarily abandoned the service of the Management company as per

Clause 16(c) of the Certified Standing Orders The workman received the order, acknowledged the same and did not

respond to the order for 20 long years. In the above circumstances, the Management is fully justified in their action

removing the name of the workman from the rolls of Management treating him as having voluntarily abandoned the

service of the Management. Labour statutes are meant to protect the employees. However no Management will be

in a position to countenance the action of the workman.

14.

Taking into account all the facts, circumstances and evidence in this case, I don’t find any infirmity in the

action taken by the Management in terminating the services of the workman from the service of the Management

treating him as having voluntarily abandoned the service of the Management.

15.

Hence an award is passed holding that the action of the Management terminating the service of the

workman is fully justified and he is not entitled for any relief claimed by him in this dispute.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 4^th day of July, 2022.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman:-

WW1

Sri. P. K. Rajan, dt. 03.03.2021

Witness for the Management:-

MW1

Sri. Nandhakumar K. A., dt.15.12.2021

Exhibits for the Workman:-

True copy of the order dt.01.04.1981 issued by the Asst. Personnel Manager of the Management

True copy of the correspondence dt.11.08.1993 issued by the Chief Personnel Manager of the

Management

True copy of representation dt.22.03.2013 submitted by the workman before the Management

Copy of the order dt.20.07.2020 passed by the Controlling Authority

True copy of the application for employment submitted by the Workman

True copy of charge sheet dt.10.05.1986 issued by the Management

True copy of absent notice dt.18.04.1987 issued by the Management

True copy of charge sheet dt.04.05.1987 issued by the Management

True copy of charge sheet dt.15.04.1988 issued by the Management

True copy of charge sheet dt.16.03.1989 issued by the Management

True copy of absent notice dt.16.03.1989 issued by the Management

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1499

True copy of absent notice dt.26.02.1993 issued by the Management

True copy of absent notice dt.18.03.1993 issued by the Management

M10

True copy of charge sheet dt.31.03.1993 issued by the Management

M11

True copy of absent notice dt.05.06.1993 issued by the Management

M12

True copy of absent notice dt.30.06.1993 issued by the Management

M13

True copy of absent notice dt.06.07.1993 issued by the Management

M14

True copy of notice dt.23.07.1993 issued by the Management

M15

True copy of letter dt.11.08.1993 issued by the Management

M16

True copy of reply dt.20.08.1993 submitted by the workman

M17

True copy of letter dt.20.08.1993 submitted by the workman

M18

True copy of notice dt.25.08.1993 issued by the Management

M19

True copy of notice dt.22.09.1993 issued by the Management

M20

True copy of the acknowledgment evidencing the receipt of order dt.27.10.1993

M21

True copy of order dt.27.10.1993 issued by the Management

M22

True copy of the representation dt.22.03.2013 made by the workman before the Management

M23

True copy of letter dt.15.10.1992 submitted by the workman

Exhibits for the Management:-

M24

True copy of Enquiry Report dt.23.06.1993

M25

Certified Standing Orders of the Management company

M26

True copy of the memorandum of settlement entered between the Management and the Unions

M27

True copy of settlement of account of the workman

M28

True copy of notice dt.14.05.2013 issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ernakulam

for conciliation

नई दिल्ली, 27 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 729.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री

सरकार मु्‍ मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, ििरतगंि, ल नऊ; मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड,

जमिावृुर, ( ू.ृी), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री चक्रिारी सबंि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री

सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर के ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 62 /2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 26.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-40012/08/2014-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2022

S.O. 729.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 62 of 2014) 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

Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hazratganj, Lucknow; The General Manager, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Mirzapur, (U.P.) and Shri Chakradhari Bind, worker which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 26.07.2022.

[No. L-40012/08/2014-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

1500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 62 of 2014

L-40012/08/2014-IR(DU) dated 06.05.2014

BETWEEN :

Shri Chakradhari Bind, S/o Sh. Lalji Bind

Vill: Purjagiri, PO Chillaa Distt.

MIRZAPUR (U.P.)

AND

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Hazratganj, Lucknow -226001

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Mirzapur,

MIRZAPUR (U.P)

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-40012/08/2014-IR(DU) dated 06.05.2014.

SCHEDULE

“Whether Shri Chakradhari Bind, is an employee of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Mirzapur ? If yes, the action of the management in terminating services of Shri Chakradhari Bind is

justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled for?”

On receipt of reference, notices were issued to both the parties on 11th August 2014. But neither Authorized

Representative of the claimant workman nor the claimant workman appeared before the Tribunal. The proceeding of

the Industrial Dispute is still at the first stage of filing of claim statement by the claimant workman. The reference of

Industrial Dispute was received in this Tribunal in 2014. Since then ample opportunities were provided to the claimant

workman to present his averments. But claimant workman has not submitted his statement of claim.

From the above mentioned circumstances it is presumable that the claimant workman is not interested in

prosecuting the case further before the Tribunal.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference is bound to be answered against the claimant workman and

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.

Date: 23.06.2022

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 730.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री

सरकार o`Rr izeq[k] eSllZ oksMkQksu eksckby lfoZlst izk- fy-] t;iqj] izcU/kd] izrki VSDuksØsV~l] t;iqj] izcU/kd]

eSllZ ukSnuZ bathuh;lZ] tokgj uxj] Jhxaxkuxj] jktLFkku] के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और v/;{k] jktLFkku

Vsyhdke Bsdk deZpkjh etnwj ;wfu;u] lhVw] Jfed ,drk dsUnz] t;iqj] के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल - ि ृुर (रािस्ट् ान) ृंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 07/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 13.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-40011/11/2016-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1501

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2022

S.O. 730.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/2017) 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

Circle Head M/s, Vodafone Services Private Limited, Jaipur,; The Manager, Partap Technocrats, Jaipur; The Manger,

M/s Northern Engineers, Shri Ganganagar (Rajsthan) and The President, Rajasthan Telecom Contract Employees

Mazdoor Union, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13.07.2022.

[No. L-40011/11/2016-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

L-40011/11/2016–IR(DU)

01/03/2017

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh

v/;{k] jktLFkku VsyhdkWe Bsdk deZpkjh etnwj ;wfu;u]

lhVw] Jfed ,drk dsUnz] ,l-Vh- & 137] 'kkfUr uxj] t;iqj &302006

1- o`Rr izeq[k] eSllZ oksMkQksu eksckby lfoZlst izk- fy-] 5 oha eafty] xkSjo VkWoj] ekyoh; uxj] t;iqj

2- izcU/kd] izrki VSDuksØsV~l] 717&720] 7 oha eafty] ,oj'kkbu Vkoj] vkezikyh lfdZy] oS'kkyh uxj] t;iqj

3- izcU/kd] eSllZ ukSnuZ bathuh;lZ] 2&bZ&1] tokgj uxj] Jhxaxkuxj] jktLFkku

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

% Jh ts-lh- xqIrk] ,MoksdsV

vizkFkhZ la- 1 o 3 dh vksj ls

% dksbZ mifLFkr ugha

vizkFkhZ la- 2 dh vksj ls

% Jh ch-ch- 'kekZ] vf/koDrk

fnukad % 07@03@2022

Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 1@03@2017 dks fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn] vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k eas bl vf/kdj.k dks

U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&

^^D;k iz/kku fu;kstd eS- oksMkQksu eksckbZy lfoZlst fy- t;iqj ,oa muds Bsdsnkj eS- izrki VsduksdszVl] t;iqj

ds }kjk 4 Jfed loZ Jh cynso flag] pwukjke] eD[ku flag ,oa lanhi flag dks fnukad 1-7-2014 ls iqu% lsok esa

fu;ksftr ugha fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS] ;fn ugha rks Jfed ;wfu;u ds mijksDr lnL; fdl

vuqrks"k dks ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\**

mi;qZDr fookn bl vf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ds i'pkr izkFkhZ us vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA

izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa ;g dgk gS fd layxu lwph ds vuqlkj Jfedx.k dh fu;qfDr foIk{kh

la[;k 1 ds v/khu foIk{kh la[;k 3 ds ek/;e ls o"kZ 2007 esa rduhfd deZpkjh ds :i esa dh xbZ FkhA Jfedx.k fn- 30-6-

14 rd foi{kh laLFkku esasa dk;Zjr jgsaA bl izdkj Jfedx.k us 2007 ls 2014 rd izR;sd o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd vof/k

rd dk;Z fd;kA 1-7-14 dks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s o NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s Jfedx.k dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA ;g

lsokeqfDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa ds mYy?ku esa gksus ls voS/k gSA lsokeqfDr ds le; dfu"B Jfedksa dks

lsok esa j[kk x;k vkSj LFkk;h dj fn;k x;kA u;s Jfedksa dh Hhk HkrhZ dj yh xbZA tcfd dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph dk;Zjr

Jfedksa dh ugha cukbZA Jfedx.k dh lsokeqfDr ds le; muds }kjk izLrqr ekax i= ij le>kSrk okrkZ py jgha FkhA fdarq

le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ls Hkh dksbZ vuqefr ugha yh xbZA vr% foi{khx.k }kjk 1-7-14 dks dh xbZ bu Jfedx.k dh lsokeqfDr

dks voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosaA mUgsa iqu% lsok esa ysrs gq;s leLr foxr ifjykHk fnyok;s tkosaA ¼mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ i{k

us Jfedx.k dh dksbZ lwph nkos esa fd;s x;s o.kZu ds vuqlkj layXu ugha dh gS½A

1502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

foi{khx.k 1 o 2 us i`Fkd&i`Fkd oknksRrj izLrqr fd;saA foIk{kh la[;k 2 dk dFku gS fd pkjksa Jfed cynso flag]

pwukjke] eD[ku flag vkSj lanhi flag muds }kjk fu;ksftr ugha FksA oLrqr% ;g vkS|ksfxd fookn muds fo:) iks"k.kh;

ugha gSA foIk{kh la[;k 2 o bu Jfedksa ds chp fu;kstd vkSj deZdkj dk laca/k ugha gSA

vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dk ;g dFku gS fd eSllZ oksM+kQksu eksckbZy lfoZlst izk-fy- uke dh dksbZ daiuh vfLrRo esa ugha

gS D;ksafd bldk foy; vkbZfM;k lsywyj fy- esa gks pqdk gSA tc rd jsQjsal esa la'kks/ku uk gks ;g nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha

gSA foIk{kh la[;k 3 dks oksM+kQksu eksckbZy lfoZlst izk-fy- }kjk ,d Bsdk lsok miyC/k djokus dk fn;k FkkA ftlds varxZr

foIk{kh la[;k 3 us vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij lsok miyC/k djok;hA rFkkdfFkr pkjksa Jfed foIk{kh la[;k 1 ds deZpkjh ugha gSA

bu Jfedksa ij foi{kh dk dksbZ fu;a=.k ugha jgkA blfy;s okn Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSA foi{kh us vf/kfu;e ds fdlh

izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;kA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosaA izkFkhZ us fn- 4-10-21 dks foIk{kh la[;k 1 dk uke ifjorZu

gks tkus laca/kh vf/klwpuk dh izfr foIk{kh la[;k 1 ls izLrqr djokus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gSA

fn- 7-3-22 dks tc ;g izdj.k tokc ,oa cgl izkFkZuk i= gsrq yfEcr FkkA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds vfHkHkk"kd Jh

txnh'k panz xqIrk us vius vfHkHkk"; dh vkSj ls bl nkos ds vxzlj.k gsrq dksbZ funsZ'k izkIr u gksuk dgrs gq;s fookn ds

vxzlj.k gsrq viuh vleFkZrk O;Dr dhA

bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tcfd izkFkhZ i{k vius nkos ds vfHkdFku ds vxzlj.k gsrq dksbZ lk{; izLrqr djus esa vleFkZ

gSA ;g vf/kdj.k bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u` vius nkos dks ;k rks dksbZ fookn uk jgus ds dkj.k vxzlfjr

ugha djuk pkgrh vFkok fookn ds vk/kkj ij og dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh bPNqd ugha gSA

vr% Je eU=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr bl fookn dk xq.kkxq.k ij U;k;fu.kZ;u fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA

izkFkhZ dh fdlh lk{; ds vHkko esa Jfedx.k loZ Jh cynso flag] pwukjke] eD[ku flag vkSj lanhi flag bl vf/kdj.k ls

dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izsf"kr fookn dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA

vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr

izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA

jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

नई दिल्ली, 28 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 731.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री

सरकार प्राचा व, िवािर नवोि जवद्याल , ृो राृुर, सोलाृुर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री संतोष

रुक्मािी भालेराव, कामगार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट जववाि में श्रम न् ा ाल सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (संिभव. सं. 07/2015)

को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 28.07.2022 को

प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42012/194/2015-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2022

S.O. 731.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/2015) of the Labour Court Solapur, as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya,

Pokharapur, Solapur, and Shri Santosh Rukmaji Bhalerao, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 28.07.2022.

[No. L-42012/194/2015-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1503

ANNEXURE

BEFORE A.A. VYAS, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SOLAPUR

REFERENCE (IDA) NO. 07 OF 2015

CNR NO : MHLC13-000285-2015

BETWEEN :

The Principal,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya,

Pokharapur, Tq. Mohol,

Dist. Solapur.

…First Party

AND

Shri Santosh Rukmaji Bhalerao,

C/o Shri Khandare,

3/1, Mahesh Nagar, Hyderabad Road,

Solapur.

…Second Party

CORAM : Shri A.A. Vyas, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

Advocate S.S. Kyatam for First Party.

Advocate : V. R. Deshpande for Second Party.

AWARD

( Passed on 11^th April, 2022 )

The Commissioner of Labour (Central) situated at New Delhi exercising powers under Section 10(1)(d) and

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the present dispute for adjudication to consider whether the

second party is entitled for regularisation in the service with Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya.

After arrival of reference notices were served to both parties. Accordingly, second party appeared and filed

his statement of claim at Exh.U-3. It has been contended by the second party that, he was working with the first party

as a Mess Helper since December-2006. The first party has been running Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya, at

Pokharapur, Tq. Mohol, Dist. Solapur. It is submitted that, the second party workman was not regularised and given

permanent post, even after rendering of continuous service for several years. It is also submitted that, second party has

rendered more than 240 days service in every year while he was serving with first party. As per second party, the first

party Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya school is a residential school and around 400 students are taking education and

residing in the hostel adjoining to the school. It is submitted that, the school has established a separate Kitchen to

serve the residential students with Tea, Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner. It is submitted that, as per the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court, school is an Industry. So also, the second party was working with skilled work as Mess

Helper, therefore, he was a workman as per ‘I.D. Act’.

It is submitted that, second party has rendered continuous service from 01.12.2006 as a Mess Helper cum

Cook. As the work of second party is related to Kitchen and Mess, he has to work almost all the days in a month

without holidays. Therefore, he has rendered more than 240 days for all the years during his service. It is also

submitted that, second party has applied for the post of Cook, but he was not allowed to appear for interview. As per

second party, it was binding for the first party to regularise service of second party as a Mess Helper cum Cook as he

was serving since 2007. Hence, second party prayed to regularise his service as a Mess Helper cum Cook and he be

given salary and wages as per the permanent worker.

First party appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.C-5. It is submitted that, second party workman

was working as daily wage worker with the first party as and when the work is available, but he was not working as a

Mess Helper as two regular Mess Helper have been appointed. It is submitted that second party himself left the work

in March-2015 giving reason of illness of his mother. It is submitted that, the work done by second party was not as

per the norms of the school and there were serious complaint against him. It is also submitted that, second party

produced experience certificate for his working as a Cook, but the certificate was not genuine. As per the first party,

three sanctioned posts are available in the Mess and the posts are filled. There was no need of regular Mess Helper.

First party denied that, second party had worked continuously more than 240 days in a year. It is also alleged that,

second party involved in threatening the authorities. It is further submitted that, second party was informed that, he

can be taken back to the work on daily wage basis, but he cannot taken as a regular Cook or Mess Helper without

following recruitment procedure. It is also submitted that, this Court has no jurisdiction as per Central Government

G.R. and the Central Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction. First party denied all the contents and prayed to

answer the reference in negative.

1504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After perusal of rival pleadings of all parties, my learned predecessor has framed Issues at Exh.O-5 but as

those Issues have been recasted by me those are now at Exh.O-6 which are reproduced hereinbelow and my findings

with reasons thereon are as under;

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Whether the reference is maintainable for want of jurisdiction ?

“In affirmative”

Whether second party proves that, the action of not regularising his

service and making him permanent by first party is illegal ?

“In negative”

Whether second party is entitled for the relief of regularisation of service

and benefit of permanency as Mess Helper from 01.12.2007 alongwith

due wages and other benefits ?

“In negative”

What award ?

“As per final order”

REASONS

The second party has examined four witnesses including himself and also filed documents with list at Exh.U-

5. First party also examined one witness at Exh.C-21 and also relied on documents at Exh.C-21-A to C-31. Heard

learned Advocates for both parties.

As to Issue No.1:

It is the contention of first party that, present reference is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. It is

argued that, the defence of non-maintainability rests upon two footings. It is submitted that firstly the reference is not

maintainable as the Navodaya Vidayalaya Samiti under whom the first party is functioning has been brought under the

Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try and the entertain the reference. It is

further submitted that, secondly the reference is not maintainable as the demand by second party is of regularisation or

getting permanency benefit and the same has not been attributed to the Labour Court as per the I.D. Act. It is argued

that, by making amendment in the Administrative Tribunal Act the Navodaya Vidayalaya Samiti has been brought

under the Central Administrative Tribunal, therefore, the issue if any regarding recruitment etc has to be raised before

the Central Administrative Tribunal only. It is further contended that, the Labour Court has right to decide about the

issue of retrenchment, dismissal etc and the demand of permanency cannot be entertained.

On the contrary, advocate for second party argued that no any Government Resolution issued by Central

Government has been placed on record to show that Central Administrative Tribunal only has the jurisdiction. It is

further argued that first party has placed on record, copy of letter issued to the Deputy Directors and Principal of

Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya, but the letter cannot be construed as a circular or Government notification so as to

confer jurisdiction to the Central Administrative Tribunal (Hereinafter to be called C.A.T.). It is further argued that

second party was working as Mess Helper and is a workman, therefore, the right to approach to the Labour Court

cannot be taken away. Advocate for second party also argued that, the I.D. Act sufficiently gives powers to the Labour

Court to decide the dispute between workman and his employer. The school has been recognised as an Industry,

therefore, the dispute of non-teaching staffs can be raised in Labour Court. It is further submitted that, as per

Schedule-II of the Act Labour Court has appropriate powers to decide the issue of regularisation or permanency of

workman.

Considered the documents by both parties and perused the documents placed on record. First party at Exh.C-

21-A has placed on record copy of letter appears to be issued to the Deputy Director and the Principal of Jawahar

Navodaya Vidayalaya. It is to be noted that, the said letter is barely visible and the document, as it is a photo copy

difficult to go through. It is to be noted that, first party has not placed on record any such Government Resolution

issued by Central Government or any circular or notification which would show that the jurisdiction of the staff of the

Navodaya Vidayalaya in respect of recruitment etc. has been conferred upon C.A.T. only. After careful perusal of the

letter, at Clause-3 provides about the provisions under section 28 and 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and the

provisions are reiterated in the letter. Therefore, I have gone through both sections of the said Act. Section-28

provides about exclusion of jurisdiction of Courts except Supreme Court. The section provides that except Supreme

Court or Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court constituted by the I.D. Act, no other Courts can exercise any jurisdiction,

powers or authority relating to such recruitment or such service matters. Therefore, the section is very clear and

sufficient so as to have jurisdiction of the Labour Court as well as Industrial Tribunal constituted by the I.D. Act.

Section-29 is in respect of transfer of pending cases and not concerned with present dispute. Therefore, it is

absolutely clear that Labour Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain reference which has been arisen out of an

Industrial dispute between workman and employer.

10.

Another contention of first party is that Labour Court has no power to decide about the permanency or

regularisation matters. For that purpose it would be just and necessary to go through the provisions of S.7 of the I.D.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1505

Act which provides for appointments and powers conferred upon Labour Courts. Sub-section 1 of the Act provides

that the Government may constitute Labour Court for adjudication of dispute relating to any matters specified in

second schedule and to perform other functions. It is clear that second schedule of the I.D. Act gives powers to Labour

Court to decide those disputes which falls within the said schedule.

The second schedule reads as under.

Matters within the jurisdiction of Labour Court.

The propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under the standing orders;

The application and interpretation of standing orders;

Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, or grant of relief to, workmen

wrongfully dismissed;

Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege;

Illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock-out; and

All matters other than those specified in the Third Schedule.

The Item-6 of second schedule provides that ‘all the matters other than those specified in the third schedule’.

It means that those matters which are not provided in third schedule can be tried and decided by the Labour Court. As

mentioned earlier, the Item-6 of the second schedule provides for all other matters which are not provided by the third

schedule. The dispute having demand of permanency or regularisation in service has not been provided under the third

schedule, therefore, it can be included in Item-6 of the second schedule. The contention of advocate for second party

regarding the jurisdiction is considerable. Hence, it can be observed that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide

the issue of regularisation of service and giving permanency benefit to a workman. Accordingly, I answer the Issue

No.1 in affirmative.

As to Issues No. 2 to 4 :

11.

It has been argued by advocate for second party that, second party was working as Mess Helper with the first

party since December 2006. It is submitted that, the first party is a residential school and around 400 students are

residing thereat. The first party is running a Mess for these residential students and as the job of second party is in-

relation to mess, he was not getting any holidays. The second party was doing his job for almost all the month. As per

second party though he was working as a daily wager, but in all the years in which he served with first party, he had

completed 240 days of his service in each year. It is also submitted that for years together first party has taken daily

work as Mess Helper from second party workman, but avoided to give benefits of regularisation in service. It is

submitted that at some Navodaya Vidayalaya some of the staff members who were daily wagers, were included in

service on regularisation basis. It is also submitted that, the first party has stopped giving work to the second party

since when he had raised dispute. Advocate for second party submitted that they have called records from first party

under the Right To Information Act which proves that second party was working since 2006 on daily wage basis. The

record also shows that, he has completed 240 days his service in each years. According to the second party, post is

available with the first party and second party should be absorbed in service as a regular Mess Helper and he should

be given benefit of permanency as Mess Helper. Advocate for second party draws attention towards the documents

filed with list Exh.U-5 which contains the attendance record and wage record of second party as well as information

obtained from other Navodaya Vidayalaya's.

12.

On the contrary, advocate for first party argued that second party was not working as a Mess Helper, but was

working as a daily wager as and when any of the work is available with first party. It is argued that the staffing pattern

allotted to the school prescribes for two Mess Helper and one Cook. These posts are already filled and no vacancy is

there. It is also submitted that the post of Cook was filled by giving an advertisement, but as the experience certificate

by second party was not appropriate, hence he could not be selected. It is further argued that in the year 2015, second

party workman left the service by giving reason of illness of his mother. According to first party there was no

termination of service of second party, but he was not interested, therefore left the service. It is also argued that second

party cannot be regularised in service as his entry would become back door entry which is prohibited in public

employment. Therefore, the service of second party can never to be regularised.

13.

Considered the arguments and perused the pleadings and evidence of both parties. The workman has

examined four witnesses including himself to establish that he was working with first party and entitled for regular

service. Second party in his affidavit has reiterated all the facts mentioned in his statement of claim. Out of other

witnesses two were earlier working with first party and one witness is working with first party. All these witnesses

have categorically submitted that second party workman was working with first party as Mess Helper on daily wage

basis. Witness No. 3 has mentioned that second party was working in the Mess under his instructions. Another issue

raised by second party is about filling post of Cook by an advertisement. It is alleged that earlier school has mentioned

for two years experience and later it was changed as five years. It is to submit that his candidature was not accepted by

1506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

first party for post of Cook. It is the contention of first party that the experience was mistakenly mentioned as two

years, but lateron corrigendum was issued and it was corrected. It is to be noted that at this juncture the said issue is

not much concerned with present dispute, because the dispute has been raised for regularisation as Mess Helper and

not as a Cook.

14.

It is argued by advocate for first party that, considering the nature of school, the service has to be reckoned to

be public employment. Therefore, recruitment cannot be done by asking for permanency in the service for completion

of 240 days in a year. Considering objections it is to be seen what is the nature of service at the first party. The first

party is Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya, a school run by Ministry of Education of Central Government. All the schools

running under Navodaya Vidayalaya Samiti are controlled and their affairs have been looked into by the committees

established under Ministry of Education. The Navodaya Vidayalaya Samiti is working under the Central Government

Education Ministry, hence, it can be termed as an instrumentality of the Central Government. Therefore, it can be said

that the recruitment of any of the employees in the Navodaya Vidayalaya are part and parcel of the public

employment.

15.

It is the contention of second party that, he had worked with first party for several years that too for more

than 240 days in each year of his service, therefore his entitlement for regularisation cannot be denied. Advocate for

second party has drawn attention towards documents filed with list Exh.U-5. Some of the documents are information

taken from other Navodaya Vidayalaya in respect of recruitment of daily wage employees. It is submitted that other

Navodaya Vidayalaya have absorbed some of the daily wage employees into permanent category. It is submitted that

these documents have been called under Right to Information Act, therefore, those have to be considered. It is shown

that, Navodaya Vidayalaya at Vasmat Nagar, Dist. Hingoli, Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad, Parbhani, Latur, Mahim, Dist.

Palghar and Choppadandi Dist. Karimnagar, Andra Pradesh have given status of permanency and regularisation of

service to some of their employees who had been in daily wage service.

16.

So far as the service rendered by second party workman is concerned, it is of no doubt that he had worked

with first party as daily wage worker for some years, to be precise from 2007 to 2015. The said contention even

has not been denied by the first party. The documents placed on record have clearly shown the service of second party

as pleaded by him. The record also shows that, he has completed more than 240 days of service in each of the year of

his service. The documents referred by advocate of second party, which are in respect of giving regularisation benefit

of some employees in other Navodaya Vidayalaya can also be taken into consideration. Those documents are showing

that, in above referred Navodaya Vidayalaya’s some daily wage workers have been taken into regular service and

given permanency benefit. The claim of second party rests upon these documents. Even after it is considered that,

some of the employees have been taken in regular service by other Navodaya Vidayalaya’s, it cannot be considered

that, the second party also should have been regularised in the service. A workman, as second party cannot claim

benefits at par showing by comparing with employees in other similar establishments. Specifically the claim of

regularisation or giving permanent status cannot be granted by considering the law of parity. Advocate for first party

rightly referred about the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s Umadevi &

Ors. As mentioned earlier, the employment in the first party is a part of public employment, in that context such

regularisation or permanency cannot be asked for by contending the period of service as daily wager for several years.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Umadevi (Supra) have observed that, “The obligation cast on the state under Article 39 (a) of

the Constitution is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. It will be more

consistent with that policy if the courts recognise that an appointment to a post in Government service or in the service

of its instrumentalities, can only be by way of proper selection in the manner recognised by the relevant legislation in

the context of the relevant provisions of the Constitution.” Therefore, it would not be possible to accept the contention

of second party for regularisation or getting permanency benefit in the service of first party.

17.

One another aspect in respect of regularisation of service is that whether the said post is available with the

employer. It has to be pleaded and proved by the workman the post for which he has claimed regularisation is

available. First party has pleaded and also placed on record document showing that, there are two posts of Mess

Helper and one post of Cook as per the staffing pattern granted by the appropriate authority. As per first party both the

posts of Mess Helper are filled and not vacant. Second party has not led cogent evidence which would suggest that

post of Mess Helper is vacant with first party. It is also contended by second party that, one Mr. Hakke has been

regularised in the service as Mess Helper. It is suggested that, during cross-examination, witness of first party has

admitted this fact. On perusal of the cross-examination first party witness, it is seen that, he admitted about

regularisation of service of Mr. Hakke. Second party has neither pleaded nor proved as to whether the said employee

had attained the qualification criteria or he has been given any partial treatment. It is to be mentioned that, any

workman cannot claim for regularisation as a rule of parity without proving that other persons also placed in similar

qualification and experience, but was taken in regular service. To support his contention, Advocate for second party

relied on Ballarpur Industries Ltd. V/s Mah. Lok Kamgar Sanghatana (W.P.No.3944/2006)(Hon’ble Bombay High

Court.) I have gone through in the case law, but it is not helpful for the case of second party, because the case law is in

respect of Item Nos. 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule-IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. As per the provisions of the Act

regularisation or giving permanency benefit is within the domain of the Industrial Court.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1507

18.

Another important aspect which cannot be lost sight of is in respect of employment of second party. It is

contended by the second party in his statement of claim that, he was working with first party from December-2006,

but since when he raised the dispute with Central Government Labour Commissioner, the first party has stopped to

allot him any work. In that connection, it would be appropriate to go through the evidence of second party workman.

During cross-examination he admitted that, for last two years he was not in service with first party. The cross-

examination has been recorded in September-2017 and in connection to the admission it can be said that since 2015 he

is not in service with first party. The admission corroborates the contention of second party made in his pleadings. He

also admitted that, he has given a letter dated 14.03.2015 to first party stating that, he is ready to work on daily wage

basis. It is seen that, even after the said letter he has not joined the service on daily wage basis. Considering these

admissions it is clear that, second party workman is not in service with first party even on daily wage basis.

19.

Now the question arises that, when the workman who is out of employment can ask for his permanency in

the service where he was employed. It is alleged by the second party that when he raised dispute with the

Commissioner of Labour, first party stopped his work with it. Therefore, now it can be observed that since 2015 the

second party workman is out of his employment with first party. First party has raised defence of abandonment of

service by second party by giving reason of illness of his mother. It is part of record that, first party has not issued him

any show cause letter or initiated any enquiry regarding his abandonment. That is not an issue of concern in present

reference, because second party has not claimed for his reinstatement. There were no efforts by second party to secure

his employment when he was not allowed to work after raising the demand with the appropriate authority. When a

workman is not being given any work or he is not in service, though on daily wage basis, how can he ask for

regularisation of such service. The issue of praying for permanency benefit or getting regularisation has to be asked

for, while concerned person is in service with his employer. He cannot raise claim for regularisation in service from

which he has been ousted. The pleadings as well as admissions of second party to that effect are appears to be fatal for

his case. The concept of permanent service or regularisation in such service after completion of 240 days and served

for several years, can be asked while a workman is continuously in the said employment. Second party is not in

service and I am of the opinion that, he cannot ask for regularisation in such service, when he is not in that service.

Therefore, it can be observed that, the second party has failed to establish his contentions with regard to his claim for

regularisation and giving permanency benefit. It is admitted position that, second party is out of employment of first

party since 2015, therefore, his prayer for giving him benefit of regularisation in service alongwith all the service

benefits, cannot to be said maintainable. In accordance with the discussion, Issues No. 2 and 3 are answered ‘in

negative’ and in answer to Issue No. 4 following order is passed.

ORDER

(i)

The reference is answered in negative.

(ii)

Copy of Award be sent to the Commissioner of Labour (Central) of New Delhi for information and

necessary action.

A.A. VYAS , Presiding Officer

Dated : 11/04/2022

Argued on

: 08/04/2022

Award dictated on

: 12/04/2022

Award checked & signed on

: 12/04/2022

नई दिल्ली, 29 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 732.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, (ओ एंड एम), एनटीृीसी, सीृत, जबलासृुर (छ.ग.); अजतररक्त प्रबंिक और मानव संसािन (प्रमु ),

मजससव एरा इंफ्रा इंिीजन ररंग जलजमटेड, नोएडा ( ूृी); ृरर ोिना प्रबंिक, एरा इंफ्रा इंिीजन ररंग जलजमटेड, जबलासृुर

(छ.ग.)के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, छत्तीसगढ़ कमवचारी मििूर एकता ूजन न, जबलासृुर (छ.ग.), के

बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] िबलृुर के ृंचाट

(संिभव सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/106/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42011/54/2017-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

1508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2022

S.O. 732.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/106/2017) of the Central Government Industrial-

Tribunal-cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The General Manager (O&M), NTPC, Seepat, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh); The Additional Manager & HR (Head), M/s

Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Noida (U.P.); The Project Manager, Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

and the President, Chhattisgarh Karamachari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.07.2022.

[No. L-42011/54/2017-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/106/2017

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

Shri Omprakash Gangotri

President, Chhattisgarh Karmachari

Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager (O&M)

NTPC, Seepat

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001

Additional Manager & HR(Head)

M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. C-56/41

Sector-62, Noida (U.P.)-201301

The Project Manager

Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

NTPC, Seepat Site,

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 20-7-2022)

As per letter dated 4-8-2017 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-42011/54/2017-IR(DU) The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action on the part or M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. A contractor working under the principal

employer at NTPC, Seepat site in terminating the workman namely Smt. Sulekha, W/o Shri Kapur Das and

not paying the terminal benefits as espoused by the President of Chhattisgarh Karmachari Mazdoor Ekta

Union, Bilaspur is legal and justified. If not, what relief the above names workman is entitled to? .”

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

The workman side appeared through its learned counsel on 10-7-2019. The management learned counsel

also appeared on the same date. The learned counsel for Management Party No. 2 i.e. M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

Filed its compliance on 25-10-2019. The workman side did not file any statement of claim. They were given last

chance for filing statement of claim vide order dated 25-10-2019 even then the workman side did not care to file

statement of claim till date. Today none was present from the side of the workman.

Since no statement of claim was preferred from the side of the workman, the Management No.1 and No.2

also preferred not to file any written statement of defence.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1509

The initial burden to prove his case lies on the workman in which the workman has miserably failed. Hence

holding the claim of the workman not proved the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is

answered accordingly.

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

The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be just and proper.

The workman is held entitled to no relief.

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

rules.

DATE: 20.7.2022

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 733.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री

मजससव एरा इंफ्रा इंिीजन ररंग जलजमटेड, नोएडा ( ूृी); ृरर ोिना प्रबंिक, एरा इंफ्रा इंिीजन ररंग जलजमटेड जबलासृुर

(छ.ग.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, छत्तीसगढ़ कमवचारी मििूर एकता ूजन न, जबलासृुर (छ.ग.), के

(संिभव सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/107/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42011/55/2017-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2022

S.O. 733.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/107/2017) of the Central Government Industrial-

Tribunal-cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The General Manager (O&M), NTPC, Seepat, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh); The Additional Manager & HR (Head), M/s

Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Noida (U.P.); The Project Manager, Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

and the President, Chhattisgarh Karamachari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.07.2022.

[No. L-42011/55/2017-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/107/2017

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

Shri Omprakash Gangotri

President, Chhattisgarh Karmachari

Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur

Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh)-495001

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager (O&M)

NTPC, Seepat

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001.

1510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Additional Manager & HR (Head)

M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. C-56/41

Sector-62, Noida (U.P.)-201301

The Project Manager

Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

NTPC, Seepat Site,

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 20-7-2022)

As per letter dated 4/8/2017 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-

42011/55/2017-IR(DU) The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action on the part or M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. A contractor working under the principal

employer at NTPC, Seepat site in terminating the workman namely Shri Kateshwar S/o Shri Rambhao Ram

and not paying the terminal benefits as espoused by the President of Chhattisgarh Karmachari Mazdoor Ekta

Union, Bilaspur is legal and justified. If not, what relief the above names workman is entitled to? .”

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

The workman side appeared through its learned counsel on 10-7-2019. The management learned counsel

also appeared on the same date. The learned counsel for Management Party No.2 i.e. M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

Filed its compliance on 25-10-2019. The workman side did not file any statement of claim. They were given last

chance for filing statement of claim vide order dated 25-10-2019 even then the workman side did not care to file

statement of claim till date. Today none was present from the side of the workman.

Since no statement of claim was preferred from the side of the workman, the Management No.1 and No.2

also preferred not to file any written statement of defence.

The initial burden to prove his case lies on the workman in which the workman has miserably failed. Hence

holding the claim of the workman not proved the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is

answered accordingly.

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

The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be just and proper.

The workman is held entitled to no relief.

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

rules.

DATE: 20.7.2022

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 734.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री

(छ.ग.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, छत्तीसगढ़ कमवचारी मििूर एकता ूजन न, जबलासृुर (छ.ग.), के

(संिभव सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/108/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42011/56/2017-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1511

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2022

S.O. 734.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/108/2017) of the Central Government Industrial-

Tribunal-cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The General Manager (O&M), NTPC, Seepat, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh); The Additional Manager & HR (Head), M/s

Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Noida (U.P.); The Project Manager, Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

and the President, Chhattisgarh Karamachari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.07.2022.

[No. L-42011/56/2017-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/108/2017

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

Shri Omprakash Gangotri

President, Chhattisgarh Karmachari

Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager (O&M)

NTPC, Seepat

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001.

Additional Manager & HR (Head)

M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. C-56/41

Sector-62, Noida (U.P.)-201301

The Project Manager

Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

NTPC, Seepat Site,

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 20-7-2022)

As per letter dated 4/8/2017 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-42011/56/2017-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action on the part or M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. A contractor working under the principal

employer at NTPC, Seepat site in terminating the workman namely Shri Santan Kumar S/o Shri Jodhram

and not paying the terminal benefits as espoused by the President of Chhattisgarh Karmachari Mazdoor Ekta

Union, Bilaspur is legal and justified. If not, what relief the above names workman is entitled to? .”

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

The workman side appeared through its learned counsel on 10-7-2019. The management learned counsel

also appeared on the same date. The learned counsel for Management Party No.2 i.e. M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

Filed its compliance on 25-10-2019. The workman side did not file any statement of claim. They were given last

chance for filing statement of claim vide order dated 25-10-2019 even then the workman side did not care to file

statement of claim till date. Today none was present from the side of the workman.

1512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 13, 2022/SRAVANA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Since no statement of claim was preferred from the side of the workman, the Management No.1 and No.2

also preferred not to file any written statement of defence.

The initial burden to prove his case lies on the workman in which the workman has miserably failed. Hence

holding the claim of the workman not proved the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is

answered accordingly.

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

The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be just and proper.

The workman is held entitled to no relief.

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

rules.

DATE: 20.7.2022

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 735.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री

(छ.ग.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष, छत्तीसगढ़ कमवचारी मििूर एकता ूजन न, जबलासृुर (छ.ग.), के

(संिभव सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/109/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.07.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42011/57/2017-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2022

S.O. 735.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/109/2017) of the Central Government Industrial-

Tribunal-cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The General Manager (O&M), NTPC, Seepat, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh); The Additional Manager & HR (Head), M/s

Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Noida (U.P.); The Project Manager, Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

and the President, Chhattisgarh Karamachari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.07.2022.

[No. L-42011/57/2017-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/109/2017

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

Shri Omprakash Gangotri

President, Chhattisgarh Karmachari

Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001

…Workman

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 13, 2022/श्रावण 22, 1944

1513

Versus

The General Manager(O&M)

NTPC, Seepat

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001.

Additional Manager & HR (Head)

M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.C-56/41

Sector-62,Noida(U.P.)-201301

The Project Manager

Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

NTPC, Seepat Site,

PO-Ujjwal Nagar,

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)-495001.

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 20-7-2022)

As per letter dated 4/8/2017 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-42011-

57/2017-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action on the part or M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd. A contractor working under the principal

employer at NTPC, Seepat site in terminating the workman namely Shri Giordhar Sahu S/o Sh.Balram Sahu