6856 GI/2022

(2045)

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. 42]

नई दिल् ली, अक् तूबर 16—अक् तूबर 22, 2022, िजनवार/ आज‍ वन 24—आज‍ वन 30, 1944

No. 42]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 16—OCTOBER 22, 2022, SATURDAY/ASVINA 24—ASVINA 30, 1944

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

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

को ला मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 995.—केन्री सरकार ने को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिजन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20),

(जिसे इसमें इसके ृश्चात उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा िज) की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के

को ला मंत्राल की अजिसूचना सं्‍ ा का.आ. 2908(अ), तारी 27 िून, 2022 द्वारा िो भारत के रािृत्र, असािारण,

भाग II, ंड 3, उृ ंड (ii), तारी 27 िून, 2022 में प्रकाजित की गई ी, उक्त अजिसूचना से उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में

जवजनर्िजष्ट ृररक्षेत्र में 64.581 िेक्टर (लगभग) ा 159.579 एकड़ (लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम में और ऐसी भूजम ा उस

ृर के सभी अजिकारों के अिजन करने के अृने आि की सूचना िी ी;

और, सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्री सरकार को अृनी ररृोटज िे िी िज;

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-09112022-240103

CG-DL-W-09112022-240103

2046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और, केन्री सरकार का, ृूवोंक्त ररृोटज ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात और ओजडिा सरकार से ृरामिज करने के

ृश्चात, ि समािान िो ग ा िज दक इससे उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में ा वर्णजत 64.581 िेक्टर (लगभग) ा 159.579 एकड़

(लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम और ऐसी भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार अर्िजत दकए िाने चाजिए;

अतः, अब, केन्री सरकार, को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अिजन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20) की िारा

9 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, ि घोषणा करती िज दक, अनुसूची में वर्णजत 64.581 िेक्टर

(लगभग) ा 159.579 एकड़ (लगभग) माृ वाली भूजम में ा उस ृर के सभी अजिकार अर्िजत दकए िाते िज।

इस अजिसूचना के अिीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रे ांक सं्‍ ा एमसीएल/एसए/ एसबीओसीृी/ ूए-

ईएक्सटीएन./9(1)/2022/22, तारी 21 िुलाई, 2022 का जनरीक्षण कलेक्टर, जिला-अंगुल, ओजडिा- 759122 के

का ाजल ा को ला जन ंत्रक, को ला जन ंत्रक संस्ट् ान, 1, काउंजसल िाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700 001 के का ाजल ा

जनिेिक (कार्मजक), मिानिी कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, िागषजत जविार, बुलाज, जिला संबलृुर- 768020 के का ाजल में दक ा

िा सकता िज।

अनुसूची

उत्कल – ए को ला ब्लॉक

(जिला-अंगुल,राज् - ओजडिा)

]रे ांक सं्‍ ा एमसीएल/एसए/ एसबीओसीृी/ ूए-ईएक्सटीएन./9(1)/2022/22, तारी 21 िुलाई, 2022]

सभी अजिकार:

सुभरा ओृनकास्ट्ट ृरर ोिना (25 जमजल न टन प्रजतवषज) के जलए उत्कल-ए को ला ब्लॉक की ब्लॉक सीमा के भीतर ृूवज

में अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र में जवस्ट्तार भूजम के जलए प्रस्ट्ताजवत क्षेत्र का भूजम जववरण।

क्रम

सं.

ग्राम

का

नाम

को ला

ब्लॉक

का नाम

ग्राम

का

सं्‍ ाक

ाना तिसील

जिला

अर्िजत

क्षेत्र

(एकड़ में)

रटप्ृणी

गोलागजड ा

उत्कल-ए

171

जनिा छेंिीृिा अंगुल

7.404

भाग

छोटाबेरेनी

172

जनिा छेंिीृिा अंगुल

2.200

ृूणज

कौन्सीदिृ

173

जनिा छेंिीृिा अंगुल

13.375

भाग

राइझरण

170

जनिा छेंिीृिा अंगुल

15.920

भाग

कंकराई

174

जनिा छेंिीृिा अंगुल 120.680 ^भाग

कुल क्षेत्र :

159.579

कुल क्षेत्र: 159.579 एकड़ (लगभग) ा 64.581 िेक्टर (लगभग)

अर्िजत प्लॉट सं्‍ ाक:

1. गोलागजड ा:

548(भाग), 548/1316(भाग), 549(भाग), 558(भाग), 559(भाग), 560(भाग), 563(भाग), 564(भाग), 565(भाग),

575(भाग), 578(भाग), 579(भाग), 580, 581(भाग), 582(भाग), 583(भाग), 584, 585(भाग), 617(भाग),

618(भाग), 1272(भाग), 1293(भाग), 1294(भाग), 1303(भाग), 1304(भाग), 1305(भाग), 1306(भाग).

2. छोटाबेरेनी:

18/320 (भाग), 18/476, 18/321/477, 18/318/478, 22(भाग).

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2047

3. कौन्सीदिृा:

1597(भाग), 1598(भाग), 1600(भाग), 1601, 1602, 1603(भाग), 1604(भाग), 1605(भाग), 1606(भाग),

1607(भाग), 1608, 1609(भाग), 1610(भाग), 1611(भाग), 1612(भाग), 1613(भाग), 1680(भाग), 1681(भाग),

1682(भाग), 1683, 1685(भाग), 1687(भाग), 1719(भाग), 1720(भाग), 1721(भाग), 1722(भाग), 1723(भाग),

1724(भाग), 1725(भाग), 1726(भाग), 1727, 1728(भाग), 1729(भाग), 1731(भाग), 1766(भाग), 1767(भाग),

1768(भाग), 1769(भाग), 1770(भाग), 1827(भाग), 1828, 1829(भाग), 2063(भाग), 2064(भाग), 2065(भाग),

2066(भाग), 2072(भाग), 2072/2780(भाग), 2073(भाग), 2074(भाग), 2075(भाग), 2077(भाग), 2098(भाग),

2099(भाग), 2100(भाग), 2192(भाग), 2193(भाग), 2196(भाग), 2197(भाग), 2198(भाग), 2202(भाग),

2203(भाग), 2204(भाग), 2205, 2206(भाग), 2207(भाग), 2644(भाग), 2645(भाग), 2646, 2647(भाग),

2648(भाग), 2649(भाग), 2650(भाग), 2712(भाग), 2713(भाग), 2715, 2732.

4. राइझरण:

1828(भाग), 1830(भाग), 1855(भाग), 1857(भाग), 1862(भाग), 1863(भाग), 1867(भाग), 1875(भाग),

1928(भाग), 1928/2280, 1928/3006, 1929, 1930.

5. कंकराई:

1870(भाग),

1870/2065(भाग),

1870/2068(भाग),

1870/2068/2550(भाग),

1870/2068/2660,

1870/2068/2661,

1870/2068/2663(भाग),

1870/2068/2692,

1870/2069,

1870/2069/2376,

1870/2069/2377,

1870/2069/2378,

1870/2069/2379,

1870/2069/2380,

1870/2069/2381, 1870/2069/2635, 1870/2070, 1870/2071(भाग), 1870/2072(भाग), 1870/2073,

1870/2073/2383, 1870/2073/2409, 1870/2073/2410, 1870/2074, 1870/2075, 1870/2075/2544,

1870/2075/2718,

1870/2076(भाग),

1870/2076/2384(भाग),

1870/2076/2385(भाग),

1870/2076/2386(भाग), 1870/2076/2387(भाग), 1870/2076/2387(भाग), 1870/2076/2534,

1870/2077(भाग), 1870/2078, 1870/2078/2563, 1870/2078/2610, 1870/2079, 1870/2079/2722,

1870/2079/2744, 1870/2080(भाग), 1870/2082(भाग), 1870/2082/2664(भाग), 1870/2083,

1870/2083/2634, 1870/2084, 1870/2085, 1870/2085/2655, 1870/2086, 1870/2087,

1870/2087/2683, 1870/2088, 1870/2088/2639, 1870/2088/2657, 1870/2089(भाग),

1870/2089/2419(भाग),

1870/2089/2420(भाग),

1870/2089/2421(भाग),

1870/2091(भाग),

1870/2091/2350, 1870/2096(भाग), 1870/2116, 1870/2116/2440, 1870/2394(भाग), 1870/2411,

1870/2492, 1870/2543, 1930(भाग), 1930/2103, 1930/2103/2104, 1930/2103/2105,

1930/2103/2106, 1930/2103/2106/2241, 1930/2103/2106/2251, 1930/2103/2106/2252,

1930/2103/2106/2253, 1930/2103/2107, 1930/2104, 1930/2105/2564, 1931, 1931/2308,

1931/2473, 1931/2603, 1931/2654, 1933, 1933/2218, 1933/2219, 1933/2237, 1933/2249,

1933/2255, 1933/2312, 1933/2324, 1933/2325, 1933/2326, 1933/2327, 1933/2328, 1933/2329,

1933/2330, 1933/2331, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1936/2336, 1936/2362, 1936/2363, 1936/2374,

1936/2391, 1936/2458, 1936/2483, 1936/2484, 1936/2484/2592, 1936/2516, 1936/2527,

1936/2531, 1936/2538, 1937.

सीमा जववरण:

ृजच -I- िजक्षणी साईड: क

ग-घ-ङ-च-क:

रे ा- क– : जबन्िु “क” ग्राम राईझरन में प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1928 ृर जस्ट् त िज। क- रे ा रईझरन ग्राम की सीमा ृर जस्ट् त

िज।

रे ा- -ग: रे ा रईझरन और कंकरेई की ग्राम सीमा के सा चल रिी िज। रे ा क- रईझरन ग्राम की सीमा के प्लॉट

सं्‍ ा 1928 और 1929 और कंकरेई के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1930 एवं प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1938 के आरंजभक जबन्िु तक,

सा चल रिी िज।

2048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

रे ा- ग-घ: रे ा ग-घ ग्राम कांकरेई के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1938 के दकनारे ृर ग-घ की रे ा ृर चल रिी िज।

रे ा- घ-ङ: रे ा घ-ङ ग्राम कंकरेई के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 2116/2440 और 1870 के दकनारे और कंकरेई और बालीचन्रृुर

ग्राम की आम सीमा ृर चल रिी िज।

रे ा- ड.-च: रे ा ङ-च ग्राम कंकरेई के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1870 से प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 2411, 2089, 2421, 2420, 2419 से

प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 2550 और 2067 तक चल रिी िज।

रे ा- च–क: रे ा च-क ग्राम कांकरेई के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 2067 त ा प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 2557, 2634 के सा -सा ग्राम रईझरन

के 2280 और 1928 तक चल रिी िज।

ृजच-II- ृजश्चमी साइड: क1 - 1 - ग1 - घ1 - क1 :

रे ा- क1 - 1: जबन्िु ‘क1’ गोलागजड़ ा ग्राम के ससंगड़ा नाला के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1316 ृर जस्ट् त िज और जबन्िु ‘ 1’ रईझरन

ग्राम के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1875 ृर जस्ट् त िज। क1- 1 रे ा गोलागजड़ ा ग्राम के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1316 से प्लॉट

सं्‍ ा 2205, 2204, 2065, 2064, 1682, 1681, 2712 और 2713 कौंजसदिृ ग्राम और रईझरन ग्राम

प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1828, 1830, 1862, प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1875 तक के सा चल रिी िज।

रे ा- 1 -ग1: रे ा 1 - ग1 रा झरण ग्राम के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1875 के ऊृर चल रिी िज।

रे ा- ग1-घ1: जबन्िु ‘ग1’ रईझरन ग्राम के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1875 ृर जस्ट् त िज और जबन्िु ‘घ1’ गोलागजड़ ा ग्राम के ससंगड़ा

नाला के प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1316 ृर जस्ट् त िज। रे ा ग1-घ1 रईझरन ग्राम के प्लॉट सं्‍ क 1875, 1867,

1862, 1830, 1828 और प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1732, 2712, 1680, 1687, 1580, 2064, 2193, 2202,

2211 कौंजसदिृ ग्राम और छोटाबेरेनी ग्राम के 318, 19 और 18 और प्लॉट सं्‍ ा 1306, 1293, 564,

549 से गोलागजड़ ा ग्राम के 1316 तक चल रिी िज।

रे ा-घ1-क1 : रे ा जबन्िु ‘घ1’ से िुप िोती िज िो ग्राम गोलागजड़ ा के ससंगड़ा नाला के प्लाट सं्‍ ा 1316 ृर जस्ट् त िज

िो ग्राम गोलागजड़ ा के प्लाट सं्‍ ा 1316 के जबन्िु ‘क1’ ृर जमलती िज ।

[फा. सं. 43015/01/2021-एलएएण्डआईआर]

राम जिरोमजण सरोि, जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2022

S.O. 995.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number

S.O. 2908(E), dated the 27^th June, 2022, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas

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

Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 27^th June, 2022, the Central Government

gave notice of its intention to acquire 64.581 hectares (approximately) or 159.579 acres (approximately) lands and all

rights in or over such lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

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

Central Government;

And, whereas, the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting to the

Government of Odisha, is satisfied that the lands measuring 64.581 hectares (approximately) or 159.579 acres

(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule appended hereto, should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing

Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), the Central Government hereby declares that the land

measuring 64.581 hectares (approximately) or 159.579 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over as described in

the Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number MCL/SA/SBOCP/UA-EXTN./9(1)/2022/22, dated the 21^st July, 2022 of the area

covered by this notification, may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District Angul, Odisha-759122 or in the

Office of the Coal Controller, Coal Controller’s Organization, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700 001 or at the office of

the Director (Personnel), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Post Office Jagruti Vihar, Burla, District Sambalpur-768020,

Odisha.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2049

SCHEDULE

Utkal- A Coal Block

(District- Angul, State- Odisha)

[Plan bearing number MCL/SA/SBOCP/UA-EXTN./9(1)/2022/22, dated the 21^st July, 2022]

All Rights:

Land details of proposed area towards extension land to be acquired beyond earlier notified area within block

boundary of Utkal-A coal block for Subhadra Open Cast Project ( 25 Million Tonne per year).

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Name

of the

coal

Block

Village

number

Thana

Tahasil

District

Area

acquired

(in acres)

Remark

Golagadia

Utkal- A

171

Nisha

Chhendipada

Angul

7.404

Part

Chhotabereni

172

Nisha

Chhendipada

Angul

2.200

Full

Kaunsidhipa

173

Nisha

Chhendipada

Angul

13.375

Part

Raijharan

170

Nisha

Chhendipada

Angul

15.920

Part

Kankarei

174

Nisha

Chhendipada

Angul

120.680

Part

Total area:

159.579

Total area : 159.579 acres (approximately) or 64.581 hectares (approximately).

Village wise Plots acquired:

1. Golagadia:

548(P), 548/1316(P), 549(P), 558(P), 559(P), 560(P), 563(P), 564(P), 565(P), 575(P), 578(P), 579(P), 580, 581(P),

582(P), 583(P), 584, 585(P), 617(P), 618(P), 1272(P), 1293(P), 1294(P), 1303(P), 1304(P), 1305(P), 1306(P).

2. Chhotabereni:

18/320 (P), 18/476, 18/321/477, 18/318/478, 22(P).

3. Kaunsidhipa:

1597(P), 1598(P), 1600(P), 1601, 1602, 1603(P), 1604(P), 1605(P), 1606(P), 1607(P), 1608, 1609(P), 1610(P),

1611(P), 1612(P), 1613(P), 1680(P), 1681(P), 1682(P), 1683, 1685(P), 1687(P), 1719(P), 1720(P), 1721(P), 1722(P),

1723(P), 1724(P), 1725(P), 1726(P), 1727, 1728(P), 1729(P), 1731(P), 1766(P), 1767(P), 1768(P), 1769(P), 1770(P),

1827(P), 1828, 1829(P), 2063(P), 2064(P), 2065(P), 2066(P), 2072(P), 2072/2780(P), 2073(P), 2074(P), 2075(P),

2077(P), 2098(P), 2099(P), 2100(P), 2192(P), 2193(P), 2196(P), 2197(P), 2198(P), 2202(P), 2203(P), 2204(P), 2205,

2206(P), 2207(P), 2644(P), 2645(P), 2646, 2647(P), 2648(P), 2649(P), 2650(P), 2712(P), 2713(P), 2715, 2732.

4. Raijharan:

1828(P), 1830(P), 1855(P), 1857(P), 1862(P), 1863(P), 1867(P), 1875(P), 1928(P), 1928/2280, 1928/3006, 1929,

1930.

5. Kankarei:

1870(P), 1870/2065(P), 1870/2068(P), 1870/2068/2550(P), 1870/2068/2660, 1870/2068/2661, 1870/2068/2663(P) ,

1870/2068/2692, 1870/2069, 1870/2069, 1870/2069/2376, 1870/2069/2377, 1870/2069/2378, 1870/2069/2379,

1870/2069/2380, 1870/2069/2381, 1870/2069/2635, 1870/2070, 1870/2071(P), 1870/2072(P), 1870/2073,

1870/2073/2383, 1870/2073/2409, 1870/2073/2410, 1870/2074, 1870/2075, 1870/2075/2544, 1870/2075/2718,

1870/2076(P),

1870/2076/2384(P),

1870/2076/2385(P),

1870/2076/2386(P),

1870/2076/2387(P),

1870/2076/2387(P), 1870/2076/2534, 1870/2077(P), 1870/2078, 1870/2078/2563, 1870/2078/2610, 1870/2079,

1870/2079/2722, 1870/2079/2744, 1870/2080(P), 1870/2082(P), 1870/2082/2664(P), 1870/2083, 1870/2083/2634,

1870/2084, 1870/2085, 1870/2085/2655, 1870/2086, 1870/2087, 1870/2087/2683, 1870/2088, 1870/2088/2639,

1870/2088/2657, 1870/2089(P), 1870/2089/2419(P), 1870/2089/2420(P), 1870/2089/2421(P), 1870/2091(P),

1870/2091/2350, 1870/2096(P), 1870/2116, 1870/2116/2440, 1870/2394(P), 1870/2411, 1870/2492, 1870/2543,

1930(P), 1930/2103, 1930/2103/2104, 1930/2103/2105, 1930/2103/2106, 1930/2103/2106/2241,

1930/2103/2106/2251,

1930/2103/2106/2252,

1930/2103/2106/2253,

1930/2103/2107,

1930/2104,

1930/2105/2564, 1931, 1931/2308, 1931/2473, 1931/2603, 1931/2654, 1933, 1933/2218, 1933/2219, 1933/2237,

2050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1933/2249, 1933/2255, 1933/2312, 1933/2324, 1933/2325, 1933/2326, 1933/2327, 1933/2328, 1933/2329,

1933/2330, 1933/2331, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1936/2336, 1936/2362, 1936/2363, 1936/2374, 1936/2391, 1936/2458,

1936/2483, 1936/2484, 1936/2484/2592, 1936/2516, 1936/2527, 1936/2531, 1936/2538, 1937.

Boundary description:

PATCH-I-SOUTHERN SIDE: A-B-C-D-E-F-A:

LINE-A-B: Point “A” is situated over Plot number 1928 of village Raijharan. A-B line is running up to Raijharan

village boundary.

LINE-B-C: B-C line is running along the village boundary of Raijharan and Kankarei. The line B-C is running along

the plot numbers1928 and 1929 of Raijharan village boundary and plot number 1930 up to start point

of plot number 1938 of Kankarei village.

LINE-C-D: C-D line is running over the edge of Plot number 1938 of village Kankarei.

LINE-D-E: D- E line is running over the edge of Plot numbers 2116/2440 and 1870 of village Kankarei and the

common boundary of village Kankarei and Balichandrapur.

LINE-E-F: E-F line is running from the Plot number 1870 along the plot numbers 2411, 2089, 2421, 2420, 2419 up

to plot numbers 2550 and 2067 of village Kankarei and Balichandrapur.

LINE-F-A: F-A line is running from plot number 2067 and along the plot numbers 2557, 2634 of village Kankarei

up to 2280 and 1928 of village Raijharan.

PATCH-II- WESTERN SIDE: A1-B1-C1-D1-A1:

LINE-A1-B1: Point “A1” is situated at plot number 1316 of Singada jora of village Golagadia and Point “B1” is

situated at plot number 1875 of village Raijharan. A1-B1 line is running from plot number 1316 of

village Golagadia along the plot numbers 2205, 2204, 2065, 2064, 1682, 1681, 2712 and 2713 of

village Kaunsidhipa and plot numbers 1828, 1830, 1862 up to plot number 1875 of village Raijharan.

LINE-B1-C1: B1-C1 line is running over the Plot number 1875 of village Raijharan.

LINE-C1-D1: Point “C1” is situated at plot number 1875 of village Raijharan & point “D1” is situated at plot number

1316 of Singhda jore of village Golagadia. Line C1-D1 is running over the plot numbers 1875, 1867,

1862, 1830 and 1828 of village Raijharan, plot numbers 1732, 2712, 1680, 1687, 1580, 2064, 2193,

2202 and 2211 of village Kaunsidhipa, plot numbers 318, 19 and 18 of village Chhotabereni and plot

numbers 1306, 1293, 564, 549 up to 1316 of village Golagadia.

LINE-D1-A1: The line starts from point D1 which is situated at plot number 1316 of Singhda Jore of village Golagadia

meeting at point A1 of plot number 1316 of village Golagadia.

[F. No. 43015/01/2021-LA&IR ]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Director

वाजणज् और उद्योग मंत्राल

(वाजणज् जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 996.—केन्री सरकार, जन ाजत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963 (1963 का 22)

की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के सा ृर त जन ाजत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1964 के जन म 12, के

उृजन म (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, मजससज जमनरल्स लजब सर्वजसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, चो ी मंजिल, कमाज

ृेस एवेन् ू, एफ. एल गोम्स रोड, वास्ट्को-डी-गामा, गोवा - 403802, (जिसे एतद्ृश्चात उक्त अजभकरण किा िा ेगा), को

इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषज की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल की िासकी रािृत्र

में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्िज्‍ ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की

सं्‍ ा का.आ. 3975 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िजष्ट समूि-।, अ ातज लौि अ स्ट्क, और

बॉक्साइट, को जन ाजत से ृूवज जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन मोरमुगांव ृत्तन और ृंजिम ृत्तन, में उक् त जनि और अ स्ट् क के

जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुृ में मान् ता िेती िज, अ ाजत् :

(i) ि अजभकरण, जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-। का जन ाजत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 के जन म 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की

ृद्धजत की िााँच करने के जल े जन ाजत जनरीक्षण ृररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त नामजनर्िजष्ट अजिकारर ों को ृ ाजप्त सुजविाएं

िेगी, और;

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2051

(ii) ि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में ा जवजनर्िज्‍ ट अृने का यो का जन्‍ ृािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और

गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण) जन ाजत जनरीक्षण ृररषि द्वारा सम -सम ृर, जलज त प ृ में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/6/2022 - जन ाजत जनरीक्षण]

एम. बालािी, सं ुक्त सजचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department Of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2022

S.O. 996.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s Minerals Lab Services Pvt. Ltd., 4^th Floor,

Karma Paes Avenue, F. L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa - 403802, (hereinafter referred to as the said

agency),as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the

Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Gr. I, namely – Iron Ore & Bauxite, as specified in the

Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the

official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals

and Ores at Mormugao Port and Panjim Port subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) The said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this

behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores – Group I (Inspection)

Rules, 1965;

(ii) The said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing from

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/6/2022 - Export Inspection]

M. BALAJI, Jt. Secy.

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 17 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 997.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार ई सी एल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिको और उनके कमजकारों के बीच, अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण - सि - श्रम न् ा ाल आसनसोल के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 15/2020) को प्रकाजित

करती िज, िो केन्री सरकार को 10/10/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-22012/118/2019-आई. आर. (सी एम.2)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 17th October, 2022

S.O. 997.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/0/2022.

[No. L-22012/118/2019 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

2052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol

REFERENCE NO. 15 OF 2020

PARTIES:

Management of Madhujore Colliery, Kajora Area of ECL.

Vs.

Shri Vishal Tiwari.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Management:

None.

For the Union (Workmen):

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

DATED:

26.09.2022

AWARD

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order NO. L-

22012/118/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employers,

that is the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Koyala Mazdoor Congress (HMS), Asansol, for providing employment on

compassionate ground as General Mazdoor to Shri Vishal Tiwari, the dependent son of Late Mohan Tiwari,

the former General Mazdoor of Madhujore Colliery, Kajora Area of ECL, who expired on 27.04.2013 while in

service, by the Management of Madhujore Colliery, Kajora Area of ECL, is appropriate and justified? If so,

what relief Shri Vishal Tiwari, the dependent son of Late Mohan Tiwari is entitled to, and from which date? ”

On receiving Order No. NO. L-22012/118/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 from the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 15 of 2020 was registered on

24.02.2020 and an order to that effect was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them

to appear and submit their written statements along with the relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of

witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, the Union, representing the workman appeared

and submitted a verified application on 16/17.08.2020, disclosing that the competent authority of ECL has considered

the request of Shri Vishal Tiwari and provided him with an employment as the dependent son of Late Mohan Tiwari.

It is stated in the application that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, the Reference case may be

closed.

Having considered the submission made the representative of the workman, I am of the considered view that

the dispute referred to this Tribunal for adjudication has been resolved and at present there is No Dispute between the

parties. Accordingly, a No Dispute Award be passed.

Hence,

ORDER

An Award be passed to the effect that there is No Dispute between the parties. The Reference case is

accordingly disposed of. Let copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of

India, New Delhi for information and necessary action.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2053

नई दिल् ली, 17 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 998.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण - सि - श्रम न् ा ाल आसनसोल के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 11/2006) को प्रकाजित

करती िज, िो केन्री सरकार को 10/10/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-22012/107/2005.आई. आर. (सी एम.2)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th October, 2022

S.O. 998.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/0/2022.

[No. L-22012/107/2005 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol

REFERENCE NO. 11 OF 2006

PARTIES:

Management of M/s. ECL, Bankola Area.

Vs.

Shri Rajesh Rabidas.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate.

For the Union (Workmen):

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

DATED:

26.09.2022

AWARD

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-

22012/107/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 04.07.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employers,

that is the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh. Rajesh

Rabidas, Ex-P.R. Trainee, w.e.f. 16.4.03 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? ”

After receipt of Order No. L-22012/107/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 04.07.2006 of the aforesaid Reference

framed by the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 11

of 2006 was registered on 11.07.2006 issuing notices to the parties under registered post, directing them to appear and

file their written statements along with relevant documents and respective list of witnesses they would rely upon.

The Reference case is fixed up today for hearing of argument. The moot question in this Reference is

whether the action of the Management of ECL in dismissing Shri Rajesh Rabidas, Ex-P.R. Trainee w.e.f. 16.04.2003

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor

Congress, Union submitted written statement on behalf of the workman. Evidence was adduced by Shri Rajesh

2054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rabidas and he was cross-examined by the Management. No evidence is adduced by the Management. It is submitted

by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Union that the dispute between the parties has been

settled and the workman is not inclined to proceed further in this case.

Considering the submissions made by learned advocate for the Management and the workman, it appears to

me that “No Dispute” exists between the parties. The case is accordingly closed and a No Dispute Award is passed.

Hence,

ORDER

That a No Dispute Award be passed in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award be sent to the

Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi for information and necessary action. The Reference is accordingly

disposed of.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 17 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 999.-—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण - सि - श्रम न् ा ाल आसनसोल के ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा 68/1999) को प्रकाजित

करती िज, िो केन्री सरकार को 17/10/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-22012/366/98-आई. आर. (सीएम-2)]

रािेन्र ससंि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th October, 2022

S.O. 999.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/10/2022.

[No. L-22012/366/98 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol

REFERENCE NO. 68 OF 1999

PARTIES: Management of North Searsole Colliery of M/s. ECL

Vs.

Fatik Bouri

(Represented by the legal heirs)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, Learned Advocate.

For the Union/Workmen: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

DATED:

30.09.2022

AWARD

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2055

L-22012/366/98/IR(CM-II) dated 09.07.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employers,

the Management of Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of North Searsole Colliery, Distt. Burdwan, ECL in dismissing

Sh. Farik Bouri is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled? ”

After receiving Order No. L-22012/366/98/IR(CM-II) dated 09.07.1999 of the aforesaid Reference framed

by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication, a Reference case No. 68 of 1999 was

registered on 18.09.2001, Notices were issued to the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited as well as the

Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Union, representing the workman, directing them to appear and file their

written statements along with relevant documents and list of witnesses in support of their respective claims

Written statement was filed on behalf of the workman on 05.02.2002 and their rejoinder on 29.10.2002.

Management filed their written statement on 25.09.2002. During pendency of the Reference case Fatik Bouri, the

dismissed workman expired on 17.12.2002. The legal heirs of Fatik Bouri namely, Smt. Jyotsna Bouri his wife, Bhola

Bouri and Bajrang Bouri, two sons, and Smt. Mandira Bouri a married daughter were substituted in place of the

deceased workman by Order dated 05.102016. Smt. Jyotsna Bouri filed her Affidavit-in-chief on 15.03.2017 and was

represented by the union. She was cross-examined on behalf of Management of ECL and discharged. The other legal

heirs of the deceased employee who filed their No objections by way of affidavits were not cross-examined on behalf

of the Management.

An array of documents produced on behalf of the workman are as follows:

(i)

Xerox copy of the Treatment papers of Fatik Bouri (marked as Ext.WE-I in two sheets).

(ii)

Xerox copy of the Discharge ticket of Fatik Bouri issued from Kunustoria Area Hospital, ECL

(marked as Ext.WE-II).

(iii)

Xerox copy of the Certificate issued by T.B. Hospital, Searsole, ECL (Ext.WE-III)

(iv)

Xerox copy of the Identity Card of the workman (Ext.WE-IV).

(v)

Xerox copy of the Failure of Conciliation Report (FOC) issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Asansol-II dated 21/23.09.1998 (Ext.WE-V).

(vi)

Xerox copy of the Circular dated 12.05.1994 issued by Director (P&IR), ECL regarding supply of

Enquiry Report to Charge-sheeted employee and Minutes of meeting of JCC held on 23.11.1994

(Ext.WE-VI).

(vii)

Xerox copy of the purported Medical Prescriptions and documents (produced as Ext.WE-VII,

Ext.WE-VIII, and Ext.WE-X).

Management did not examine any witness, though opportunity was given to them. On behalf of Management

of Searsole Colliery, Eastern Coalfields Limited some documents have been produced from their custody as follows:

(i)

Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet Ref. No. ECL/NS-P&IR/5361 dated 08.01.1992 issued to Fatik

Bouri on his alleged unauthorized absence from 19.03.1990 and constituting a charge under section

17 (i) (n) of the Model Standing Order applicable to the Coal Mining Industry (marked as exhibit

ME-I)

(ii)

Xerox copy of the letter dated 28/30.03.1992 issued by the General Manager, Kunustoria Area, ECL

communicating the Order of dismissal (marked as exhibit ME-II).

(iii)

Xerox copy of the Enquiry Report in respect of charges framed against Fatik Bouri submitted by the

Enquiry Officer dated 18.03.1992 (marked as exhibit ME-III)

(iv)

Xerox copy of the statements of witnesses Shri Ashok Chakraborty, Time Keeper, Shri B. M. Singh,

Leave Clerk, and Shri Sanaton Mondal, Sick Leave Clerk, who were examined in course of the

Disciplinary proceeding (marked as exhibit ME-IV collectively).

A brief profile of this case is that the Management of North Searsole Colliery under Kunustoria Area of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited initiated a Disciplinary enquiry proceeding against its workman Fatik Bouri, a Driller

at North Searsole Colliery of ECL for his unauthorized absence from duty from 19.03.1990 to 08.01.1992 without any

prior permission or sanction. Management issued Charge Sheet bearing Ref. No. ECL/NS-P&IR/5361 dated

08.01.1992 for violation of Clause 17 (i) (n) of the Model Standing Order applicable to the establishment. Copy of the

Charge Sheet was duly forwarded to the workman under registered post but he did not accept the same nor did he

participate in the Departmental enquiry held by an independent Enquiry Officer. Notice of the enquiry was also

published in the daily Hindi Newspaper for due communication to the workman. The delinquent workman did not

appear before the Enquiry Officer to defend his case. The enquiry proceeding was carried out following the principles

of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer submitted its findings before the Appointing Authority, concluding that the

charge of misconduct was established against Fatik Bouri. After careful considerations of the Charge Sheet, report of

the Enquiry Officer and other connected documents Fatik Bouri was dismissed from service.

2056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After receiving notice, the workman filed his written statement through the representative of Koyala

Mazdoor Congress, a recognized workers’ union. It is stated therein that Fatik Bouri was a permanent employee of

North Searsole Colliery under ECL having U.M. No. 427616, CMPF No. 2/251/B/401. It is stated that Fatik Bouri

was under medical treatment for a considerable period at T.B. Hospital at Searsole under Kunustoria Ara of ECL. He

was under medical treatment since1990 and was admitted in the hospital of Eastern Coalfields Limited on 20.02.1992

and declared medically fit on 04.07.1992. It is urged that the Management issued Charge Sheet to Fatik Bouri and

dismissed him from service on 31.03.1992 when he was undergoing treatment at Company’s Hospital. The workman

could not reply to the charges and was not given the opportunity to defend his case, thereby natural justice was denied

by the Management. Even documents relating to the enquiry proceeding were not supplied to Fatik Bouri but an Order

of grave punishment of dismissal was passed against him without issuing a second Show cause notice contrary to the

observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Md. Ramzan Khan.

It is contended on behalf of the workman that the punishment of dismissal is harsh and the procedure adopted

by Management to award such punishment is illegal and disproportionate to the nature of offence. In the written

statement the workman4 prayed for his re-instatement and full back wages with other consequential benefits.

In response the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited in their written statement filed on 25.09.2002

has denied that at that relevant time Fatik Bouri was suffering from illness or he was under medical treatment at T.B.

Hospital, Searsole under Kunustoria Area of ECL. The Management denied having any knowledge regarding ailment

of the workman and insisted that due to long unauthorized absent of the workman, amounting to misconduct, he was

rightly found guilty in the Departmental proceeding and the order of his dismissal was based upon the findings of the

Enquiry Officer. According to the Management it is urged that the dismissal of the workman is justified and he is not

entitled to any relief as he prayed for.

I have carefully traversed the Reference framed for adjudication and the attending facts and circumstances of

this case along with the contents of the written statement filed on behalf of the workman and Management.

Admittedly Fatik Bouri was a permanent employee under the Eastern Coalfields Limited, posted as Driller at North

Searsole Colliery, ECL. It is also undisputed that the workman had remained absent from his duty from 19.03.1990

mentioned in the Charge Sheet dated 08.01.1992 (Ext.ME-I). It appears from the Affidavit-in-chief filed by

Smt. Jyotsna Bouri, that Fatik Bouri, her husband died on 17.12.2002 leaving behind his widow, two sons namely

Bhola Bouri and Bajrang Bouri and Smt. Mandira Bouri, a married daughter.

10.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Union, representing the dependents of the

deceased employee argued that Fatik Bouri was suffering from Pulmonary Tuberculosis and he was admitted at

Kunustoria Area Hospital, Bansra under ECL. A discharge certificate issued by Medical Superintendent dated

15.02.1992 has been produced as exhibit WE-II. The union representative also places some xerox copies of outdoor

patient tickets of Fatik Bouri dated 20.02.1992, 05.03.1992, 20.03.1992, 03.04.1992, 17.04.1992, 04.05.1992,

18.05.1992, 16.06.1992, and 03.07.1992 issued by the Medical Officer of ECL Hospital at Searsole which are marked

as Ext. WE-I. These documents have not been verified nor denied by the Management in course of cross-

examination of Smt. Jyotsna Bouri, Workman Witness-1 (WW-1). Mr. Rakesh Kumar argued on behalf of the legal

heirs of the workman that the Departmental proceeding was carried out in an illegal manner without service of notice

upon the workman. It is contended that reasonable opportunity was not given to Fatik Bouri even before his dismissal

by the Disciplinary Authority which is contrary to the legal principle. Mr. Rakesh Kumar further submitted that the

dismissal of the workman was in violation of Principle of natural justice as such the Order of dismissal is liable to be

set-aside. The other legal heirs of the deceased have filed a “No Objection” by a way of affidavit in favour of

Smt. Jyotsna Bouri therefore, necessary order may be passed allowing full back wages to the widow of the deceased

and other consequential reliefs.

11.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management argued that the claims raised on behalf of the legal heirs

of the ex-employee is not justified. It is asserted that Fatik Bouri was a habitual absentee who was absent from his

duty for a long time from 19.03.1990 to 14.03.1992 without any information. A Disciplinary enquiry was started

against him under clause 17 (i) (n) of the Model Standing Order applicable to the Coal Mining Industry. Notice was

sent under registered post and also published in Hindi Newspaper, asking the delinquent employee to Show cause in

respect of the charge levelled against him but he did not participate. The Enquiry proceeding was taken up ex-pate.

Four witnesses were examined and the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of misconduct and placed his

findings before the competent Authority for appropriate action. Referring to Exhibit ME-II, the Order of dismissal, it

is submitted that the General Manager, Kunustoria Area, ECL by his letter dated 28/30.03.1992 dismissed Fatik Bouri

with immediate effect. It is however admitted by Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate that there is no document to show

that the notice of Charge Sheet was served upon the workman before commencement of the enquiry proceeding.

Learned advocate for the Management also conceded that relevant documents relating to the Departmental enquiry

were not supplied to the charged workman nor any Second Show cause notice was served upon him before imposing

the penalty.

12.

It is a well established fact and also laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of

M.P. Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Rajendra Tiwari; 2020 LLR 134 that “ (6) If the employer

relies only on the domestic enquiry and does not simultaneously lead additional evidence or ask for an opportunity

during the pendency of the proceedings to adduce such evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2057

validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the finding recorded therein and decide the matter. If the Tribunal decides

that the domestic enquiry has not been held properly, it is not its function to invite suo moto the employer to adduce

evidence before it to justify the action taken by it.”

13.

In the present case under Reference the ECL Management was given the opportunity to adduce evidence but

they relied only on some documents related to Domestic enquiry. They did not seek any opportunity to adduce further

evidence. Therefore, the dispute under reference is taken up as a whole for adjudication.

14.

Having considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties on the backdrop of the facts

and circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the Departmental enquiry commenced without service of Show

cause notice upon the charged workman. The Enquiry Report submitted by Mr N. N. Chakraborty dated 18.03.1992,

produced by the Management as Ext.ME-III revels that the fact relating service of notice through post or publication

in any Hindi Newspaper were not referred specifically in his Report by way of their identification of the service return

of Notice or by production of the copy of Newspaper. It is strange to find from Ext.ME-I, the Charge Sheet dated

08.01.1992 that Fatik Bouri was charged for his absence from duty from 19.03.1990 but in the Enquiry Report dated

18.03.1992, marked as Ext.ME-III, the date of unauthorized absence has been mentioned as 19.08.1990. This

incongruity in the charge and the Enquiry Report is self-defecting and remained un-explained.

15.

In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Md. Ramzan Khan, 1999 (61) FLR, 376, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “When the Enquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent

employee has a right to receive the Enquiry Officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion

with regard to the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Enquiry Officer’s report before the Disciplinary

Authority takes its decision on the charges, is denial of opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a

breach of Principle of natural justice”. Before passing an Order of termination it is therefore mandatory to issue a

Second Show cause notice to the employee in order to provide an opportunity to the workman to plead for either no

penalty or lesser penalty.

16.

In my considered view the non-supply of copies of documents and list of witnesses to the workman before

enquiry proceeding and non-issuance of the Second Show cause notice before dismissal from service, depriving him

of his right to prove his innocence and produce his documents, amounts to violation of the principle of natural justice.

Such extenuating circumstance constrains me to hold that the action taken by the Management in dismissing Fatik

Bouri is harsh, disproportionate, arbitrary, illegal and unjust, as such liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the order of

dismissal of Fatik Bouri passed by the General Manager, Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited in his letter

dated 28/30.03.1992 is set-aside. The workman Fatik Bouri having expired on 17.12.2002, there is no scope for re-

instatement of the employee. However, Smt. Jyotsna Bouri, widow of Fatik Bouri shall be entitled to back wages of

the workman, Fatik Bouri from the date of his dismissal from service till his death, on proper verification of her

identity. She shall further be entitled to consequential benefits of monetary compensation from the date of death till

the date of his notional superannuation, had the workman been alive. The Management of Kunustoria Area of Eastern

Coalfields Limited is directed to give effect to this Award within three months from the date of publication of

Notification under section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

Hence,

ORDER

Let an Award be passed as per the above findings. Copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour,

Govt. of India, New Delhi for information and necessary action. The Reference is accordingly disposed of.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1000.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

का जृालक अजभ ंता, िूरसंचार जसजवल प्रभाग, भोृाल (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री बरीलाल

लोवांिी, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर

ृंचाट(संिभज सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/180/99) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17/10/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।

[सं. एल- 40012/95/98- आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

2058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2022

S.O. 1000.—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/180/99) 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 Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division, Bhopal (M.P.) and Shri Badrilal Lowanshi, Worker,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17/10/2022.

[No. L- 40012/95/98- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/180/99

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

Shri Badrilal Lowanshi

S/o Dhuri Lal Lowanshi,

C/o Amritlal, 1/14,

P&T Colony, Bhadbadharoad,

Bhopal (M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Executive Engineer,

Telecom Civil Division,

GTB Complex,

3^rd Floor,

Bhopal(M.P.)462003

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 29-9-2022.)

As per letter dated 26/4/99 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-

40012/95/98/1RDU. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Executie Engineer, Telecom Civil division in terminating

Shri Badrilal Lowanshi S/o shri Dhurilal is legal and ustified?If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled .”

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

filed their statement of claim/defense.

The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed as a peon after all

formalities conducted by the management and joined as a peon on 10-8-1993. He continued in service till 1-7-1997

when he was terminated from service without any management notice or compensation. He has continuously worked

with the management for more than 240 days in every year , hence his termination is against Section 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Accordingly the workman has prayed that setting aside his termination, he be reinstated

with all back wages and benefits.

The case of management is mainly that the workman was never appointed by Management as claimed by

him. He never worked continuously for 240 days or more in any year till the date of his termination, hence there is no

question of his termination. Accordingly the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the

workman.

The workman has filed his rejoinder wherein he has mainly reiterated his claim.

Perusal of record also reveals that the workman had filed an application seeking directions to management to

file documents mentioned in the application. The Management took the stand that these documents were not available

with them.

In evidence the workman filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by the

management. In his cross-examination, he has proved certain voucher(photocopy) Exhibit W1 to W-11.

The management has filed affidavit of its witness but none turned up for cross-examination, hence their

affidavit cannot be read in evidence in support of case of management.

None was present at the time of argument. I have gone through the record as well.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2059

Following issues come up for determination, from perusal of the record:-

(1)Whether the workman has successfully proved his engagement for 240 days, in the year

preceding the date of his termination?

(2)Whether the termination of workman is against law?

(3)Relief to which the workman is entitled to?

10.

ISSUE NO.1:-

The workman has stated in his affidavit that he has continuously worked from the date of his first

appointment i.e. 10-8-1993 till the date of his termination i.e. 1-9-1997 and has worked 240 days continuously in

every year including the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed and proved certain voucher which are

of the period between 1993 and 1994 Which corroborate his case that he was at least paid by the Management for

working as Beldar in different periods as mentioned in these vouchers. None of these vouchers are of the period

since 1995 till date of his termination in 1997. ON the other hand , there is affidavit of Management witness on which

no opportunity of cross-examination has been given to workman because the management witness never appeared for

cross-examination. Hence there is no occasion to dis-believe the statement of the workman on oath. Accordingly, it is

held that the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement with the Management as casual labour for

a period of 240 days and more in every year including the year preceding the date of this termination. Issue No.1 is

answered accordingly.

11.

ISSUE NO.2:-

Since it is established that no notice or compensation was given to the workman, his termination is held in violation

of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

12.

ISSUE NO.3:-

The workman was a daily wager. He was not appointed against any sanctioned vacancy hence his reinstatement is not

a proper relief to him. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/-

(Rupees forth thousand only) will be paid by the Management to the workman, within 30 days from the date of

publication of Award in the Official Gazette failing which interest at the rate of 6%p.a. Accordingly Issue No.3 is

answered in favour of the workman.

13.

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

A.The action of the management of Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division in terminating

Shri Badrilal Lowanshi S/o Shri Dhurilal is held to be unjustified.

B.The workman is held entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forth thousand

only) within 30 days from the date of publication of Award in the Official Gazette failing

which interest at the rate of 6%p.a.

14.

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

rules.

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 29-9-2022

नई दिल् ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1001.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

प्रबंि जनिेिक, भारती राष्ट्री उृभोक्ता सिकारी संघ, नई दिल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री कांत प्रकाि

ससंि, श्री जितेंर कुमार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल ,

िबलृुर ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/7/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17/10/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा ।

[सं. एल- 42012/46/2019- आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

2060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2022

S.O. 1001.—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/7/2020) 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 Managing Director, Indian National Consumer Cooperative Association, New Delhi and

Shri Kant Prakash Singh;Shri Jitendra Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 17/10/2022.

[No. L- 42012/46/2019- IR (DU)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/7/2020

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

Shri Kant Prakash Singh

G-47, New Shabri Nagar,

Sukhliya,Indore (M.P.)

Shri Jitendra Kumar ,

LIG Duplex, Nand Nagar,

Near to Church

Indore(M.P.)

...Workman

Versus

The Managing Director

Indian National Consumer Cooperative Association

3.siri Institutional Area

Selgav Marg, New Delhi.

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 29-9-2022)

As per letter dated 16/1/2020 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-

42012/46/2019-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Kya Neyojak Thekedar, Bharitya Rashtriya Upbhokta Sehkari Sangh(NCF) dwara Avedakon

(Karmkaron)Shri Jitendra Kumar Evem shri Kant Prakash singh ko “B shreni” ke sanshodhit

yatayat Bhatta Ke dar se Yatayat Bhatee ka bhugtan na kiya jaana uchhit (jabke Anya B-Shreni ke

Shehar ke Karmkaron ko diya gaya hai) yadi nahi haan to kab se weh ukt badhe bhatte yatayat ko

paane ke adhikari hai? .”

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

The workman never appeared nor file any statement of claim. The Management also did not appear and nor did they

file any written statement of defence, inspite of several opportunity being given.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2061

Since the initial burden to prove the claim is on the workman, in which he has miserably failed, the reference

deserves to be answered against the workman, holding the claim of the workman not prove and is answered

accordingly.

A.The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be just and proper.

B.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.

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 29-9-2022

नई दिल् ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1002.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार कार ाना प्रबंिक, न् ू भोृाल टेक्सटाइल जमल्स, भोृाल (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मनोि

कुमार ृं ी, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट

(संिभज सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/76/2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 21/09/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल- 42012/109/2014- आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2022

S.O. 1002.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/76/2014) 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 Factory Manager, New Bhopal Textile Mills, Bhopal (M.P.) and Shri Manoj Kumar

Panthi,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 21/09/2022.

[No. L- 42012/109/2014- IR (DU)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/76/2014

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

Shri Manoj Kumar Panthi,

H.No.22, Opp.Bal vihar,

Chandbarh,

Bhopal(M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The Factory Manager

New Bhopal Textile Mills,

Near Railway Station,Chandbarh,

Bhopal(M.P.)-462010

…Management

2062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Passed on 28-7-22.)

As per letter dated 30-9-2014 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-

42012/109/2014-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of New Bhopal Textile Mills in terminating the services of Shri

Manoj Kumar Panthi w.e.f. 11-4-2013 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for? .”

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

filed their respective statement of claim/defence.

The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed in the production

department as co-winder on 8-9-2007 Job Card No.5427. His wages were Rs.6690/- per month. His services were

terminated by Management from 11-4-2013. Services of his co-workman Vinod Kumar Pawar, Manoj Lodhi and

Jaiveer Singh were also terminated by Management on the same date but they were taken back in employment. It is

the case of the workman that before termination, no inquiry or charge sheet was issued against him . He was not given

any opportunity of hearing. He was not given any notice or compensation whereas he had already completed more

than 240 days in employment in every year, including the year preceding the date of his termination.

His Termination is unfair labour practice adopted by Management. It is also in violation of Section 25N of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the word ‘Act’.) because no prior approval of Competent

Authority was obtained before termination. It is also in violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed that setting aside the termination, he be reinstated with back wagers and

consequential benefits.

The case of Management as taken in their written statement of defence is that on 11-4-2013 the workman

organizes a programme along with workers Manoj Lodhi, Vinod Pawar and Jayveer Singh without prior approval of

the Management in the factory campus. The Management has further stated that the applicant workman and co-

workman had submitted a joint explanation on 12-4-2013 which was found not satisfactory. Further some daily

wagers including the applicant workman assembled with some outsiders on the main gate of the factory and burnt the

orders of Management. The Union of the applicant workman is not registered. They further observed a strike on 22-

4-2013, resulting into disruption of production. Furthermore, they organized a Budhi-Shudhi Yagya on the main gate

of the Factory on 24-4-2013 and 26-4-2013. They further burnt an effigy of Management on the Main gate on 1-5-

2013. On 7-5-2013 they organized a procession against the management. Thus they disrupted the production process

in the factory resulting into huge loss to the Factory. The workman were given an opportunity to tender an apology

for their work, if they wanted to be reinstated. The co-workman tendered an apology. They were reinstated but the

applicant workman did not tender any apology, hence he was not reinstated.

The Management has filed photocopy documents which are not admitted by the workman, hence, cannot be

read in evidence. They workman filed rejoinder, mainly reiterating his case. The workman has filed his affidavit as

his examination-in-chief in which he reiterated his case taken by him in his statement of claim and rejoinder. The

Management did not appear and did not care to cross-examine the workman, hence the opportunity to cross-examine

was closed. The Management did not examined any witness.

At the time of argument also none appeared for Management, hence argument of learned counsel for

workman were heard. The Management was given opportunity to file written arguments. No written arguments was

filed.

I have perused the record in the light of arguments.

The Reference itself is the issue for determination, in the case in hand.

According to the workman, he was employed with the Management and had completed 240 days of

continuous service with the management. This fact is not disputed by the Management. This is also not disputed that

his services were terminated by Management on 11-4-2013. The Management has taken a case that after 11-4-2013

so many acts of strike and disruption in production were committed by the applicant workman. The photocopy

documents filed by Management cannot be read in their favour because they are not proved. None has appeared on

behalf of the Management as witness to prove the case of the management. ON the basis of uncontroverted affidavit

of workman, this fact also stands proved that the services of the workman were terminated on the basis of a charge

which was organizing some function or meeting at the main gate of the Factory without permission of the

Management. The Principle of natural justice require that the workman would have been given an opportunity to have

his say on these allegations. Since no notice or compensation was given before termination, the action of management

is held violative of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the basis of above discussion and finding, the action of

Management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 11-4-2013 is held to be unjustified in law.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2063

10.

On the basis of finding recorded above, the question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled? The

management is an industry engaged in production. The termination of the workman has been held against law. In

such a situation, keeping in view the fact that according to the Standing Orders, after completing certain years of

service, the workman may be considered for regularization and other benefits. The interest of justice will be served in

reinstatement of the workman but since the workman has not worked in these years and he has nowhere stated that he

has been in gainful employment after his termination, he is held entitled to only 25% of back wages.

11.

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

A.The action of the management of New Bhopal Textile Mills in terminating the services of Shri

Manoj Kumar Panthi w.e.f. 11-4-2013 is held to be unjustified.

B.The workman is held entitled to be reinstated with 25% of back wages payable to him

within 30 days of date of publication of Award in Official Gazette , failing which interest @6%

per annum from the date of publication till payment.

C.The workman is further held to be deemed to be in continuous service for all other service

benefits, pre and post retiral.

D.No order as to costs.

12.

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

rules.

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 28-7-2022

नई दिल् ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1003.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक िूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल, सीटीओ कंृाउंड, इंिौर (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अंचल

सजचव, राष्ट्री िूरसंचार कमजचारी संघ, इंिौर (म.प्र.), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं

श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/106/2005) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,

प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17/10/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल- 40012/59/2005- आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2022

S.O. 1003.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/106/2005) 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 Telecom, BSNL, CTO Compound, Indore (M.P.) and The Circle Secretary,

National Federation of Telecom Employees, Indore(M.P.), which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 17/10/2022.

[No. L- 40012/59/2005- IR (DU)]

D.K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/106/2005

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

The Circle Secretary,

National Federation of Telecom Employees,

41-A, Vijay Nagar, Indore(M.P.)

….Workman

Versus

The General manager Telecom

BSNL,CTO Compound,

Old Residency Area

Indore(M.P.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 27-9-2022)

As per letter dated 26/9/2005 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-

40012/59/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of General manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Indore in terminating the services of Shri Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh Mandloi w.e.f. 1990 is

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

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

appeared and filed their respective statement of claim/defence.

Accordingly to the workman he was engaged in Telecommunication Department in District Indore in the

year 1987. He was dis-engaged in the beginning of year 1990. He worked continuously for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his dis-engagement. His services were terminated by Management under the oral orders which

is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act1947. A case with respect to illegal retrenchment of 159

workmen was filed by the Union in the year 1990 before Central Administrative Tribunal Bench as OA.No. 229/1990

(Manoj Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India) which was decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 19-9-1995. It

was ordered that those daily wagers who were engaged before 22-6-1988 are regularized and those daily wagers who

were engaged after 22-6-1988 their termination of services were set aside. This order was never complied with.

Accordingly, the workman has sought that he be held entitled to regularization setting aside his termination in the light

of order of Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly setting aside his termination, he be reinstated with all back

wages and benefits.

The case of workman is mainly that firstly the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal is not applicable

to the present workman because according to himself, he was engaged as a daily wager in the year 1987. Secondly he

never completed 240 days in continuous engagement of the Management as claimed by him, hence his disengagement

is not against law. Thirdly the dispute has been raised after considerable delay, hence is barred by delay and latches

on the part of the workman. Accordingly the workman has prayed that the reference be answered against the

workman.

In evidence, the workman has examined himself on oath and has been cross-examined. The Management has

examined its witness Basant Kumar Yadav, Divisional Engineer on oath who has been cross-examined by workman.

The workman has filed and proved three photocopy documents Exhibit W-1 is the receipt of Union Membership,

Exhibit W-2 is the identity card and Exhibit W-3 is the personal record of the workman on the basis of muster roll. As

it comes out from perusal of record that once this case was fixed for final arguments in the year 2009 by my learned

Predecessor, it remained at the stage of argument till 7-5-2004, thereafter it was fixed for Award and again deputed

back for evidence. Parties again filed their evidence. The workman again examined himself on evidence and was

cross-examined. The Management also examined its witness Nitin Kumar Soni and he was cross-examined.

I have heard oral arguments of Shri Mukesh Soni, learned counsel appearing for workman and Shri

R.S.Khare, learned counsel appearing for Management. I have gone through the record as well as the written

arguments filed by the parties.

On perusal of record, the following issues comes up for determination:-

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 22, 2022/आज‍ वन 30, 1944

2065

(1)Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240 days or

more in any year, including the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement.?

(2)Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is

justified in law or not?

(3)Relief if any the workman is entitled to?

ISSUE NO.1:-

The burden to prove this issue is on the workman and he has corroborated his case in his affidavit filed as his

Examination in chief. It is supported by Exhibit W-2 a statement regarding the working days, hence the case of the

workman that he worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination is held not proved.

From oral evidence and documents Exhibit W-1, it is held that the workman worked for only 226 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. Issue No.1 is answered against the workman.

ISSUE NO.2:-

IN the light of the findings recorded in Issue No.1, since it is established that he only worked for 226 days in

the year preceding the date of his termination, Issue No.2 is answered in against the workman, holding his

termination justified in law.

ISSUE NO.3:-

Since the workman was not employed against a regular vacancy or by following the recruitment procedure

and the fact proved that he worked for less than 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination, his

reinstatement is not justified in law and he is held entitled to no relief. Thus Issue No.3 is answered against the

workman.

10.

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

The action of the management of General manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Indore

in terminating the services of Shri Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh Mandloi w.e.f. 1990 is held

legal and justified.

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.

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 27-9-2022

नई दिल् ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1004.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सजचव, राष्ट्री िूरसंचार कमजचारी संघ, इंिौर (म.प्र.), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िजष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण

एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट (संिभज सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/105/2005) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,

प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17/10/2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल- 40012/58/2005- आईआर-(डी ू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2022

S.O. 1004.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/105/2005) 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 Telecom, BSNL,CTO Compound, Indore (M.P.) and The Circle

Secretary,National Federation of Telecom Employees, Indore(M.P.), which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 17/10/2022.

[No. L- 40012/58/2005- IR (DU)]

D.K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 22, 2022/ASVINA 30, 1944 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/105/2005

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The Circle Secretary

National Federation of

Telecom Employes,

41-A, Vijay Nagar, Indore(M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

The General Manager Telecom

BSNL, CTO Compound,

Old Residency Area

Indore(M.P.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 27-9-22.)

As per letter dated 26-9-2005 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-

40012/58/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of General Manager Telecom, BSNL, Indore in terminating

the services of Shri Mahesh S/o Shri Sunderlal Verma w.e.f. 1990 is legal and justified?If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? .”

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

appeared and filed their respective statement of claim/defence.

Accordingly to the workman he was engaged in Telecommunication Department in District Indore in the

year 1987. He was dis-engaged in the beginning of year 1990. He worked continuously for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his dis-engagement. His services were terminated by Management under the oral orders which

is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act1947. A case with respect to illegal retrenchment of 159

workmen was filed by the Union in the year 1990 before Central Administrative Tribunal Bench as OA.No.

229/1990(Manoj Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India) which was decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 19-9-

1995. It was ordered that those daily wagers who were engaged before 22-6-1988 are regularized and those daily

wagers who were engaged after 22-6-1988 their termination of services were set aside. This order was never

complied with. Accordingly, the workman has sought that he be held entitled to regularization setting aside his

termination in the light of order of Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly setting aside his termination, he be

reinstated with all back wages and benefits.