3012 GI/2023
(1551)
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. 20]
नई दिल् ली, मई 14—मई 20, 2023, िजनवार/वैिाख 24, —वैिाख 30, 1945
No. 20]
NEW DELHI, MAY 14—MAY 20, 2023, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 24, —VAISAKHA 30, 1945
इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
गृि मंत्रालय
(सी टी सी आर प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2023
का.आ. 788.—केंद्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता 1973 (1974 का 2), की िारा 24 की उप-िारा (8)
के साथ पठठत राष्ट्रीय अन्वेषण अजभकरण अजिजनयम, 2008 (2008 का 34) की िारा 15 की उप-िारा (1) द्वारा
प्रित् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, जवचारण न्यायालय में राष्ट्रीय अन्वेषण अजभकरण द्वारा िुरू दकये गए मामलों,
उनके नाम के सामने उजल्लजखत राज्यों/संघ राज्य क्षेत्रों में जवजि द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत पुनरीक्षण या अपीलीय न्यायालयों में
उि मामलों से सम्बंजित अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य जवषयों को संचाजलत करने िेतु जनम्नजलजखत अजिविाओं
की जविेष लोक अजभयोिकों के रूप में जनयुजि को अजिसूजचत दकया था, िो उनके नाम के सामने उजल्लजखत
अजिसूचना संख्या के माध्यम से भारत के रािपत्र असािारण भाग-II, खंड-3, उपखंड (ii) में प्रकाजित हुए थे;
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-27052023-246050
CG-DL-W-27052023-246050
1552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ि. सं.
अजिसूचना सं.
अजिसूचना
दिनांक
जविेष लोक अजभयोिक का
नाम
न्यायलय और राज्य/संघ राज्य
का नाम
1.
का. आ. 2167
(अ)
01.09.2010
सुश्री रोजिणी साजलयन
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, मिाराष्ट्र
2.
का. आ. 1142
(अ)
20.05.2011
श्री अजमत िमाा
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, दिल्ली
3.
का. आ. 1967
(अ)
25.08.2011
श्री जनिीथ पी. मेिता
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, गुिरात
4.
का. आ. 2359
(अ)
13.10.2011
श्री जविय कुमार गुप्ता
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, िम्मू एवं कश्मीर
5.
श्री बलिेव ससंि मन्िास
6.
श्री अजनल भान
7.
का. आ. 1546
(अ)
11.07.2012
श्री रोजित रंिन प्रसाि
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, झारखण्ड
8.
श्री सुिील रंिन िास
9.
का. आ. 1548
(अ)
11.07.2012
सुश्री गीता गिमेरे
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, जसदिम
10.
का. आ. 1552
(अ)
11.07.2012
श्री िमापाल चौिान
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, जिमाचल प्रिेि
11.
श्री कश्मीर ससंि ठाकुर
12.
का. आ. 1553
(अ)
11.07.2012
श्री सी. एच. िािव
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, कनााटक
13.
का. आ. 1720
(अ)
30.07.2012
श्री ए. मठरअरपुथम
भारत का सवोच्च न्यायालय
और भारत का कोई भी उच्च
न्यायालय
14.
श्री प्रिीप कुमार डे
15.
सुश्री पद्मलक्ष्मी जनगम
16.
का. आ. 2789
(अ)
23.11.2012
श्री चौिान िैलेि जत्रकमलाल
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, िािरा एवं नगर
िवेली संघ राज्य
17.
का. आ. 2790
(अ)
23.11.2012
श्री ओरलेन्डो वी. जमरांडा
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, िमण एवं िीव संघ
राज्य
18.
का. आ. 3053
(अ)
08.10.2013
श्री पी. िी. मनु
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, केरल
19.
का. आ. 3056
(अ)
08.10.2013
श्री प्रिीप कुमार िमाा
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, दिल्ली
20.
का. आ. 2557
(अ)
10.08.2017
श्री आर. सी. कोडेकर
जविेष न्यायालय व गुिरात
उच्च न्यायालय
21.
का. आ. 1965
(अ)
25.08.2011
श्री एस. के. सूि
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, िरज याणा
22.
का. आ. 1547
(अ)
11.07.2012
श्री िेबा प्रसाि िास
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, ओजड़िा
23.
श्री संिीत मोिंती
श्री िजि प्रसाि पांडा
24.
25.
का. आ. 1549
(अ)
11.07.2012
श्री अरुण कुमार
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, उत्तर प्रिेि
26.
श्री अनुराग खन्ना
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1553
27.
का. आ. 1550
(अ)
11.07.2012
श्री बलिीत ससंि
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, उत्तराखंड
28.
का. आ. 1551
(अ)
11.07.2012
श्री िी मोिन कीर्ता कुमार
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, पुिुचेरी
29.
का. आ. 294 (अ)
30.01.2015
श्री के. सुरेन्द्र
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, आंध्र प्रिेि एवं
तेलंगाना
30.
श्री एन. िठरनाथ
31.
का. आ. 1390
(अ)
25.05.2015
श्री उमेि कुमार िमाा
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली
32.
श्री बी. एस. िून
33.
श्री जमजथलेि कुमार झा
34.
श्री
मौजलन
ज्योजतन्द्रभाई
बारोट
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, गुिरात
35.
श्री गौरांग व्यास
36.
श्री िेनामानी सुप्रवत एस बी
िेना
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, ओजड़िा
37.
श्री तमल कांजत मुख़िी
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, पजिम बंगाल
38.
श्री प्रिान रािेि चंिामल
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, मिाराष्ट्र
39.
का. आ. 1391
(अ)
25.05.2015
सुश्री िर्माला िेषाद्री कौजिक
बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय, मिाराष्ट्र
40.
का. आ. 3104
(अ)
09.09.2020
श्री सुरेंिर ससंि
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय,
चंडीगढ़
और
दिल्ली संघ राज्य क्षेत्र
41.
सुश्री व्येिबेगम एच. येल्गर
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, गोवा
42.
सुश्री छाया जमश्र
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, जबिार
43.
का. आ. 2672
(अ)
29.06.2021
श्री सी. ए. रजवन्द्र
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, कनााटक
44.
श्री िंकर टी. जबिन्नावार
45.
श्री संिय बिान
कलकत्ता
उच्च
न्यायालय,
पजिम बंगाल
46.
श्री रािेंद्र नाथ िास
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, पजिम बंगाल
47.
श्री अजभनन्िन बीवज्ञानी
जविेष न्यायालय व अपीलीय
न्यायालय, मिाराष्ट्र
और िबदक, उपरोि जविेष लोक अजभयोिकों की जनयुजि को समाप्त करना का जनणाय जलया गया िै;
अत: अब केन्द्र सरकार उि अजिविाओं की जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुजि को तत्काल प्रभाव
से समाप्त करती िै।
[फा. सं. 11011/40/2019/एनआईए]
जवपुल आलोक, अवर सजचव
1554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
(CTCR Division)
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2023
S.O. 788.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), read with sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government had notified following Advocates as Special Public
Prosecutors, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide
notification Nos. mentioned against their names for conducting the cases instituted by the National Investigation
Agency in the trial courts, appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the case in revisional or appellate
courts established by law in the States/UTs mentioned against their names:—
S.No.
Notification No.
Date of
notification
Name of the Special
public Prosecutor
Name of Court and
State/UT
1.
S.O. 2167 (E)
01.09.2010
Ms. Rohini Salian
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Maharashtra
2.
S.O. 1142 (E)
20.05.2011
Sh. Amit Sharma
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Delhi
3.
S.O. 1967 (E)
25.08.2011
Sh. Nishith P. Mehta
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Gujarat
4.
S.O. 2359 (E)
13.10.2011
Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Jammu & Kashmir
5.
Sh. Baldev Singh Manhas
6.
Sh. Anil Bhan
7.
S.O. 1546 (E)
11.07.2012
Sh. Rohit Ranjan Prasad
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Jharkhand
8.
Sh. Sushil Ranjan Das
9.
S.O. 1548 (E)
11.07.2012
Ms. Geeta Gazmere
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Sikkim
10.
S.O. 1552 (E)
11.07.2012
Sh. Dharmpal Chauhan
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Himachal Pradesh
11.
Sh. Kashmir Singh
Thakur
12.
S.O. 1553 (E)
11.07.2012
Sh. C.H. Jadhav
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Karnataka
13.
S.O. 1720 (E)
30.07.2012
Sh. A. Mariarputham
Supreme Court of India
and any High Court in
India
14.
Sh. Pradeep Kumar Dey
15.
Ms. Padmalakshmi
Nigam
16.
S.O. 2789 (E)
23.11.2012
Sh. Chauhan Sailesh
Trikamlal
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, UT of Dadra and
Nagar Haveli
17.
S.O. 2790 (E)
23.11.2012
Sh. Orlando V. Miranda
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, UT of Daman and
Diu
18.
S.O. 3053 (E)
08.10.2013
Sh. P.G. Manu
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Kerala
19.
S.O. 3056 (E)
08.10.2013
Sh. Pradeep Kumar
Sharma
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Delhi
20.
S.O. 2557 (E)
10.08.2017
Sh. R.C. Kodekar
Trial
Court
and
High
Court, Gujarat
21.
S.O. 1965 (E)
25.08.2011
Sh. S.K. Sood
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Haryana
22.
S.O. 1547 (E)
11.07.2012
Sh. Deba Prasad Das
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Odisha
23.
Sh. Sanjit Mohanty
Sh. Shakti Prasad Panda
24.
25.
S.O. 1549 (E)
11.07.2012
Sh. Arun Kumar
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Uttar Pradesh
26.
Sh. Anurag Khanna
27.
S.O. 1550 (E)
11.07.2012
Sh. Baljeet Singh
Trial Court and Appellate
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1555
Court, Uttarakhand
28.
S.O. 1551 (E)
11.07.2012
Sh. G. Mohan Keerthi
Kumar
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Puducherry
29.
S.O. 294 (E)
30.01.2015
Sh. K. Surender
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana
30.
Sh. N. Harinath
31.
S.O. 1390 (E)
25.05.2015
Sh. Umesh Kumar
Sharma
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, New Delhi
32.
Sh. B.S. Joon
33.
Sh. Mithilesh Kumar Jha
34.
Sh. Maulin Jyotindrabhai
Barot
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Gujarat
35.
Sh. Gaurang Vyas
36.
Sh. Jenamani Supravat S
B Jena
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Odisha
37.
Sh. Tamal Kanti
Mukherjee
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, West Bengal
38.
Sh. Pradhan Rajesh
Chandamal
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Maharashtra
39.
S.O. 1391 (E)
25.05.2015
Ms. Sharmila Shesyadri
Kaushik
High Court of Bombay,
Maharashtra
40.
S.O. 3104 (E)
09.09.2020
Shri Surender Singh
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, UT of Chandigarh
and Delhi
41.
Ms. Vyedhabegam H.
Yelgar
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Goa
42.
Ms. Chhaya Mishra
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Bihar
43.
S.O. 2672 (E)
29.06.2021
Sh. C.A. Ravindra
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Karnataka
44.
Sh. Shankar T.
Bikkannavar
45.
Sh. Sanjoy Bardhan
High Court of Calcutta,
West Bengal
46.
Sh. Rajendra Nath Das
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, West Bengal
47.
Sh. Abhinandan B
Vagyani
Trial Court and Appellate
Court, Maharashtra
And whereas, it has been decided to terminate the appointment of the aforementioned Special Public
Prosecutors;
Now, therefore, the Central Government terminates the appointment of the aforementioned Advocates
as Special Public Prosecutor with immediate effect.
[F. No. 11011/40/2019/NIA]
VIPUL ALOK, Under Secy.
जवत्त मंत्रालय
(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 789.—राष्ट्रीय कृजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक अजिजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) की िारा 7 की
उप-िारा (2) के साथ पठठत िारा 6 की उप-िारा (1) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय
सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, डॉ. रामा श्रीजनवासन को अजिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए अथवा अगले
1556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, राष्ट्रीय कृजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक (नाबाडा) के जनिेिक मंडल में अंिकाजलक गैर-
सरकारी जनिेिक के पि पर जनयुि करती िै।
[फा. सं. 7/18/2021-एसी]
चन्द्रगुप्त िौया, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 789.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of read
with sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of
1981), the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. Raama Sreenivasan as part-time Non-Official Director on
the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), for a period of
three years from the date of notification or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 7/18/2021-AC]
CHANDRAGUPTA SHAURYA, Under Secy.
(व्यय जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 790.—केन् द्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिन के प्रयोग के जलए) जनयम, 1976 के
जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, एतद्द्वारा यि अजिसूजचत करती िै दक भारतीय लेखा परीक्षा और लेखा
जवभाग में भारत सरकार का कायाालय, जिसमें मिालेखाकार (लेखा व स्ट् थापना) – II का कायाालय, जबिार, पटना का
नाम पठरवर्तात करके प्रिान मिालेखाकार (लेखा व स्ट् थापना) का कायाालय, जबिार, पटना दकया िाएगा।
[फा. सं. ए-12034/02/2023-ई.िी.]
ऐनी िॉिा मैथ् यू, जविेष सजचव
(Department of Expenditure)
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 790.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Office Purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies that the office of the Government of India in
the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which the Office of Accountant General (Accounts &
Entitlement)-II, Bihar, Patna shall be renamed as the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Accounts &
Entitlement), Bihar, Patna.
[F. No. A-12034/02/2023-E.G.]
ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Special Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 791.—केन् द्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिन के प्रयोग के जलए) जनयम, 1976 के
जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै दक भारतीय लेखा परीक्षा और लेखा
जवभाग में भारत सरकार का जनम् नजलजखत कायाालय, जिसमें अस्ट् सी प्रजतित कमाचाठरयों ने सिंिी का कायासािक ज्ञान
अर्िात कर जलया िै, नामत:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1557
मिाजनिेिक लेखा परीक्षा (इस्ट् पात) रांची, िाखा कायाालय, जभलाई।
[फा. सं. ए-12034/02/2023-ई.िी.]
ऐनी िॉिा मैथ् यू, जविेष सजचव
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 791.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Office Purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies that the following office of the Government
of India in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent. of the staff have acquired the
working knowledge of Hindi, namely:-
Office of the Director General of Audit (Steel) Ranchi, Branch Office Bhilai.
[F. No. A-12034/02/2023-E.G.]
ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Special Secy.
जविेि मंत्रालय
(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 8 मई, 2023
का.आ. 792.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के
खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।
एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के िूतावास, कुवैत मैं िगमोिन ससंि, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को मई 08,
2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवािन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2023(15)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2023
S.O. 792.—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 Jagmohan
Singh, Assistant Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Kuwait as Assistant Consular Officer to perform
Consular services with effect from May 8, 2023.
[F. No. T.4330/01/2023(15)]
S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)
नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2023
का.आ. 793.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के
खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।
एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के िूतावास, डबजलन मैं िाठरल िमाा, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को मई
16, 2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवािन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2023(16)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)
1558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2023
S.O. 793.—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 Ms. Sharil Sharma,
Assistant Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Dublin as Assistant Consular Officer to perform Consular
services with effect from May 16, 2023.
[F. No. T.4330/01/2023(16)]
S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)
नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2023
का.आ. 794.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग), जनयम, 1976 के
जनयम-10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय के अंतगात, भारतीय जवमानपत् तन प्राजिकरण
के प्रभारी अजिकारी का कायाालय, मंगलुरू अंतरराष् रीय िवाईअड्डा, जिसमें 80 प्रजतित कार्माकों ने सिंिी का
कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै।
[फा. सं. ई. 11014/9/2015-रा.भा.]
पीयूष श्रीवास्ट् तव, वठरष् ठ आर्थाक सलािकार एवं अपर सजचव
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2023
S.O. 794.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official
Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the Office of Officer Incharge,
Mangaluru International Airport, Mangaluru, Airports Authority of India, under Ministry of Civil Aviation ,
whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11014/9/2015-OL]
PIYUSH SRIVASTAVA, Senior Economic Advisor & Addl. Secy.
पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 795.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का
अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पिात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 की
उपिारा (1) के अिीन िारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या
का. आ. 5292(अ) तारीख 03 नवम्बर 2022, िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र संख्या 5072 तारीख 15 नवम्बर
2022, में प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में कनााटक राज्य में िासन
(कनााटक) से चेरलापल्ली (तेलंगाना राज्य) तक एल.पी.िी के पठरविन के जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन
जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) द्वारा पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान के अपने
आिय की घोषणा की थी;
और उि असािारण रािपत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतया िनता को तारीख़ 10 दिसम्बर 2022 तक उपलब्ि
करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को ठरपोटा
िे िी िै;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पिात, और यि समािान िो िाने पर की उि
भूजम पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनिय दकया िै;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1559
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग
करते हुए, यि घोषणा करती िै की इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के
जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
यि जनिेि िेती िै की उि भूजम में उपयोग का अजिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में
जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर जिन्िुस्ट्थान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) में
जनजित िोगा
पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन अजिजनयम, 1962 दक िारा 10 के अिीन दकसी भी क्षजतपूर्ता के जलए
जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) पूणातया उत्तरिायी िोगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बजन्ित
दकसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के जवरुद्ध कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायावािी निीं िो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
जिला: जचत्रिुगा राज्य: कनााटक
िमांक
तालुक का नाम
गााँव का नाम
सवे नं.
क्षेत्रफल
एकसा
गुंटा
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
चल्लकेरे
क्यादिगुंटे
55/1
00
02
[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओआर- I/E -30930]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 795.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O.No.5292 (E) dated the 03rd November 2022, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter
referred to as the said Act), published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India No. 5072 dated the 15 November
2022, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the
Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline in state of Karnataka for transportation
of LPG, from Hassan (Karnataka) to Cherlapalli (Telangana) Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited (HPCL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public up
to 10th December 2022.
And whereas the competent authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted
report to the Central Government.
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the
said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire Right of User therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to
this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of
vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (HPCL), free from all encumbrances.
1560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in
terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central
Government for any matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
District : Chitradurga State: Karnataka
Sl.
No.
Name of the Taluk
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Guntas
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
Challakere
Kyadigunte
55/1
00
02
[F. No. R-12030(27)/2/2019-OR-I/E-30930]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 796.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का
अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पिचात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 की
उपिारा (1) के अिीन िारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या
का. आ. 5293(अ) तारीख 03 नवम्बर 2022, िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र संख्या 5073 तारीख 15 नवम्बर
2022, में प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में कनााटक राज्य में िासन
(कनााटक) से चेरलापल्ली (तेलंगाना राज्य) तक एल.पी.िी के पठरविन के जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन
जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) द्वारा पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान के अपने
आिय की घोषणा की थी;
और उि असािारण रािपत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतया िनता को तारीख़ 10 दिसम्बर 2022 तक उपलब्ि
करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को ठरपोटा
िे िी िै;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पिात, और यि समािान िो िाने पर की उि
भूजम पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनिय दकया िै;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग
करते हुए, यि घोषणा करती िै की इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के
जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
यि जनिेि िेती िै की उि भूजम में उपयोग का अजिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में
जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर जिन्िुस्ट्थान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) में
जनजित िोगा
पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन अजिजनयम, 1962 दक िारा 10 के अिीन दकसी भी क्षजतपूर्ता के जलए
जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) पूणातया उत्तरिायी िोगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बजन्ित
दकसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के जवरुद्द कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायावािी निीं िो सकेगी।
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1561
अनुसूची
जिला:तुमकुरु राज्य: कनााटक
िमांक
तालुक का नाम
गााँव का नाम
सवे नं.
क्षेत्रफल
एकसा
गुंटा
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
पावागड़ा
केंचम्मनािल्ली
6/24
00
05
2
6/42
00
03
[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओआर- I/E -30930]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 796.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O.No.5293 (E) dated the 03rd November 2022, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter
referred to as the said Act), published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India No.5073 dated the 15 November
2022, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the
Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline in state of Karnataka for transportation
of LPG, from Hassan (Karnataka) to Cherlapalli (Telangana) Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited (HPCL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public up
to 10th December 2022.
And whereas the competent authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted
report to the Central Government.
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the
said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire Right of User therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to
this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of
vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (HPCL), free from all encumbrances.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in
terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central
Government for any matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Dist: Tumakuru State: Karnataka
Sl.
No.
Name of the Taluk
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Guntas
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
Pavagada
Kenchammanahalli
6/24
00
05
2
6/42
00
03
[F. No. R-12030(27)/2/2019-OR-I/E-30930]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
1562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 797.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का
अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पिचात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 की
उपिारा (1) के अिीन िारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या
का. आ. 5295(अ) तारीख 03 नवम्बर 2022, िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र संख्या 5075 तारीख 15 नवम्बर
2022, में प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में कनााटक राज्य में िासन
(कनााटक) से चेरलापल्ली (तेलंगाना राज्य) तक एल.पी.िी के पठरविन के जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन
जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) द्वारा पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान के अपने
आिय की घोषणा की थी;
और उि असािारण रािपत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतया िनता को तारीख़ 10 दिसम्बर
20 22 तक उपलब्ि
करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को ठरपोटा
िे िी िै;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पिात, और यि समािान िो िाने पर की उि
भूजम पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनिय दकया िै;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा
6
की उपिारा
)
1
(
द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग
करते हुए, यि घोषणा करती िै की इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के
जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
यि जनिेि िेती िै की उि भूजम में उपयोग का अजिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में
जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर जिन्िुस्ट्थान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) में
जनजित िोगा
पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन अजिजनयम, 1962 दक िारा 10 के अिीन दकसी भी क्षजतपूर्ता के जलए
जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) पूणातया उत्तरिायी िोगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बजन्ित
दकसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के जवरुद्द कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायावािी निीं िो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
जिला: जचत्रिुगाा राज्य: कनााटक
िमांक
तालुक का नाम
गााँव का नाम
िमांक
क्षेत्रफल
एकसा
गुंटा
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
1
जिठरयुरु
1.पीलाली
119
00
07
2
40/1
00
01
3
41/1
00
01
4
41/2
00
01
5
46
00
01
6
41/8
00
02
7
48/5
00
05
8
63
00
05
9
62
00
01
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1563
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
10
61/2
00
03
11
112
00
01
12
58/1
00
01
13
57
00
01
14
67/4
00
12
15
72
00
02
16
70
00
14
17
147
00
05
18
192
00
13
19
जिठरयुरु
2.वीरव्वनागजतिल्ली
38/3
00
23
20
26
00
08
21
25/6
00
24
22
23/2
00
01
23
23/1
00
01
24
12/1
00
17
25
जिठरयुरु
3.दिंडावर
84/3
00
30
26
177
00
06
27
171
00
07
28
190
00
07
29
175
00
07
30
174
00
07
31
169
00
07
32
176
00
07
33
168/1
00
07
34
212
00
09
35
209
00
07
36
210
00
06
37
177
00
07
38
211
00
16
39
जिठरयुरु
4.लायरिासरिल्ली
17/1
00
05
40
39
00
01
41
40
00
05
42
21
00
04
43
9/4
00
16
44
9/3
00
13
45
9/2
00
13
46
9/1
00
02
47
5/1
00
01
1564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
48
4/2
00
05
49
जिठरयुरु
5.मडेनिल्ली
21/6
00
01
50
15/1
00
01
51
16
00
03
52
18/1
00
01
53
जिठरयुरु
6.मालगोंडनिल्ली
22/19
00
12
54
22/18
00
09
55
22/24
00
04
56
22/28
00
05
57
22/11
00
05
58
22/13
00
03
59
22/6
00
14
60
15
00
02
61
52
00
09
62
53
00
06
63
54
00
10
64
55
00
07
65
56
00
06
66
57
00
09
67
60
00
09
68
61
00
09
69
63
00
07
70
64/2
00
11
71
65
00
11
72
67
00
06
73
68
00
04
74
23
00
16
75
58
00
09
76
59
00
10
77
जिठरयुरु
7.काटनायकनिल्ली
55/4
00
04
78
53
00
03
79
52/1
00
36
80
76/10
00
03
81
76/8
00
18
82
99/1
00
31
83
98/4
00
02
84
25
00
01
85
23/4
00
10
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1565
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
86
161/2
00
10
87
161/1
00
15
88
161/3
00
05
89
204/1
00
12
90
204/2
00
09
91
जिठरयुरु
8.आनेजसिरी
75/2
00
01
92
78/1
00
01
93
78/2
00
04
94
21/2
00
02
95
20/6
00
13
96
20/9
00
01
97
20/10
00
01
98
20/3
00
04
99
118/1
00
01
100
120/6
00
05
101
121/3
00
09
102
जिठरयुरु
9.िे.िी िल्ली
95/7
00
05
103
101/2
00
02
104
131/1
00
01
105
141
00
02
[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओआर- I/E -30930]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 797.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas S.O.No.5295(E) dated the 03rd November 2022, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3
of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962),
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India No.5075 dated the
15 November 2022, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land
specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline in state of
Karnataka for transportation of LPG, from Hassan (Karnataka) to Cherlapalli (Telangana) Pipeline by
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the
public up to 10th December 2022.
And whereas the competent authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act
submitted report to the Central Government.
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that
the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire Right of User therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said
Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule
appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
1566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall,
instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), free from all encumbrances.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) shall be exclusively liable for any
compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would
lie against the Central Government for any matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Taluk: Hiriyuru
Dist: Chitradurga
State: Karnataka
Sl.
No.
Name of the
Taluk
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Guntas
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
Hiriyuru
1.Peelali
119
00
07
2
40/1
00
01
3
41/1
00
01
4
41/2
00
01
5
46
00
01
6
41/8
00
02
7
48/5
00
05
8
63
00
05
9
62
00
01
10
61/2
00
03
11
112
00
01
12
58/1
00
01
13
57
00
01
14
67/4
00
12
15
72
00
02
16
70
00
14
17
147
00
05
18
192
00
13
19
Hiriyuru
2.Veeravvanagathihalli
38/3
00
23
20
26
00
08
21
25/6
00
24
22
23/2
00
01
23
23/1
00
01
24
12/1
00
17
25
Hiriyuru
3.Dindavara
84/3
00
30
26
177
00
06
27
171
00
07
28
190
00
07
29
175
00
07
30
174
00
07
31
169
00
07
32
176
00
07
33
168/1
00
07
34
212
00
09
35
209
00
07
36
210
00
06
37
177
00
07
38
211
00
16
39
Hiriyuru
4.Layaradasarahalli
17/1
00
05
40
39
00
01
41
40
00
05
42
21
00
04
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1567
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
43
9/4
00
16
44
9/3
00
13
45
9/2
00
13
46
9/1
00
02
47
5/1
00
01
48
4/2
00
05
49
Hiriyuru
5.Madenahalli
21/6
00
01
50
15/1
00
01
51
16
00
03
52
18/1
00
01
53
Hiriyuru
6.Malagondanahalli
22/19
00
12
54
22/18
00
09
55
22/24
00
04
56
22/28
00
05
57
22/11
00
05
58
22/13
00
03
59
22/6
00
14
60
15
00
02
61
52
00
09
62
53
00
06
63
54
00
10
64
55
00
07
65
56
00
06
66
57
00
09
67
60
00
09
68
61
00
09
69
63
00
07
70
64/2
00
11
71
65
00
11
72
67
00
06
73
68
00
04
74
23
00
16
75
58
00
09
76
59
00
10
77
Hiriyuru
7.Katanayakanahalli
55/4
00
04
78
53
00
03
79
52/1
00
36
80
76/10
00
03
81
76/8
00
18
82
99/1
00
31
83
98/4
00
02
84
25
00
01
85
23/4
00
10
86
161/2
00
10
87
161/1
00
15
88
161/3
00
05
89
204/1
00
12
90
204/2
00
09
91
Hiriyuru
8.Anesidri
75/2
00
01
92
78/1
00
01
93
78/2
00
04
94
21/2
00
02
95
20/6
00
13
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
96
20/9
00
01
97
20/10
00
01
98
20/3
00
04
99
118/1
00
01
100
120/6
00
05
101
121/3
00
09
102
Hiriyuru
9.J.G Halli
95/7
00
05
103
101/2
00
02
104
131/1
00
01
105
141
00
02
[F. No. R-12030(27)/2/2019-OR-I/E-30930]
P.SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 798.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का
अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पिचात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 की
उपिारा (1) के अिीन िारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या
का. आ. 5296 (अ) तारीख 03 नवम्बर 2022, िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र संख्या 5076 तारीख 15 नवम्बर
2022, में प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में कनााटक राज्य में िासन
(कनााटक) से चेरलापल्ली (तेलंगाना राज्य) तक एल.पी.िी के पठरविन के जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन
जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) द्वारा पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान के अपने
आिय की घोषणा की थी;
और उि असािारण रािपत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतया िनता को तारीख़ 10 दिसम्बर 2022 तक उपलब्ि
करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को ठरपोटा
िे िी िै;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पिात, और यि समािान िो िाने पर की उि
भूजम पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनिय दकया िै;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग
करते हुए, यि घोषणा करती िै की इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के
जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
यि जनिेि िेती िै की उि भूजम में उपयोग का अजिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में
जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर जिन्िुस्ट्थान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) में
जनजित िोगा
पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन अजिजनयम, 1962 दक िारा 10 के अिीन दकसी भी क्षजतपूर्ता के जलए
जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) पूणातया उत्तरिायी िोगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बजन्ित
दकसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के जवरुद्द कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायावािी निीं िो सकेगी।
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1569
अनुसूची
जिला: तुमकुरु राज्य: कनााटक
िमांक
तालुक का नाम
गााँव का नाम
सवे नं.
क्षेत्रफल
एकसा
गुंटा
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
जसरा
1.द्यागेरिल्ली
64/5
00
02
2
जसरा
2.िोसूरू
217/3
00
01
3
225
00
01
4
127/2
00
03
5
जसरा
3.नेिंजथ
150/2
00
17
6
150
00
02
7
जसरा
4.तडकलुरु
20/8
00
01
8
272
00
4
0
9
258
00
16
10
30/3
00
04
11
154/4
00
05
12
जसरा
5.जचरतह्लल्ली
170/3
00
01
[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओआर- I/E -30930]
पी. सोमाकुमार,अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 798.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O.No.5296 (E) dated the 03rd November 2022, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter
referred to as the said Act), published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India No.5076 dated the 15 November
2022, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the
Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline in state of Karnataka for transportation
of LPG, from Hassan (Karnataka) to Cherlapalli (Telangana) Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited (HPCL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public up
to 10th December 2022.
And whereas the competent authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted
report to the Central Government.
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the
said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire Right of User therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to
this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of
vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (HPCL), free from all encumbrances.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in
terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central
Government for any matter relating to the pipeline.
1570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Dist: Tumakuru State: Karnataka
Sl.
No.
Name of the Taluk
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Guntas
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
Sira
1.Dyagerahalli
64/5
00
02
2
Sira
2.Hosur
217/3
00
01
3
225
00
01
4
127/2
00
03
5
Sira
3.Nejanthi
150/2
00
17
6
150
00
02
7
Sira
4.Thadakaluru
20/8
00
01
8
272
00
04
9
258
00
16
10
30/3
00
04
11
154/4
00
05
12
Sira
5.Chirathahalli
170/3
00
01
[F. No. R-12030(27)/2/2019-OR-I/E-30930]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 799.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का
अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पिचात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 की
उपिारा (1) के अिीन िारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या
का. आ. 5297(अ) तारीख 03 नवम्बर 2022, िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र संख्या 5077 तारीख 15 नवम्बर
2022, में प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में कनााटक राज्य में िासन
(कनााटक) से चेरलापल्ली (तेलंगाना राज्य) तक एल.पी.िी के पठरविन के जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन
जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) द्वारा पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान के अपने
आिय की घोषणा की थी;
और उि असािारण रािपत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतया िनता को तारीख़ 10 दिसम्बर 2022 तक उपलब्ि
करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को ठरपोटा
िे िी िै;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पिात, और यि समािान िो िाने पर की उि
भूजम पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनिय दकया िै;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग
करते हुए, यि घोषणा करती िै की इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के
जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
यि जनिेि िेती िै की उि भूजम में उपयोग का अजिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में
जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर जिन्िुस्ट्थान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) में
जनजित िोगा
पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन अजिजनयम, 1962 दक िारा 10 के अिीन दकसी भी क्षजतपूर्ता के जलए
जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) पूणातया उत्तरिायी िोगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बजन्ित
दकसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के जवरुद्द कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायावािी निीं िो सकेगी।
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1571
अनुसूची
जिला: जचत्रिुगा राज्य: कनााटक
िमांक
तालुक का नाम
गााँव का नाम
सवे नं.
क्षेत्रफल
एकसा
गुंटा
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
जिठरयुरु
कोजडिल्ली
88/4
00
02
2
जिठरयुरु
खंडेनिल्ली
176
01
03
[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओआर- I/E -30930]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 799.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O.No.5297 (E) dated the 03rd November 2022, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter
referred to as the said Act), published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India No.5077 dated the 15 November
2022, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the
Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline in state of Karnataka for transportation
of LPG, from Hassan (Karnataka) to Cherlapalli (Telangana) Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited (HPCL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public up
to 10th December 2022.
And whereas the competent authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted
report to the Central Government.
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the
said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire Right of User therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to
this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of
vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (HPCL), free from all encumbrances.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in
terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central
Government for any matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
District : Chitradurga State: Karnataka
Sl.
No.
Name of the Taluk
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Guntas
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
Hiriyuru
Kodihalli
88/4
00
02
2
Hiriyuru
Khandenahalli
176
01
03
[F. No. R-12030(27)/2/2019-OR-I/E-30930]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
1572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 800.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का
अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पिचात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 की
उपिारा (1) के अिीन िारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या
का. आ. 5298(अ) तारीख 03 नवम्बर 2022, िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र संख्या 5078 तारीख 15 नवम्बर
2022, में प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में कनााटक राज्य में िासन
(कनााटक) से चेरलापल्ली (तेलंगाना राज्य) तक एल.पी.िी के पठरविन के जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन
जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) द्वारा पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान के अपने
आिय की घोषणा की थी;
और उि असािारण रािपत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतया िनता को तारीख़ 10 दिसम्बर 2022 तक उपलब्ि
करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को ठरपोटा
िे िी िै;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पिात, और यि समािान िो िाने पर की उि
भूजम पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनिय दकया िै;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग
करते हुए, यि घोषणा करती िै की इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के
जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
यि जनिेि िेती िै की उि भूजम में उपयोग का अजिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में
जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर जिन्िुस्ट्थान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) में
जनजित िोगा
पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन अजिजनयम, 1962 दक िारा 10 के अिीन दकसी भी क्षजतपूर्ता के जलए
जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) पूणातया उत्तरिायी िोगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बजन्ित
दकसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के जवरुद्द कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायावािी निीं िो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
जिला: िासन राज्य: कनााटक
िमांक
तालुक का नाम
गााँव का नाम
सवे नं.
क्षेत्रफल
एकसा
गुंटा
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
िासन
1.बुवनािल्ली
100/57
00
01
2
101/1इ
00
01
3
िासन
2.द्यावलापुरा
49/5
00
01
4
अरसीकेरे
3.मैलानिल्ली
133
00
01
[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओआर- I/E -30930]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 800.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O.No.5298 (E) dated the 03rd November 2022, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1573
Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter
referred to as the said Act), published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India No.5078 dated the
15 November 2022, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land
specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline in state of Karnataka
for transportation of LPG, from Hassan (Karnataka) to Cherlapalli (Telangana) Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (HPCL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public up
to 10th December 2022.
And whereas the competent authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted
report to the Central Government.
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the
said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire Right of User therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to
this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of
vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (HPCL), free from all encumbrances.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in
terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central
Government for any matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
District : Hassan State: Karnataka
Sl. No.
Name of the Taluk
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Guntas
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
Hassan
1.Boovanahalli
100/57
00
01
2
101/1E
00
01
3
Hassan
2.Dyavalapura
49/5
00
01
4
Arsikere
3.Mailanahalli
133
00
01
[F. No. R-12030(27)/2/2019-OR-I/E-30930]
P.SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2023
का.आ. 801.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का
अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पिचात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 की
उपिारा (1) के अिीन िारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना
संख्या का. आ. 3943 (अ) तारीख 25 अिूबर, 2019 िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र संख्या 3558 तारीख
31 अिूबर, 2019, में प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में तेलंगाना
राज्य में िासन से चेरलापल्ली (तेलंगाना राज्य) तक एल.पी.िी के पठरविन के जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम
कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) द्वारा पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान के
अपने आिय की घोषणा की थी;
और उि असािारण रािपत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतया िनता को तारीख़ 29 नवम्बर 2019 तक उपलब्ि
करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को ठरपोटा
िे िी िै;
1574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पिात, और यि समािान िो िाने पर की उि
भूजम पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनिय दकया िै;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग
करते हुए, यि घोषणा करती िै की इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के
जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,
यि जनिेि िेती िै की उि भूजम में उपयोग का अजिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में
जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर जिन्िुस्ट्थान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) में
जनजित िोगा।
पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन अजिजनयम, 1962 दक िारा 10 के अिीन दकसी भी क्षजतपूर्ता के जलए
जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कापोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल) पूणातया उत्तरिायी िोगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बजन्ित
दकसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के जवरुद्द कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायावािी निीं िो सकेगी। अनुसूची संलग्न
िै।
अनुसूची
जिला: जचत्रिुगा राज्य: कनााटक
िमांक
तालुक का नाम
गााँव का नाम
सवे नं.
क्षेत्रफल
एकसा
गुंटा
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
जिठरयूरु
1.पीलाली
46
00
01
2
48/5
00
01
3
63
00
01
4
जिठरयूरु
2.दिंडावर
42/2
00
01
5
जिठरयूरु
3.लायरिासरिल्ली
39
00
04
6
7/1
00
01
7
5/2
00
03
8
जिठरयूरु
4.आनेजसिरी
20/9
00
04
9
119/2
00
02
10
120/7
00
03
11
121/2
00
03
12
113/7
00
03
13
जिठरयूरु
5.िे िी िल्ली
131/4
00
01
14
128/4
00
02
[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओआर- I/E -30930]
पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th May, 2023
S.O. 801.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O No 3943 (E) dated the 31st October, 2019 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the
Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter
referred to as the said Act), published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India No. 3558, Dated 31.10.2019 the
Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule
appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline in state of Karnataka for transportation of LPG,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1575
from Hassan (Karnataka) to Cherlapalli (Telangana) Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
(HPCL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public up
to 29/11/2019
And whereas the competent authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act submitted
report to the Central Government.
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the
said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire Right of User therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to
this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of
vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (HPCL), free from all encumbrances.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in
terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central
Government for any matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
District : Chithradurga State: Karnataka
SL.
No
Name of the Taluk
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Guntas
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1
Hiriyuru
1.Peelali
46
00
01
2
48/5
00
01
3
63
00
01
4
Hiriyuru
2.Dindavara
42/2
00
01
5
Hiriyuru
3.Layaradasarahalli
39
00
04
6
7/1
00
01
7
5/2
00
03
8
Hiriyuru
4.Anesidri
20/9
00
04
9
119/2
00
02
10
120/7
00
03
11
121/2
00
03
12
113/7
00
03
13
Hiriyuru
5.J G Halli
131/4
00
01
14
128/4
00
02
[F. No. R-12030(27)/2/2019-OR-I/E-30930]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई, 2023
का.आ. 802.—केन् द्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के
जनयम 10 के उपजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन
सावािजनक क्षेत्र के उपिम के जनम् नजलजखत कायाालय को, जिनके 80 या अजिक प्रजतित कमाचारी वृन् ि ने जिन् िी का
कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, अजिसूजचत करती िै:-
हुबली जडपो,
इजण्डयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड (जवपणन प्रभाग),
पीबी रोड, पीओ रायापुर,
जिला – िारवाड़, कनााटक – 580009
[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.]
िोभना श्रीवास्ट् तव, उप जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
1576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2023
S.O. 802.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Public Sector
undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more
percent of the staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:-
Hubli Depot,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division),
PB Road, PO Rayapur, Distt. - Dharwad, Karnataka – 580009
[F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL]
SHOBHANA SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Director (OL)
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम् बर, 2022
का.आ. 803.—राष्ट्रपजत, श्री दिनेि कुमार ससंि, पीठासीन अजिकारी केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण
सि श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर को दिनांक 07.12.2022 से छ: माि तक की अवजि अथवा जनयजमत आिार पर पि के
भरे िाने तक अथवा अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो तब तक, केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि श्रम
न्यायालय, िबलपुर के पीठासीन अजिकारी के पि का अजतठरि प्रभार सौपते िै।
[फा. सं. अ-11016/04/2021-सीएलएस.II(ई)]
िनञ्जय िमाा, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 6th December, 2022
S.O. 803.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur to Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for a period of six months
with effect from 07.12.2022 or till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is the
earliest.
[F. No. A-11016/04/2021-CLS-II(E)]
DHANANJAY SHARMA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 804.—राष्ट्रपजत, श्री लक्ष्मी नारायण सिंिल, पीठासीन अजिकारी केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय न. 2, मुंबई को कायाभार ग्रिण करने की जतजथ से छ: माि तक की अवजि अथवा
जनयजमत आिार पर पि के भरे िाने तक अथवा अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पिले िो तब तक, केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पीठासीन अजिकारी के पि का अजतठरि प्रभार सौपते िै।
[फा. सं. अ-11016/05/2021-सीएलएस-II(ई)]
िनञ्जय िमाा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 31st January, 2023
S.O. 804.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur to Shri Laxmi Narain Jindal, Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai for a period of six months
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1577
with effect from the date of assumption of charge or till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders,
whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. A-11016/05/2021-CLS-II(E)]
DHANANJAY SHARMA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचा, 2023
का.आ. 805.—राष्ट्रपजत, श्री डॉ िैलेन्द्र कुमार ठाकुर, पीठासीन अजिकारी, केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय, िनबाि-II को सौंपे गए केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय,
िनबाि-I के पीठासीन अजिकारी के अजतठरि प्रभार को दिनांक 02.04.2023 से छ: माि तक अथवा जनयजमत रूप
से पि भरे िाने तक अथवा अगले आिेिो तक, इनमे िो भी पिले िो तक जवस्ट्तृत करते िै ।
[फा. सं. अ-11016/04/2021-सीएलएस-II(ई)]
िनञ्जय िमाा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2023
S.O. 805.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I entrusted to Dr. Shailendra Kumar
Thakur, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-II for a further
period of six months with effect from 02.04.2023 or till the post is filled up on regular basis, or until further
orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. A-11016/04/2021-CLS-II(E)]
DHANANJAY SHARMA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचा, 2023
का.आ. 806.—राष्ट्रपजत, श्री सुनील कुमार ससंि-I, पीठासीन अजिकारी, केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि को सौंपे गए केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय,
ियपुर के पीठासीन अजिकारी के अजतठरि प्रभार को दिनांक 05.03.2023 से छ: माि तक अथवा जनयजमत रूप
से पि भरे िाने तक अथवा अगले आिेिो तक, इनमे िो भी पिले िो तक जवस्ट्तृत करते िै ।
[फा. सं. अ-11016/04/2021-सीएलएस-II(ई)]
िनञ्जय िमाा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2023
S.O. 806.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur entrusted to Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh-I,
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad for a further period
of six months with effect from 05.03.2023 or till the post is filled up on regular basis, or until further orders,
whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. A-11016/04/2021-CLS-II(E)]
DHANANJAY SHARMA, Under Secy.
1578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 27 माचा, 2023
का.आ. 807.—राष्ट्रपजत, श्रीमती िीप्ती मोिपात्रा, पीठासीन अजिकारी, केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई को सौंपे गए केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय,
एनााकुलम के पीठासीन अजिकारी के अजतठरि प्रभार को दिनांक 19.02.2023 से छ: माि तक अथवा जनयजमत
रूप से पि भरे िाने तक अथवा अगले आिेिो तक, इनमे िो भी पिले िो तक जवस्ट्तृत करते िै ।
[फा. सं. अ-11016/04/2021-सीएलएस-II(ई)]
िनञ्जय िमाा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2023
S.O. 807.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam entrusted to Smt. Dipti Mohapatra,
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai for a further period of
six months with effect from 19.02.2023 or till the post is filled up on regular basis, or until further orders,
whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. A-11016/04/2021-CLS-II(E)]
DHANANJAY SHARMA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 9 मई, 2023
का.आ. 808.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj rfeyuukMq xzke cSad izca/kr= ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vk|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k pSUUbZ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (19/2021) dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS A
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch- I ) -56]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023
S.O. 808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.19/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Tamil Nadu Grama
Bank and their workmen
[No. L-12025/01/2023– IR(B-I)-56]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 19/2021
Present:
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.
PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 02.03.2023
Sh. S. Marimuthu
S/o Sankara Mahalingam
No. 1/48, Colony Street
Vayali Subbulapuram
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1579
Sankarankovil Taluk
Tiruelveli District
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank
Head Office
Yercaud Road
Salem – 7
:
2nd Party /Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
M/s Aiyar & Dolia
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. M.No. 7/5/2021-A1
dated 30.04.2020 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Management in dismissing Sri S. Marimuthu from the post of Office Attendant w.e.f.
23.10.2019 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference dtd. 03.04.2020 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 19/2021 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case
to 31.08.2021. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up. The Respondent
entered appearance through its counsel who files V.nama. The case was accordingly adjourned for the purpose
intervening several adjournments (almost 4 adjournments till 27.12.2021). On that day, none appeared on behalf
of the Petitioner. Not a single petition was filed by him or by any Authorized Representative / Counsel.
However for the interest of justice, the petitioner was afforded with some more adjournments i.e. 31.10.2022
and 02.03.2022, directing him to appear and to file claim statement and documents. The Petitioner did not turn
up resulting further adjournment to 25.04.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up. The Respondent’s Counsel filed
memo raising objection to reschedule the case to any other date but to dispose of in accordance with law.
However without resorting to any coercive step against the Petitioner the Tribunal so-motto afforded one more
adjournment as last chance fixing the case to 15.06.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up nor furnished Claim
Statement in any manner available to him. The case was reserved for Final Order. It would not be out of place to
mention that Petitioner did not appear till the date nor filed any petition to file Claim Statement.
3.
It reveals that despite of many opportunities though afforded in favour of the Petitioner, no progress
was noticed in the ID case, simply because of non-appearance and non-compliance by the Petitioner In the
circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose. The case was accordingly posted for
final order. The Petitioner did not turn up till the date.
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner has got no interest to proceed
with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate
Government as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.
In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly,
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 809.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k izca/kra=z ds lc) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k िैिराबाि ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (28/2009) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/37/2009-vkbZ vkj(ch- II)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
1580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.28/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/37/2009– IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the day of 23rd day of March, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 28/2009
Between:
Sri K.N. Patnaik,
Bank of India Staff Union (A.P.)
C/o Bank of India,
Visakhapatnam Main Branch,
Dwarakanagar,
Visakhapatnam – 530016.
….. Petitioner
AND
The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Telecom,
Mahaboobabad,
Warangal District-506 101.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Y. Ranjith Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri V.S.R. Murali Krishna, Advocate
AWARD
This is a reference from Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L-12011/37/2009-
IR(B.II) dated 5.6.2009 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for
adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Bank of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Bank of India, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam in awarding
punishment of compulsory retirement to Shri M. Krishna Rao, Ex-Cashier, Amadalavalasa Branch is
legal and justified? What relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 28/2009 and
issued notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged
their respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.
2.
The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that Petitioner was initially appointed as sepoy (sub- staff) .and after 13 years of service, he was
promoted as Clerk-cum-Cashier with effect from 21.4.1998. While working at Amadalavalasa branch he
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1581
discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and without any adverse remarks. While the petitioner was working
at Amadalavalasa Branch, on 09.02.2004 a sum of Rs.90,000/- was deposited in the A/c. No.28
M/s.Vijayalakshmi Traders by one, Sri P.K.Bhala. However, the AELPM (Automatic Electronic Ledger posting
Machine) operator of the Bank scrolled the voucher and wrongly posted the deposited amount as Rs.20,000/-.
The discrepancy was noticed while tallying the cash at the end of the day. Thereupon, the petitioner who was
working Clerk-cum- Cashier, brought the said fact to the notice of the In-charge Manager Sri R. Padmanabhan,
who advised the petitioner to keep the excess amount of Rs.70,000/- in the safe vault of the bank. The next
day on the advice of the said official, as no customer came to the bank claiming the said amount, the petitioner
with the bonafide intention to pay the amount to the rightful claimant kept the amount in his account. He had to
leave for Chennai on 15.02.2004 for training and resumed duty only on 23.02.2004. Meanwhile on 16.02.2004
the regular Branch Manager Sri G.L.Kamesh resumed duty. On the his return from Chennai the said Sri Kamesh
enquired about the excess cash and after the petitioner appraised him of what transpired, Sri Kamesh did not
give any instructions as to the manner in which the excess was to be dealt with. Sometime later as it was learnt
that one, Sri P.K.Bhala deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- on 09.02.2004 and the amount in excess of the
amount entered the cash book viz., Rs.70,000/- belongs to M/s. Vijayalakshmi Traders, the said amount was
handed over to him under receipt and he deposited the said amount into the Bank. The petitioner further
submitted that a memo dated 23.6.2004 was issued to him calling for his explanation regarding the retention of
the excess amount of Rs.70,000/- received on 09.02.2004. He submitted his explanation but the same was not
accepted and a regular departmental enquiry was ordered. After conclusion of the enquiry a notice dated
20.04.2005 was issued to him to show cause against his compulsory retirement from is service. The petitioner
submitted his explanation and also made oral submissions as he was called for personal hearing. However, the
explanation was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and he was awarded the punishment of compulsory
retirement from service with effect from 01.7.2005. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order
was dismissed. His last pay drawn was Rs.16,000/-P.M., and during the last five years, being unable to secure
any alternative employment he has been struggling a lot to make both ends meet and maintain his family. It is
further submitted that the compulsory retirement order issued against the petitioner is unsustainable cither under
law or on facts. Firstly, a common disciplinary enquiry has been ordered against the petitioner and the then
Branch Manager. The evidence of Sri G.L .Kamesh, who was also charge sheeted was let into prove the
petitioner's alleged delinquency. Sri P.K. Bhala was not examined and as such there is no evidence that with
the oblique motive of having wrongful gain for himself, the petitioner unlawfully retained the amount of
Rs.70,000/- out of the amount of Rs.90,000/- deposited on behalf of M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Traders,
Amadalavalasa. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to notice that no specific
complaint was made against the petitioner by Sri P.K.Bhala and that only with a dishonest intention the amount
of Rs.90,000/- deposited by him on 09.02.2004 was not credited to the account of M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Traders.
The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that neither the Branch
Manager nor the Assistant Manager Sri Padmanabhan, nor any one of the other members of the staff deposed
against the petitioner and that retention of the excess amount by the petitioner was solely on account of the lack
of proper guidance and correct instructions by the in-charge Manager Sri Padmanabhan or the regular Branch
Manager Sri G.L.Kamash. It ought to have been seen that if really the petitioner had dishonest intention to
wrongfully appropriate the excess amount for himself, he would not have brought the discrepancy relating the
said amount to the notice of the in-charge Manager immediately after the same was noticed. The petitioner only
acted in a bonafide manner acting under the instructions of the in-charge Manager, who himself did not seem to
know the manner in which such excess amount, when noticed, was to be dealt with. The petitioner submitted
that while issuing the show- cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority did not furnish a copy of the enquiry report
and such omission resulted in gross injustice and is violative of the principles of natural justice. The
Disciplinary Authority and appellate Authority also ought to have seen that only because the mistake committed
by the AELPM Operator Sri. K. Shyamala Rao, in posting the amount remitted on behalf of M/s. Vijayalakshmi
Traders was a genuine one, as the figure ‘9’ appearing in the voucher written in Hindi looked like the Arabic
numerical "2", a fresh voucher for Rs.90,000/- was got prepared under the instructions of the Manager, long
after the event. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority ought to have seen that no specific
charges have been framed and only a comprehensive conclusion was made that the petitioner's acts mentioned in
the charge sheet, it proved would tantamount to gross misconduct within the meaning of clause 5 (J) of the
Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority ought to have
seen that the Presenting Officer unequivocally stated in his report that the allegation in para.2 of the charge sheet
constituting the charge "is not proved" (emphasis supplied. The bonafides of the petitioner were not viewed with
open mind both by the Disciplinary Authority and this Appellate Authority. The punishment of compulsory
retirement from service in any event is excessive and out of proportion to the delinquency alleged. The enquiry
conducted against the petitioner is not a valid in the eye of law. Therefore, prayed for declaring the action of
the Respondent Management in compulsory retiring the petitioner from his service as arbitrary and illegal,
unfair, unjust, and unreasonable and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the
1582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages, continuity of service and
all other attendant benefits.
3.
The Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the claim statement as under:
The Petitioner worked as Staff clerk-Head Cashier at Amudalavalasa branch of Bank of India during June 1998
to June 2004. One PK Bhala, a customer of the Respondent Bank. Amudalavalasa Branch deposited cash of
Rs.90, 000/- on 09-02-2004 in CC Ac No. 28 of M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Traders. However, K Shyamala Rao, Staff
of Automatic Electronic Ledger Posting Machine Operator scrolled the vouchers and wrongly posted and
deposited amount as Rs.20, 000/-. One Bangaru Raju, Daftary, who was then sitting in the Cash Department
counted the cash to be Rs.90,000/- and made entries in the Receipts Cash book. When the Receipt Scroll Book
and Receipt Cash Book were checked in the evening difference of excess cash of Rs.70, 000/- was noticed. The
Petitioner Sri M. Krishna Rao instead of bringing this to the notice of the concerned officer, kept the excess cash
of Rs 70,000/- of the customer for himself with dishonest intention and deposited the excess cash in his own OD
account, with a view to save interest and causing wrongful financial gain to himself, namely, bringing the debit
balance of his OD account from Rs. 3,45,848/- to Rs.2,75,848/-. He thus misappropriated Rs.70, 000.00. Upon
scrutiny of the overdraft account of M Krishna Rao revealed that he had utilized the amount for his personal use.
On 21.3.2004, Sri P K Bhala informed the Branch Manager that there was a short credit of Rs.70, 000/- in the
CC Account No 28 of M/s Vijayalaxmi Traders as against deposit of Rs.90, 000/- cash deposited by him on
09.02.2004. On 22.03.2004 on verification of records and seeing the alterations, the Manager questioned
petitioner about the same and the Petitioner admitted that there was excess cash of Rs.70,000/- detected on
09.02.2004 and that he deposited the same in his OD Account. Sri PK Bhala and OP Bhala came to the Branch
and demanded the excess amount be deposited in their CC Account and the Petitioner paid cash of Rs.70, 000/-
to Mr Bhala. He submitted written statement dated 8.06.2004, in which he had stated that he paid this amount
into the CC account of 28 of M/s Vijaya Laxmi Traders on 22.3.2004. On a complaint addressed to the Zonal
Manager, Visakhapatnam Zone, the matter was entrusted to Assistant General manager( Investigation) for
detailed investigation into the misdeeds of the petitioner. The AGM (Investigation) Mr. Chenadrasekharan had
conducted investigation at the branch and had taken statements of the concerned personnel and obtained copies
of the accounts including the OD account of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had in his statement before the AGM
(Investigation) admitted that the excess cash deposited in CC Account of the customer was deposited in his OD
account. AGM had submitted his Investigation report and the Bank decided to hold departmental enquiry. A
charge memo was issued to the Petitioner on 20.10.2004 by Disciplinary Authority and the Petitioner denied the
charges. One Sri KSM Sastry was appointed as Enquiry officer and Departmental enquiry was held into the
charges against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was given a fair chance to represent his case. The Petitioner was
defended by official of his choice, Sri V. Rama Koti, President of BOI staff Union. The entire proceedings were
conducted in tune with the laid down procedures of the Bank and as per the provisions of Bi-Partite Settlement,
which is applicable to the Award staff members of the Bank to which the Petitioner belongs. The Petitioner
participated in the enquiry duly represented by Defence representative of his choice. He was given reasonable
opportunity duly recording his point of view in the departmental enquiry. The presenting officer had filed 21
documents including the investigation report of the AGM( Investigations).The AGM was also examined as one
of the witnesses. The Petitioner's representative cross examined all the witnesses. The Petitioner had not
examined any witness but filed a letter of the customer dated 10.08.2004 as his document, which was obviously
obtained by exerting pressure on the customer. The Presenting Officer and Defence representative submitted
written briefs. After the conclusion of the departmental enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer has submitted
his report and findings on 27.1.2005 holding that the charges against the Petitioner proved. A copy of the report
was furnished to Petitioner. A show cause dated 20.4.2005 proposing punishment was issued to him, wherein
the punishment of Compulsory Retirement' from Bank's service was proposed to be imposed upon him. The
Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 31.5.2005 inter-alia stating that the depositing of amount into his
account was purely due to the ignorance of procedural aspects and breach of rules. The Petitioner was also given
opportunity of personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority considered the case
of the Petitioner in detail, evidence on record and passed order of punishment dated 28.06.2005. The Petitioner
filed Appeal on 12.08.2005 and the Appellate Authority rejected his Appeal on 18.10.2005. The Management
conducted fair enquiry as per the prescribed procedure and the Petitioner was given fair and ample opportunity
as per the procedures laid down in this regard by the Bank. Excess cash if any, found by the cashier had to be
brought to the notice to the higher officials has to be found out by verifying the Bank's records, ie., Paying-in
slips and by tallying the entries made in the receipts, Cash Book, with that in the Receipt Scroll Book on the
same day. If it is not traced, for any reason, the amount has to be credited to Sundry Credits Account of the
Bank, but definitely not to the personal account of cashier. In this case, it is evident from the records, that the
excess cash was received on account of CC account No. 28 and in his statement, the petitioner stated that the
account holder of CC 28 was a friend of him and that his intention are not bad. If so, he would have immediately
contacted the customer even if the mistake was found at the fag end of the day, as the customer is very much
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1583
available locally and is traceable by the account number. After examining the merits and demerits of the
submissions made by petitioner and also perusing the entire records of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority
has passed punishment order dated 28.6.2005 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from Bank's
service, as per the provisions of Bi-partite Settlement. The petitioner has submitted Appeal on 12.8.2008 against
this punishment order issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the Appellate Authority. In the said appeal he
alleged. (a) That during the departmental enquiry, he was made to sit mute spectator and no attempt was made
by the Presenting Officer to find out whether written statement submitted by him was given on his own accord
or under coercion b) That as a promotee clerk from sub staff cadre, he was not aware of the rules and procedures
of the Bank and after taking the opinion of the Officer-in-charge, he kept the cash in Cash Chest in a closed
cover and on the next day deposited the same in his OD account with the permission of the Officer-in-charge.
He did not do so with any malafide intention. The Appellate Authority while confirming the punishment of
Compulsory retirement from Bank's service that was imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority
made the following observations: (a) Enquiry records revealed that after the appellant/ Petitioner denied the
charge levelled against him, the Enquiry Officer permitted the Appellant to be represented in the enquiry by
Trade Union leader of his choice and Mr. V Ramakoti, State President of Bank of India Staff Union, AP Unit
was chosen as his Defence Representative. The produced the Presenting Officer investigating Officer as
Management Witness in the enquiry, the said witness was categorical in deposing that he never compelled,
coerced or member customer threatened any stage during his investigation. During the course of cross, defence
could not examine was unable testimony of this witness. The Appellant/ his Defence to prove his innocence in
the submissions enquiry, he must have made all his through the said representative and if the Appellant is a
mute witness. as stated by him in his appeal. The same may be on account of his own choice. Records do not
reveal that the appellant wanted to state something and they were not cognizance. given due (b) Ignorance of
rules and procedure can not be taken as an appellant, viz., excuse. The basic act of the crediting a part of the
customer's cash into his own OD account cannot be said to have been done due to ignorance. His contention of
having done so at the advice to the Officer in charge remains unsubstantiated in the enquiry. Hence, his
submission in this regard is not tenable. The Appellant's further submission that such act was not done by him
with intention any malafide lacked force in as much as he returned the amount in the question, i.e., Rs.70,000/-
to customer only after the latter complained about short deposit in his account. (d) That the Petitioner was given
ample opportunity to make his point of view in the departmental enquiry and on his own he appointed Trade
Union Leader of his choice, ie., Mr V Ramakoti State President of Bank of India Staff Union, AP Unit. The
statement of Petitioner that he was made to sit as a mute spectator and no attempt was made by the Presenting
Officer to find out whether the written statement submitted by the appellant was given by his own accords or
under coercion. The allegation of the Petitioner that common disciplinary proceedings were held against the
Petitioner and the Branch manager was not correct. Only preliminary enquiry was held against all who were
suspected of delinquency. The enquiry revealed that the Petitioner mis-utilized the bank's cash with malafide
intentions. Though the cash was found to be in excess on the same day of happening, it was misutilized by
Mr Krishna Rao by depositing in his personal overdraft account kept the same in his account till the receipt of
claim by the customers to the branch which speaks for itself about the malafide intentions of the employee. He
is expected to exhibit utmost integrity in tracing out the account in which the excess cash is received and should
have made it good immediately. It was not that difficult to trace the difference in cash received to the CC
account No.28 of M/s.Vijaya Laxmi Traders, perusing the entries made both in the Receipt Scroll Book and
receipt cash book to balance the cash on that day. The contention of the Petitioner is not correct. In several
representations submitted by him including Appeal, the Petitioner had not complained that enquiry report was
not furnished to him. He made reference to the report of enquiry officer in his reply to show cause notice. The
appeal submitted by Mr. Krishna Rao was disposed off by the appellate authority in his speaking order. It is
therefore not correct to state Mr. Krishna Rao has been deprived of the justice and the entire enquiry was totally
biased. In view of the above circumstances, the claim of the Petitioner be dismissed.
4.
Petitioner filed chief examination affidavit and got marked Photostat copies of six documents i.e.,
Ex.W1 to W6 in support of his claim. Respondent counsel cross examined Petitioner. At this stage, Petitioner
filed memo not disputing the enquiry conducted by Respondent, hence, the domestic enquiry conducted by the
Respondent is held legal and valid vide order dated 28.9.2018. In view of the order dated 28.9.2018, the
examination of Petitioner as well as documents marked in support of his claim becomes null and void and only
documents marked in domestic enquiry conducted by Respondent will be considered in passing the award.
5.
Heard. Petitioner as well as Respondent has filed written arguments.
6.
Perused the record.
7.
On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, following issues are emerging for determination of
this case:-
1584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I.
Whether the action of the Management of Bank of India Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam, in awarding
the punishment of compulsory retirement to Sri M. Krishna Rao, Ex-cashier, Amadalavalasa, is legal
and justified?
II.
To what relief the workman concerned is entitled for?
8.
Point No.I & II: The Petitioner submitted that he was initially appointed as sub-staff in the
Respondent bank and after 13 years of his services he was promoted as clerk cum cashier w.e.f. 21.4.98. While
working at Amadalavasa branch he discharged his duties with utmost sincerity. He submitted that on
09.02.2004, one customer Sri P.K.Bhala, A/c. No.28 M/s.Vijayalakshmi Traders had deposited a sum of
Rs.90,000/-. However, the AELPM (Automatic Electronic Ledger posting Machine) operator of the Bank
scrolled the voucher and wrongly posted the deposited amount as Rs.20,000/-. The discrepancy was noticed
while tallying the cash at the end of the day. Thereupon, the petitioner who was working Clerk-cum- Cashier,
brought the said fact to the notice of the In-charge Manager Sri R. Padmanabhan and who advised the petitioner
to keep the excess amount of Rs.70,000/- in the safe vault of the bank. It is further submitted that the next day
on the advicé of the said official, with bonafide intention to pay the amount to the rightful claimant Petitioner
kept the amount in his account. He had to leave for Chennai on 15.02.2004 for training and resumed duty only
on 23.02.2004. It is further submitted mean while a memo dated 23.6.2004 was issued to him calling for his
explanation regarding retention of the excess amount of Rs.70,000/- received on 09.02.2004. He submitted his
explanation but the same was not accepted and a regular departmental enquiry was ordered. After conclusion of
the enquiry a notice dated 20.04.2005 was issued to him to show cause against his compulsory retirement from
is service. The petitioner submitted his explanation and also made oral submissions as he was called for personal
hearing. However, the explanation was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and he was awarded the
punishment of compulsory retirement from service with effect from 01.7.2005. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the said order was dismissed. The first contention of the Petitioner is that the Respondent
during the enquiry has not examined the complainant Sri P.K. Bhala and entire charge sheet was not proved
and his punishment of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside.
9.
In this regard Respondent submitted that the objective of the enquiry was to examine whether or not
the bank’s money was transferred to the account of the employee and delinquency of the Petitioner has been
clearly established in the enquiry. Account statement of the complainant which is part of the record clearly
establishes this fact.
10.
The money deposited by customer Shri P.K. Bhale should have been credited in his account by the
Petitioner employee and bank was custodian of that money. But out of Rs.90000/- amount which was deposited
by the customer, Petitioner deposited only Rs.20000/- in the customer account and rest Rs.70000/- amount he
kept in his personal account for number of days without any authority. This fact has been admitted by the
Petitioner and also proved by record of bank account during enquiry. Therefore, hence this act of Petitioner
can not be said bonafide one. Since matter of delinquency of Petitioner pertains to documentary evidence i.e.,
bank records, the workman’s contention that the Branch Manager, Asst. Manager or any other member did not
depose against the Petitioner in enquiry is of no avail to him. In view of documentary evidence, the
workman’s oral testimony is not acceptable.
On the other hand, Respondent to fortify his contention has cited certain decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court
mentioned as below:
i).
In State Bank of India Vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee and other AIR 2000 SC 3028, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held, “Bank cashier found guilty in domestic enquiry of receiving excess money from customer and
retaining same with intent to misappropriate –finding proved to hilt by evidence of branch manager and head
cahier who actually saw the incident –domestic enquiry found to be just and fair by Tribunal-setting aside of
finding of misconduct on grounds of non-examination of customer, non-production of money and non-
production of confessional statement –not proper.”
ii).
In Employers in relation to the Management of West Bokaro Colliery of M/s.TISCO Ltd., Vs. The
concerned workman, Ram Pravesh Singh, AIR 2008 SC 1162, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held,
“finding of I.O. as to misconduct based on evidence- interference on ground that no independent witness was
examined – improper – once finding of I.O. is found to based on evidence Court not to substitute finding of I.O.
by its own opinion.”
iii).
In the case of Workmen of Balmadies Estates v. Management, Balmadies Estate and Ors AIR 2008
SC (Supp) page 1366, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held, “ Domestic inquiry-Assessment of evidence -
Yardstick applicable to Civil Court does not apply-Provisions of Evidence Act are also not applicable-Materials
which are logically probative including hearsay evidence can be acted upon.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1585
11.
In view of the decision of Apex Court as mentioned above. In the present matter also charge levelled
against the workman has been proved by documentary evidence, hence, there was no need for examining the
complainant. Therefore, in violation of Bank’s rules and regulations the workman Petitioner has committed
misconduct by depositing customers’ money into his own OD account and that has been proved during
enquiry by Bank’s statement of account as well as by the admission of delinquent. In view of the above, there
was no need to examine the customer Sri P.K. Bhala in support of charge levelled against Petitioner. In view
of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and discussion in foregone paragraphs, the submission made by
Petitioner is not tenable. Moreover, personal account of the workman MEx.12 has been proved during the
enquiry that depicts that 70,000/- is being in excess cash on 9.2.2004 in his account which ought to have been
credited into the bank account.
12.
It is further submitted by the Petitioner that he has deposited the excess amount in his OD account on
the advise of incharge Manager. Therefore, he has done it with bonafide intention to return the money to the
customer concerned. In this respect, the Respondent submitted that being senior employee of the bank, the
complainant must be aware of such basic principle, rules and regulations in which he is working. It is further
submitted that the conduct of misappropriation as is in the present matter is also an offence under the Indian
Penal Code and the plea of ignorance as taken by Petitioner cannot be taken let alone dealt with public money.
13.
Further, the perusal of the Petitioner’s claim statement reveals that he has worked in the bank for
more than 20 years. He is supposed to discharge his duty according to rules, regulations of the bank regarding
the cash transaction and books of the account. As the Petitioner submit that he received the amount of
Rs.90000/- from Sri P.K. Bhala on 9.2.2004, but as per rule he should have deposited the excess amount of
Rs.70,000/- either in the bank account or it has to be kept in the safe vault of the bank. But, neither on the
next day i.e., on 10.2.2004 nor there after any day up to 23.2.2004, he did not deposit the said amount into
the bank account or customer account. When the complainant noticed the short fall of the balance of
Rs.70,000/- in his account, he approached the Branch Manager and there after the Petitioner was asked about the
short fall of money amounting to Rs.70000/- in the customer account, then delinquent disclosed the fact of
depositing the money in his personal account. Thus, from 9.2.2004 i.e., date of deposit upto 23.2.2004 for more
than 10 days he kept the customers money in his personal account against the rules and regulations and without
any authority. Moreover, he did not furnish any plausible explanation regarding the said conduct. Therefore,
in view of the above, his act cannot be said to be bonafide as he claims. The conduct of keeping the customers’
amount in his personal account for a long duration of 14 days itself speaks about his malafide intention.
Therefore, the plea taken by Petitioner in this regard is not tenable.
14.
Another argument advanced by the Petitioner is that the other employees who were charge sheeted in
connection with the same incident have been given lesser punishment whereas the complainant has been
awarded punishment of compulsory retirement which is more harsh. Respondent submitted in his reply that
gravity is different in each case and the bank has acted accordingly and appropriately.
15.
Since the act of misconduct committed by the Petitioner is more serious and grave as compared to
other co-charge sheeted employee and Petitioner was the main instrument in this whole transaction of receiving
the money from customers’ and then kept it unauthorisedly into his personal account. Therefore, he cannot
claim the parity in terms of punishment awarded to other co-chargesheeted employees.
16.
Petitioner also submitted that imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement deprived his
livelihood and same is not tenable. In reply Respondent submitted that the Petitioner is getting pension of
Rs.10,201/- pm and he has got all retiral benefits which has not been counted by the Petitioner. Hence, it
cannot be said that due to punishment of compulsory retirement he suffers his livelihood.
17.
Now let us see whether the punishment of compulsory retirement of Petitioner is commensurate to the
misconduct of Petitioner. Perused the impugned order. Disciplinary Authority has mentioned in the impugned
order of compulsory retirement when it is mentioned that the continuation of Sri M. Krishna Rao in the service
of the bank, will definitely create a security risk for the public funds. However, as shown, appreciated his
domestic problems as highlighted by him as “mitigating factors and looking into the matter and its entirety,
the undersigned is hereby orders that a punishment of compulsory retirement from the services with
superannuation benefits be and is hereby imposed on Shri M. Krishna Rao in terms of para-6(c) of the Bipartite
Settlement dated 10.4.2002 for the charge proved against him.” Thus, the order of Disciplinary Authority
regarding imposition of punishment to delinquent delineates that by having taken a lenient view in awarding
the punishment to the Petitioner thereby already have considered the mitigating factors , awarded the
punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits. Otherwise, in such type of cases of
misconduct warrants more severe punishment, as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in number of decisions at
different times.
1586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Respondent has cited few decisions in this regard:
(i).
In M/s. Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd., Vs. Haridas and another AIR 2006 SC page 1480,
Hon’ble Apex Court held, “When delinquent had not only defalcated huge amount but also misappropriated
some material; punishment of dismissal from service is not disproportionate-Court’s interference not proper.”
(ii).
In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., vs. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy and others, AIR 2005 SC page 2769,
Hon’ble Apex Court held: “Merely because there was no earlier misconduct or that the respondent-employee is
an active participant in cultural activities-Is not sufficient to interfere with punishment under S. 11-A and to
modify dismissal to reinstatement.”
(iii).
Further, In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others vs. P.C. Kakkar
AIR 2003 SC 1571, Hon’ble Apex Court held, “Judicial review of punishment imposed in disciplinary
proceedings -Delinquent Asst. Manager of Bank charged for fabricating, manipulating records - Charge not
casual but serious in nature Punishment of dismissal imposed -Not shockingly disproportionate - Bank officer is
required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity - Defence that there was no loss or profit
resulting-Not available when delinquent employee acted without authority -High Court setting aside as
shockingly disproportionate without indicating reasons-Amounts to deníal of justice - Fact that co-delinquent is
given lesser punishment-Can also be no ground for interference.”
(iv)
Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. A. T. Mane, AIR 2004 SC page 4761, wherein Hon’ble Apex
Court held, “ Misconduct - Punishment -Quantum-Appropriation of money -It is not amount misappropriated
which is primary factor -Loss of confidence is matter to be taken into consideration-Person found guilty of
misappropriating Corporation's fund-Resulting in loss of confidence or faith in such person -Awarding
punishment of dismissal -Not erroneous or disproportionate.”
(v).
In Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another Vs. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC page
584, Hon’ble Apex Court held, “The Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was
illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense
that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for
interference. In the instant case, services of Bank employee of Regional Rural Bank were terminated on ground
that he had unauthorisedly withdrawn amount from Bank. The High Court did not record any reason as to how
and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate. Even there was no discussion on this aspect. The
very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers
acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of
discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious.”
(vi).
Similarly, in the cases, Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. vs. H. Amaresh AIR2006 SC page
2730, Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and others Vs. Hoti Lal and another AIR 2003 SC page
1462, UPSRTC and others vs. A.K. Parul AIR 1999 SC page 1552, Devendra Swamy Vs. KSRTC, AIR 2002
SC page 2545, has held similar view as discussed in foregoing paragraphs.
18.
Therefore, in view of the above decisions given by Hon’ble Apex Court, in the present matter also, the
punishment awarded to the Petitioner of compulsory retirement or his misconduct which is of serious and grave
nature cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate.
19.
Thus, Disciplinary Authority has awarded him the punishment of compulsory retirement taking lenient
view, keeping in view his submissions regarding livelihood. Moreover, he is also getting pension and all retiral
benefits. Therefore, it cannot be said that punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is too harsh and
does not commensurate to the misconduct. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed as unfounded. In
view of the forgone discussion and decisions of Apex Court, the claim of the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed
and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.
ORDER
The reference is answered as under:
The action of the Management of Bank of India, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam in awarding punishment
of compulsory retirement to Shri M. Krishna Rao, Ex-cashier, Amadalavalasa branch is legal and justified.
Hence, Petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as such the claim of the Petitioner is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1587
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this
the 23rd day of March, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 10 मई, 2023
का.आ. 810.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ gSnjkckn izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k िैिराबाि ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (20/2012) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-I) -58]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th May, 2023
S.O. 810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.20/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
Hyderabad and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2023– IR(B-I)-58]
SALONI, Dy. Director
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present :
Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of March, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 20/2012
Between:
Sri D. Mallesham,
S/o Late D. Pentaiah,
1588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
H.No.1-48, Eddumailaram Village,
Mandal Sanga Reddy,
Medak District – 502285.
..….Petitioner
AND
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Eddumailaram branch (ODF),
Eddumailaram,
Medak District.
….Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri A. Thirupathi Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Ch. Sivareddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri D. Mallesham who worked as Attenda (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondent State Bank of
Hyderabad seeking for reinstatement into service as Attender duly granting all the consequential benefits such as
continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may
deems fit.
2. The brief averments of the claim petition filed by the Petitioner are as follows:
Petitioner was appointed as an Attender in the Respondent's Bank in the month of Feb, 2002 and he continued
till 31-10-2011. During the period of ten years, his services were utilized at various places and various type of
works. The Employer allotted a quarter in the bank premises, in which the petitioner and his family members
were residing. While so, Respondent suddenly removed the Petitioner from service vide order dated
31.10.2011 and also not allowed him to perform duty which is illegal and unjust. It is submitted that Central
Government occupied Petitioner’s 2 Acre - 30 guntas land for construction of the Ordinance Factory in
Eddumailaram in the year of 1982, and in that land the Respondent opened their bank. As Petitioner lost his
land, the Respondent bank provided him job. Without considering the said facts with oral orders the
Respondent removed the Petitioner from service, due to which Petitioner and his entire family members fell on
the road and suffering with starvation. Petitioner has no other source of income or property except this one.
Petitioner further submitted that he sent demand letter to reconsider his oral removal order and allow him to
continue in service, but there is no response. Hence, it is prayed to direct the Respondent to allow the Petitioner
to continue his job, with continuity of service, with back wages from 31.10.2011 duly setting aside the oral
termination orders of the Respondent.
3.
Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:
It is submitted that the claim of the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is not correct that the
petitioner was appointed as an Attender in State Bank of Hyderabad in the Month of February, 2002 and during
the said period the Bank utilized his services at various places and at various places. It is also false to allege that
the Bank allotted a quarters in which his family resided and suddenly he was removed from service on
31.10.2011 etc.. No doubt the lands were acquired by the Government of India for establishing the Ordinance
Factory in Eddumailaram on payment of compensation to the land owners. But it is not correct to allege that as
the petitioner lost his land he was provided job in the Bank. It is further submitted that the Government of India
has acquired lands for establishing the Ordinance Factory in Eddumailaram on payment of compensation to the
land owners. The Ordinance Factory has leased out the premises for the purpose of Banking and the Bank has
constructed the building for running its Banking activities. As there was a space the Bank maintained the
garden. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis to attend the gardening work and he was paid the wages
for the work he had attended. But he was never given any appointment in the Bank as there is no such post in
the Eddumailaram Branch. He was not given with any appointment order or order of termination. The
petitioner had requested the Branch Manager to permit him to stay in the store room where the gardening
material was kept as he had undertaken some repairing work in his house, the Branch Manager had allowed him
to stay for some time, but he was never given any quarters for his stay since he was not an employee of the
Bank. Merely he was allowed to stay for some time on humanitarian grounds, the petitioner has cooked up a
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1589
story as if he was appointed in the Bank and he was also given quarters for his stay etc. The Bank being the
Public Sector Bank shall recruit the employees as per the extant rules and shall follow the reservation
procedures. Therefore the question of appointing the petitioner as Attender in the Bank and termination of the
petitioner by the Bank as alleged by him does not arise. There is no relation of Employer and Employee between
the Bank and the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased
to reject the claim of the Petitioner.
4.
Petitioner got examined himself as WW1 and marked photocopies of six documents as Ex.W1 to W6.
Respondent did not adduce any evidence nor filed any documents.
5.
Heard both parties. Petitioner filed written arguments. Respondent did not file written arguments.
Perused the record.
6.
On the basis of pleadings of both the parties following points emerge for determination:
I.
Whether the order of termination of services of the Petitioner Sri D. Mallesh by Respondent is legal
and justified?
II.
If not, then whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to
reinstatement into service or monetary compensation?
III.
To what relief Petitioner is entitled?
7.
Points No.I & II: Petitioner has taken plea in his petitionthat he was appointed as an Attender by the
Respondent bank in the month of February, 2002 and continued the same in the bank till 31.10.2011. During
the service period of ten years, Respondent utilized his services at various places and various nature of work in
his bank. Further, he has taken a plea that the employer has also allotted a quarter in the bank premises in
which Petitioner and his family members were residing. Per contra Respondent has contended that the
Petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis to attend the gardening work in the bank premises and he was
paid wages for the work he has attended. Petitioner was never given any appointment in the bank as there is no
such post in the branch. He was not given any appointment letter or order of termination. It is further
submitted that some time as the Petitioner requested the bank Manager to permit him to stay in the store room
where the gardening material was kept as he has taken some repairing work in his house, the Branch Manager
has allowed him to stay for some time but he was never given any quarter for his stay since he was not an
employee of the bank. Merely he was allowed to stay for some time on humanitarian ground. The Petitioner
has cooked up story as if he was appointed in the bank and he was also given quarter for his stay. The
Petitioner was not given any appointment order and he was not on rolls of the bank. Further it is contended
that bank being the public sector bank shall recruit the employee as per the extant rules and shall follow the
reservation procedure. There is no relation of employer and employee between the bank and Petitioner.
8.
As per Respondent contention the Petitioner was engaged by the bank on daily wage basis to attend
the gardening work and he was paid wages for the work he had attended. To prove the plea that he was
appointed in the Respondent bank in February, 2002 as attender, the burden of proof lies on Petitioner as law
settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in many decisions from time to time. The Petitioner has not produced any
appointment letter issued by Respondent to the Petitioner appointing him as Attender as he alleged. Therefore,
in view of the provision of Section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Let us see whether the Petitioner has completed 240
days in the employment of Respondent bank in one year just preceding from the date of termination i.e.,
31.10.2011. It is admitted that the Petitioner has not submitted any appointment letter regarding his
appointment in the employment of the bank. Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and he has reiterated his
plea of the petition. Further he stated that he has filed all documents in support of his case which have been
marked as Ex.W1 to W6.
9.
On scrutiny of documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner we found that Ex.W1 is a representation
dated 1.2.2012 by Petitioner to the Branch Manager requesting to take him in the employment of the bank.
Document Ex.W2 is also a representation dated 25.5.2012 addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C).
Both these documents does not prove the fact that Petitioner has worked 240 days in the Respondent
employment for one year continuously. The document Ex.W3 is a letter written by Branch Manager to
Petitioner Sri D. Mallesh dated 18.11.2011 wherein he has been directed to vacate the quarters which belongs
to the bank. Another letter was addressed to All Branch Managers by State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office,
Secunderabad for obtaining the details of part time employees engaged in the branches. These two documents
Ex.W3 and W4 also do not prove the factum that Petitioner was engaged in the employment for 240 days
continuously in one year. The Ex.W4 which is an information in tabular form sent by Branch manager to the
Zonal Office, regarding temporary workers engaged as on 30.11.2006 and at Sl. No. 2, Petitioner’s name
D. Mallesh is mentioned and at number of working hours is mentioned three hours and in the last column of
1590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
working since, - it is mentioned that from September, 2006 he was working. A note has been endorsed in the
end of tabular information to the effect that “total Rs. 400/- paid for doing miscellaneous works when
permanent employee in sub-staff category goes on leave.” Therefore, Ex.W4 goes to show that the Petitioner
Sri D. Mallesh was working since September, 2006 in the bank and he has to attend miscellaneous work in
exigencies of the permanent employees when sub-staff category goes on leave. This document also does not
prove the factum that the Petitioner had worked continuously for 240 days in the 12 months just preceding the
date of termination. It shows that Petitioner has worked intermittently on daily wages paid for work done only
on exigency when the regular staff goes on leave. It does not prove that Petitioner was appointed in regular
post or he has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year. It also does not prove the plea taken by
Petitioner. Ex.W5 is the savings account pass book of the Petitioner. Therefore, the documents submitted by
the Petitioner does not prove the fact that he had worked for 240 days. Document Ex.W3 is the notice issued
by bank to Petitioner to vacate bank quarter. Petitioner did not prove any document that the quarter was
allotted to him in pursuance to his appointment as Attender. He may be occupier of quarter as licensee or on
mercy ground of request as contended by Respondent in counter. But he was not occupier or quarter as allottee
in pursuance to his employment. Hence, the Ex.W3 also does not help him.
10.
The Petitioner claims that he was appointed as Attender in the bank in February, 2002 and he had
worked for ten years in the bank. But no appointment letter, no written agreement or ancillary card which
would be in the nature of attendance register, salary register, leave record, Provident Fund contribution and ESI
contribution has been filed by the Petitioner in support of his claim of appointment in the Respondent bank.
There is no iota of single piece of evidence showing that the claimant has worked in the employment of the
Management as a daily wage workman. It is settled law that the burden of proof to establish the fact that he was
engaged by the Respondent bank and had worked for 240 days in one calendar year is upon the Petitioner but
Petitioner failed to prove this fact. Even Petitioner could not disclose the name of the person who was
disbursing salary to him and his attendance was marked in the attendance register of the bank. No sufficient
conclusive evidence has been adduced by the Petitioner on this point. The Petitioner claimant has not tendered
any documentary or other evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in view of the mandatory provision of
Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 the Petitioner could not prove the fact that he was engaged for 240 days.
Therefore, the question of violation of the provision of Section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947 does not arise here.
Thus, the termination of the Petitioner from the engagement of the bank employment is not found in violation
of provision of Sec.25 F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, he is not entitled for reinstatement in the engagement or
employment of the bank. Therefore, only on the basis of Ex.W4 he cannot claim reinstatement in the bank’s
employment. Therefore, the order of termination of engagement of Petitioner by the Respondent is legal and
justified and Petitioner is not eligible for reinstatement.
Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.
11.
Point No.III: In view of finding of Points No.I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement and
hence, not entitled to any relief. Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In view of the fore gone discussion, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim reinstatement into service and
nor he is entitled for any monetary compensation. The order of termination of services of the Petitioner
Sri D. Mallesh is held legal and justified. The claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this
the 28th day of March, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri D. Mallesh
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Copy of representation of WW1 dated 1.2.2012 to the Respondent.
Ex.W2:
Office copy of representation of WW1 dated 25.5.2012 to the ALC(C)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1591
Ex.W3:
Lr. From Br. Manager, SBH Head office, Hyderabad dated 18.11.2011.
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of statement of temporary workers engaged as on 30.11.2006 by Respondent
dated 21.12.2006
Ex.W5:
Pass book of Petitioner
Ex.W6:
Copy of letter from Joint Action Committee dt.8.11.2011 to the AGM, SBH, Hyderabad reg.
restoration of services of Petitioner.
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 12 मई, 2023
का.आ. 811.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj आईएनिी वैश्य बैंक जलजमटेड izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k िैिराबाि ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
(68/2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/45/2012-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th May, 2023
S.O. 811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.68/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ING Vysya Bank
Ltd, and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/45/2012– IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
In The Central Government Industial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad
Present:
Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day of March, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 68/2012
Between:
Sri V. Gauri Shankar,
Flat No. 401, Plot No.94,
Mahalaxmi Tower,
Moti Nagar, Hyderabad.
…...Petitioner
AND
The Vice President & Dy. Head (HR)
ING Vysya Bank Ltd,
Employer Relations Division,
Human Resources Department,
Corporate office, No.72,
1592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
St.Marks Road, Bangalore-1.
….Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. K. Rama Reddy & Y. Ranjith Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent :
M/s. C. Niranjan Rao & M. Subramanya Sastry, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12012/45/2012-IR(B.I) dated
15.10.2012 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to
decide the question:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. In imposing the punishment of
dismissal from service upon Shri V. Gauri Shankar vide their order dated 27.2.2003, is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No.68/2012 and
issued notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged their
respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.
2.
The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows: The Petitioner
Workman joined the Respondent bank on 16.4.1986 as a clerk at its Cannaught Place, New Delhi branch. He
had put in 17 years of service in different branches of the Respondent bank. He was transferred to Johnson
Grammar School Extension Counter, Habsiguda, Hyderabad and there he was placed under suspension from the
service of the bank w.e.f. 14.3.2001 alleging misappropriation of funds of the customers of the bank. The
Respondent bank issued charge sheet bearing No.100-01-ER-528, dated 19.6.2001 leveling untenable and false
allegations against the Petitioner. Besides the above proceeding initiated against the Petitioner departmentally,
the Respondent bank also lodged criminal complaint against the Petitioner bearing No.249/2006 on the file of
XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The Petitioner submitted that he represented the
Respondent bank to postpone/defer the Departmental proceeding till the closure of the criminal proceeding. But
his request was not considered by the bank. It is also submitted that the Respondent bank conducted enquiry into
the above mentioned charge sheet and the Petitioner having no alternative appeared before the Enquiry Officer
along with his defence representative. The Respondent bank conducted the enquiry and subsequent proceedings
against the Petitioner was conducted as a mere formality. It is stated that the charge sheet issued by the
Respondent does not contain all the details such as, date, time etc.. and Petitioner was handicapped to submit
reply to such a truncated charge sheet. It is also submitted that during the course of enquiry though the
Petitioner wanted to engage the service of an advocate as provided under para 12 of the 19 Bipartite Settlement,
the Enquiry Officer rejected the plea of the Petitioner. The Departmental enquiry was conducted by the very
same Disciplinary Authority who had issued the charge sheet to the Petitioner thus, vitiating the entire
disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry was conducted basing on the principle of 'no person can be a Judge of his
own case' After completion of the enquiry the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. The
Departmental Enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the laid down principles as well as in consonance
of the principles of natural justice and the Respondent bank merely completed a formality. The Respondent bank
failed to provide documents in support of the charges levelled in the charge sheet. The Respondent bank alleged
that the Petitioner misappropriated funds of the customers, but failed to provide any of the documents relating to
all the 34 customers during the enquiry proceeding. The Petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine
the so called customers purported to have complained of misappropriation of their funds. Non-production of the
authors of the so called complainants vitiates the enquiry proceedings as the complaints were received behind
the back of the Petitioner. On this ground alone the entire proceedings of the Departmental enquiry can be taken
as vitiated. It is further submitted that the punishment awarded basing on such ill-conceived / vitiated
Departmental proceedings are bound to be set aside without giving a second thought. The validity and relevant
documents objections/points raised by the Petitioner as well as his defence during the course of the enquiry
proceedings were not taken cognizance of and no credence / weightage was given to such pleas/representations
by the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent bank is not legal and valid.
Therefore, prayed to quash the dismissal orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority (confirmed by Appellate
Authority) and direct the Respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages and all
attendant benefits along with reasonable compensation for all the hardships undergone by the petitioner.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1593
3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, with the averments in
brief which runs as follows:
The Respondents in its counter while admitting some of the pleas of the Petitioner for and challenging the
maintainability of the case of the Petitioner, submitted dismissal of the claim petition in limini. It is submitted
that the charges levelled against the Petitioner is with regard to misappropriation of funds. The Petitioner while
working as a cashier at Johnson Grammar School Extension Counter, 5 Habsiguda, Hyderabad attached to the
Uppal Branch has committed certain grave and serious misconducts of misappropriation of customers money.
The Petitioner has not accounted for the money deposited by the customers of the bank at various dates. Several
customers of the bank have made complaints against the Petitioner stating that he has not accounted in their
respective accounts, cash deposited by them. A sum of Rs. 10,10,150/- of the public money has been
misappropriated, and thereby the Petitioner has acted prejudicial against the interest of the bank and committed
gross misconduct as per para 19.5 (j) of the settlement. After receipt of the complaints of misappropriation of
customers money the Respondent bank has placed the Petitioner under suspension and there after issued articles
of charges dated 19.6.2001 framing charges under Clause 19.5 (j) of the settlement and the same was duly
received by the Petitioner. It is stated that opportunity has been given to the Petitioner to submit his explanation
on the charges levelled against him. But the Petitioner has failed to submit explanation to the charges inspite of
ample opportunity given to him and therefore, the management passed order of a departmental enquiry to
inquire into the charges levelled against the Petitioner. Accordingly one notice was issued to the Petitioner
informing the date and time of the enquiry and the same was duly communicated to him. It is stated that enquiry
was ordered after giving due opportunity to submit explanation on the charges levelled against the Petitioner. It
is further submitted that the Vice President of the Respondent Bank, Sri G. D. Jayaprakash was appointed as the
Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry on the charges and One Sri T. Krishna Rao, Officer, ER Division was
appointed as the Presenting Officer on behalf of the management in the enquiry. The enquiry was commenced
on 14.10.01 and the Petitioner has participated in the enquiry. During the enquiry the Petitioner has availed the
assistance of Mr. A. Vijaya Kumar, Vice President of All India Vysya Bank Employees Union and he has also
participated in the enquiry on all the dates to their satisfaction. Thereafter, the management representative has
furnished all the copies of the documents and the names of the witnesses and the same were duly verified by the
Petitioner to his satisfaction. It is also stated that the management has examined four witnesses and marked 16
documents and the witnesses were duly cross examined by the Petitioner. During the course of the enquiry the
Petitioner has produced a document and the same is marked as DExl. After closure of the evidence of the
management side, the Petitioner informed that he is not willing to rely on any documents and he is also not
willing to submit any evidence on his behalf. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer recorded the same and proceeded
further for submitting written brief of both the sides. Thereafter the management representative had submitted
the written submissions and a copy of the same was duly served to the Petitioner and on receipt of the same, the
Petitioner has also submitted the written notes before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after considering
all the materials available on record and also considering the submissions furnished by both the sides, submitted
his report on 12.12.2002 holding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved in the enquiry.
Copy of the enquiry report was duly furnished to the Petitioner vide letter dated 13.12.2002 and an opportunity
was given to the Petitioner to submit his explanation on the Enquiry Officer's report. It is stated that the
Department has conducted the enquiry fairly after giving ample opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the
enquiry. The departmental enquiry conducted by the management is legal, valid, bonafide and justified. After
receiving copy of the enquiry report Petitioner has submitted his representation dated 26.12.2002. In order to
give further opportunity to the petitioner, Respondent issued a second show cause notice dated 21.1.2003 as to
why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him and advised to appear
before the disciplinary authority for personal hearing on 3.2.2003. In view of his non-response, he was given
another opportunity to appear on 25.2.2003. But he failed to appear on the said date of hearing, however, he
made a representation dated 22.2.2003 making various untenable and unsustainable allegation against the
management but failed to provide any valid ground as to why the proposed punishment of dismissal shall not be
imposed. After considering all the material available on record, an order dated 27.2.2003 was passed
dismissing the petitioner from service. Petitioner has filed an appeal dated 10.4.2003 which was rejected dated
4.7.2003. The respondent bank has also lost confidence on the petitioner as he was involved in the misconduct
of misappropriation of public money to the tune of Rs.10,10,150/- and which is a serious misconduct and loss
of moral turpitude and therefore, the respondent was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from the service. In
the circumstances of the case there is no need of interference from the court and the reference be answered in
negative.
1594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent Management is held legal and valid vide order
dated 16.8.2018.
5.
Heard arguments of both parties under Sec.11A of the Act. Perused the record.
6.
On the basis of pleadigs of both the parties, the following points emerge for determination:
I.
Whether the action of the Management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd., now Kotak Mahindra Bank in
imposing the punishment of dismissal from service upon Sri V. Gowri Shankar vide their order dated 27.2.2003
is legal and justified?
II.
To what relief the workman is entitled?
7.
Points No.I & II: The validity of domestic enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated
16.8.2018, hence, it got finality.
8.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner Workman joined the Respondent bank
on 16.4.1986 as a clerk at its Cannaught Place, New Delhi branch. He had worked for 17 years in different
branches of the Respondent bank. He was transferred to Johnson Grammar School Extension Counter,
Habsiguda, Hyderabad and while working at the said branch he was placed under suspension from the service of
the bank w.e.f. 14.3.2001 alleging misappropriation of funds of the customers of the bank. The Respondent bank
issued charge sheet bearing No.100-01-ER-528, dated 19.6.2001 leveling untenable and false allegations against
the Petitioner. Besides the above proceeding departmentally, the Respondent bank also lodged criminal
complaint against the Petitioner. The Respondent bank conducted enquiry as a mere formality and inflicted the
punishment of dismissal from the services of the bank vide order dated 27.2.2023. It is also submitted that the
Appellant approached Appellate Authority against the order of Disciplinary Authority but the Appellate
Authority upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. The Petitioner submitted that the Charge Sheet
dated 19.06.2001 is ambiguous and not in conformity with the provisions of the Bi-partite settlement service
conditions governing the petitioner and the Charge Sheet does contain all the details such as date, time etc which
handicapped the Petitioner to submit a reply. It is also submitted that Enquiry Officer rejected the plea of the
petitioner to engage the services of an advocate during the enquiry proceeding. The Departmental Enquiry was
conducted by the very same Disciplinary Authority, who had issued the Charge Sheet to the Petitioner vitiating
the entire disciplinary proceedings basin on the principles of natural justice, no person can be a judge of his
own case. It is further submitted that the respondent Bank with malafide intensions continued the same
Disciplinary Authority as an Enquiry Officer. The departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with
the principles laid down principles as well as in consonance with the Principles of Natural Justice. It is also
submitted that Respondent Bank failed to provide documents in support of the charges levelled in the charge
sheet. The respondent Bank alleged that the Petitioner has misappropriated funds of 34 customers but failed to
provide documents relating to all the 34 customers during the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner was not
given opportunity of cross- examining the customers who have complained of misappropriation of their funds.
Therefore, non-production of the so called complainants vitiates the enquiry proceeding. It is also submitted
the punishment awarded is basing on such misconceived departmental enquiry and tend to be set aside without
given a second thought. It is also submitted that relevant documents sought by the Petitioner under defence
were not provided to the Petitioner by the Respondent bank and Appellate Authority passed orders without
applying mind in a mechanical manner.
9.
On the other hand, Respondent’s counsel submitted that since the validity of domestic enquiry has
been held legal vide order dated 16.8.2018 of this court, therefore all the submissions made by the Petitioner has
been taken up in that order since, the Petitioner did not challenge the order dated 16.8.2018 of the validity of
domestic enquiry which gets finality.
10.
Perused the record. The arguments advanced by the Petitioner pertains to legality and fairness of
enquiry proceeding which has been decided held by this Tribunal in the order dated 16.8.2018 while holding
the domestic enquiry legal and valid. Petitioner did not challenged it in higher forum hence it has become final.
11.
The perusal of the record of domestic enquiry reveals that Petitioner was given full opportunity hearing
at every stage of the proceeding. He never raised any objection complaining, causing of any prejudice of any
nature to him before the Enquiry Officer. Further, he received all the papers and documents filed, relied upon
by the Respondent. He also filed reply, cross examined the Respondent witness and examining his witness in
defence and attended the proceeding. Thus, after giving full hearing opportunity Enquiry Officer appreciated
the evidence and submitted his reasoned report holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Therefore, the
submission of the Petitioner regarding challenging the fairness of the domestic enquiry is not tenable. As far
as the submission of the Petitioner is concerned that the author of the complaint was not produced in evidence
during the enquiry and he was deprived of cross examining them. Since the present matter pertains to the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1595
misappropriation of the money of the customers amounting to Rs.10,10,150/- and the same has been proved
during the enquiry on the basis of documentary evidence. Therefore, it was not necessary to examine the
complainants. After completion of enquiry, Enquiry Officer has submitted reasoned report. In the case of
State Bank of India vs.Tarun Kumar, AIR 2000 SC 3028, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held, “ domestic
enquiry find to be just and fair by Tribunal setting aside of finding of misconduct on the grounds of non-
examination of customer, non-production of money and non-production of confessional statement – not
proper.” Therefore, in event of decision given by Hon’ble Apex Court this argument of Petitioner not tenable.
Moreover, the Petitioner himself has submitted the letter to the Respondent bank wherein he had admitted his
guilt regarding the charge of misappropriation of the funds and the admission of guilt was made by him
voluntarily. Therefore, the submission of the Petitioner that the complainant was not examined has no force.
Therefore, no case is made out to hold that the domestic enquiry suffers from any procedural lapses or was
conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of the
Appellant.”
12.
Now, the next question arises whether punishment imposed on Appellant is just and legal or it is
disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Since the charges of misappropriation of funds of customers
levelled against the Petitioner has been proved in domestic enquiry. As per charges, Petitioner while he was
posted as a clerk in the Uppal branch of Respondent bank at Johnson Grammar School Extension Counter,
Habsiguda, Hyderabad, he received a deposit from the account holders which are mentioned from Sl. No.1 to
34 and he misappropriated various amounts totaling to Rs.10,10,150/- from the saving accounts of the
customers and the same were not deposited in the accounts of the deposit holders. In these circumstances
keeping in view the misconduct committed by the Petitioner, it cannot be said that charges were simple in nature
but the charges were of serious nature which warrants the capital punishment. No employer would ever allow
or support such behavior of the employee while on duty. The Appellant was working as a cashier and he was
on duty on that day, therefore, he was directly responsible for misappropriation of the funds. Thus, the charges
against the Petitioner being serious in nature, order of dismissal passed against the Appellant cannot be faulted
nor it can be said to be in any way disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. In other words, punishment of
dismissal was proportionate with the gravity of the charges and hence, the industrial dispute raised by the
Petitioner for quashing of the dismissal order deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. Certain
decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court has been referred by the Respondent to justify the imposition of punishment
of termination upon Petitioner for his misconduct of misappropriation are mentioned as below:-
13. Respondent counsel also submitted that the dismissal order which has been challenged by the Petitioner
through the present industrial dispute, pertains to the year 2003 i.e., dated 6.8.2003 when he was terminated
from service whereas he has approached this Tribunal in the year 2012 after lapse of 9 years whereas u/s.2A(3)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a petition can be filed within 3 years of cause of action. Therefore, present
petition/claim statement is barred by limitation u/s2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent
cited decisions:-
In K R Reddy Vs. Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Hon’ble Court held: “The Supreme Court
extensively considered the scope of relevant provisions and precedent decisions. The Supreme Court held that
there was inordinate, unexplained delay in referring the dispute.”
In Assistant Engineer, CAD, Kota and Dhan Kumwar, CA No.6473, 2006 III LLJ, the Apex
Court held: “workman raising the dispute eight years after termination of service –relief by Labour Court
should not have been granted to workman.”
Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank and Neelam, 2005 I LLJ, the Apex
Court held: “Though no time limit prescribed for raising industrial dispute, but stale claim, could not be
entertained – approaching Labour Court after delay of more than 7 years. Held:- justified refusal of relief in
this case.”
14.
Thus, in view of the above decision, in the present case termination order of Petitioner pertains to
dated 6.8.2003, but the industrial dispute has been raised by him filing the claim statement in the year 2012
after a gap of nine years and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the Petitioner for such inordinate
delay. Therefore, the petition of the present matter is time barred also in view of the provision u/s 10 (1) (D) of
the I.D. Act, 1947 prescribing limitation period three years.
(i)
In Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vs. A.L. Mohan Rao 2006 LLR 252, “In this case the Respondent
workman was working as an attendar at the Kudregundi Branch of the Appellant bank. He was charge
sheeted for gross misconduct in as much as he had colluded with one of the Branch Managers and enabled
grant of a fictitious loan in the name of one Shri Ramakrishna, the real beneficiary being a person named
1596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
B. Raghava. In that charge sheeted employee the workman was terminated and Apex court held, gross
misconduct of this nature does merit termination. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to decide what is the fit
punishment. In any case of such misconduct it could never have been said that termination of the services is
not the appropriate punishment.”
(ii).
In Employees Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd., Vs. Concerned Workman,
Ram Pravesh Singh, 2008 LLR 432, Apex Court held: “ in the absence of challenge to the legality or
fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by
the Enquiry Officer or the punishment awarded by the punishing authority more so when the advocate of the
workman has stated that he does not want to challenge the fairness of the enquiry.”
(iii).
In Janatha Bazar Vs. Secretary, Sahaari Noukarara Sangha etc. 2000 LLR page 1271 the Apex
Court held: “Once act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question
of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating employee in service-Labour Court cannot substitute penalty
imposed by employer in such cases.” It is also held that, “in view of the proof of misconduct a necessary
consequence will be that Management has lost confidence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully
carry on his duties and consequently the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power under Section
11A of the I.D. Act to grant relief with minor penalty.”
(iv).
In Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao 2012 LLR 8 Apex Court held: “Nature and
scope of both Departmental enquiry vis-à-vis criminal proceedings are different as the standard of proof
required in criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt whereas departmental enquiry depends upon the
preponderance of probabilities and an order of acquittal cannot conclude and effect the departmental
proceedings and the delinquent employee is not automatically entitled to get any relief on the basis of his/her
acquittal form the punishment imposed upon him/her through departmental enquiry.” It is also held that
“When loss of confidence of the Management upon the delinquent employee is affirmed, punishment must be
considered to be immune from challenge as discharging the office of the trust and confidence requires
absolute integrity and delinquent employee cannot be granted reinstatement.”
It is also held in this case that, “While dealing with a similar issue, a three Judge Bench of this Court in Ajit
Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, held as under:-“In our
judgement, the law is fairly well settled Acquittal by a criminal Court would not debar an employer form
exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and
departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the
object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings
is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a
criminal trial incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers
is totally inadmissible evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental
proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof
necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two
proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the
prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a
Court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on
a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability.”
Thus, in view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, the letter of admission of guilt by Petitioner
is admissible in evidence. Apart from his admission, other credible documentary evidence of bank account
proved the misconduct of misappropriation of Petitioner.
(v)
In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Nemi Chand Nalwaya 2011 III LLJ page 13 SC,
Hon’ble Apex Court held: “Acquittal of employee in criminal case would have no effect on previously
concluded domestic enquiry –Findings in such enquiry and punishment based thereon, could not be challenged
after several years on ground of such acquittal.”
.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and submissions made by the
Respondent, punishment of dismissal is found to be proportionate and commensurate with the gravity of charge
of misconduct committed by the Petitioner.
(vi)
Further, in JP Jain Vs. Management of State Bank of India 1982 AIR page 673, the facts of the
case are that the Appellant was working as cashier in the Meerut State branch of State Bank of India, the
complainant, came to bank to receive his pass book. On receipt of pass book accountholder complained that
he had withdrawn only Rs.500/- but there is entry of Rs.1500/- as shown in the passbook. The complainant
reported matter to the Supervisor R K Gupta, and necessary documents pertaining to such withdrawal were
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1597
examined and it was found that the complainant has given a letter of authority to the Appellant workman and
authorizing to withdraw the amount Rs.500/-from his account. The said authority letter was for withdrawal of
Rs.500/-, but, workman acting as cashier manipulated figure in the letter from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/- and
withdrawn the amount retained Rs.1000/- with him.
In that case enquiry was held and the casual Appellant was dismissed from the job. In the case the alleged
misconduct of the Appellant to produce forged documents and withdrew Rs.1500/- instead Rs.500/- and
Rs.1000/- in excess of the amount which he was not authorized misappropriated it. In that case Appellant
had submitted his confession letter and on the basis of the confession letter and substantial evidence he was
terminated from the service and the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the termination of the Appellant.” Therefore,
plea of Petitioner that his letter of admission of guilt is not admissible evidence is not tenable.
(vii).
In the case of Darshan Singh Vs. Canara Bank CWP No.10458/ 2003 D.O.D. 6.4.2017 High
Court held: “the Court has rightly observed that oral evidence contrary to documentary evidence and entries
has not to be believed this was the case defendant for proof of misconduct on documentary evidence and entries
in the Saving Bank Account pass book and ledger folios etc.. The workman admitted that these entries made
by him saying that it was made under bonafide mistake. Such act have serious propensities which when made
public a bank might loss its reputation and confidence in investing public, not continue employment. It was the
case of misappropriation. Even if it is classified as temporary misappropriation or temporary embezzlement
both are bad of law. Workman therefore, cannot be absolved simply, by saying that entries were some
bonafide mistake. In the opinion of Labour Court no lenience can be shown to the workman. Once the
misconduct is proved in the enquiry conducted by employer, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by
the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization.”
15.
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court more or
less similar facts and circumstances exist in the present matter. Therefore, keeping in view the misconduct of
the Petitioner, no ground is made out for interference in the dismissal order of Petitioner as imposed by the
disciplinary authority vide order dated 27.2.2003 hence, the action of the Management in imposing the
punishment of termination upon Petitioner cannot be said disproportionate and is held legal and justified.
Point No.I is answered accordingly.
16.
Point No.II: In view of the discussion and finding in fore gone paragraphs, the petition is liable to be
dismissed. As such, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
ORDER
The action of the Management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from
service upon Shri V. Gauri Shankar vide their order dated 27.2.2003, i.e., held legal and justified. Hence,
Petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as such the claim of the Petitioner is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this
the 21st day of March, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 12 मई, 2023
का.आ. 812.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj cSad vkWQ cMksnk ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
1598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkS+|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (1452/2004)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/146/2004- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th May, 2023
S.O. 812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.1452/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/146/2004- IR(B.II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present - Sunil Kumar Singh-I,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Date: 17th March, 2023
Reference (CGITA) No. : 1452/2004
The Regional Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
2nd Floor, M. G. Road, Near GPO,
Rajkot – 360002
….…….First Party / Employer / Bank
V
Sh. Kalpesh G. Mehta S/o Hasubhai Dave,
Shram Sadhana, Opp. Muni Water Tank,
Behind Swaminarayan Gurukul Gondal Road,
Rajkot - 360002 ..….…Second Party / Workman
Advocate for the First Party / Employer / Bank : Shri V. K. Mashar
Advocate for the Second Party / Workman : Ms. Pooja K. Ashar &
Shri S. R. Thakore
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
12012/146/2004-IR(B-II) dated 29.09.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Rajkot in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule. The dispute was later received in Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad after its creation at Ahmedabad in the year 2004.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of the Bank of Baroda, Rajkot in terminating the services of
Mr. Kalpesh G. Mehta Temporary Daily Wager w.e.f. 7.4.2003 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?”
1. After receiving the schedule of reference from Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot to this Tribunal, the second party /
workman Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta submitted his statement of claim at Ex. 4, stating therein that he was serving as
daily wager / peon from the year 1989 @ Rs. 125/- per day at Gondal Branch of the first party / employer /
Bank. He was illegally terminated w.e.f. 07.04.2003 without any notice or notice pay and no unemployment
allowances or any other monetary relief was given to him at the time of termination of his services. No seniority
list was prepared or showed by the first party / employer to him. Despite his request dated 02.12.2003, his
services have not been continued. He has further stated that he has worked for more than 240 days in every year
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1599
with the first party / employer. However the description of working hours given in the statement of claim is
depicted as under:
Sl. No.
Period / Year
Number of days
1
1989
55
2
1990
19
3
1991
37
4
1994
15
5
1995
15
6
27.12.1999 to 30.12.2000
306
7
01.01.2001 to 12.01.2002
306
8
12.01.2002 to 31.01.2003
278
9
04.01.2003 to 07.04.2003 (Date of termination)
78
He has further stated that he was also paid bonus for the year 1996-97, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. His
name was also forwarded for regularization of his services amongst the daily wagers as per circular dated
03.05.2001, but he was never regularised. His services were illegally terminated by the first party / employer /
Bank in violation of Section 25 (F), 25 (G) and 25 (H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has prayed to set
aside the termination order dated 07.04.2003 and to reinstate him with back wages with 18% interest and
continuity of service along with all consequential benefits.
2. The first party / employer / Bank has submitted its written statement at Ex. 5 stating that no employer –
employee relationship exists between the parties. The second party / workman has no legal right to raise
industrial dispute against the first party / employer / Bank and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction for adjudicating the
present reference. The first party / employer has further stated that appointment to any post in the Bank is
governed by the statutory rules / regulations in force from time to time by the Bank, subject to sanctioned
vacancy, fulfilment of eligibility criteria and approval of competent authority. In case of appointment in sub-
ordinate cadre, name of employee should be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The first party / employer
has further stated that the name of second party / workman was never sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
He was appointed by the Branch Manager without authority as casual labour on daily wages and on temporary
basis. Appropriate wages were also paid to the second party / workman. He is accordingly not entitled for the
claimed relief.
3. The second party / workman has filed documentary evidence detailed as under:
Sl.
No.
Name / Details of the document
Date
of
Document
Seriatim
of
Document
Type
/
Remarks
1
Circular to all branches / offices of Bank of Baroda
annexed with Xerox copy of Tripartite Settlement
dated 18.03.2008 between the management of Bank
of Baroda and their workmen represented by All
India Bank of Baroda Employees’ Federation
(Recognised Union)
24.03.2008
Ex. 8/1
Xerox
2
Application written by Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta to the
Manager Bank of Baroda, College Chowk, Gondal
and Dy. General Manager (Personal), Bank of
Baroda, Central Office, Valchand Hiralal Marg,
Belara Para, Bombay for continuity of service with
full
back
wages
along
with
original
acknowledgement received from the Manager, Bank
of Baroda, Gondal
02.12.2003
Ex. 8/2
Ex. 8/3 (A/D)
Xerox
Original
3
Application written by Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta to the
Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Rajkot
along with acknowledgement received
04.08.2008
Ex. 8/4
Ex.
8/4/1
(A/D)
Originals
4
Details in respect of Shri Kapesh G. Mehta furnished
by the Branch Manage, Bank of Baroda, Gondal
Branch
09.05.2001
Ex. 8/5
Xerox
5
Letter written by Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta to Dy.
General Manager (Personnel), Bank of Baroda,
Mumbai
17.04.2002
Ex. 8/6
Original
6
Bank Voucher issued in favour of Shri Kalpesh G.
10.09.1997
Not
Notarised
1600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mehta regarding bonus of 35 days for the year 1996-
97
mentioned
Photo
Copy
7
Bank Voucher issued in favour of Shri Kalpesh G.
Mehta regarding bonus for the year 2000-01
19.09.2001
Not
mentioned
Notarised
Photo
Copy
8
‘Payment Advice’ of Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta issued
by Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gondal in
respect of payment of Bonus for the year – Nil
23.09.2002
Not
mentioned
Notarised
Photo
Copy
9
‘Payment Advice’ of Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta issued
by Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gondal in
respect of payment of Bonus for the year – Nil
16.10.2003
Not
mentioned
Notarised
Photo
Copy
10
Letter written by Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta to the
General Manager, (HRM) Staff Department, BBC,
Central
Office,
Mumbai
along
with
acknowledgement received
13.05.2008
Ex. 8/7
Original
11
Circular issued by the General Secretary, All India
Bank
of
Baroda
Employees’
Co-ordination
Committee, Rajkot regarding regularization of
temporary sub-staff
27.01.2008
Ex. 8/8
Xerox
12
Bank’s Circular regarding procedure for payment of
Bonus
22.10.2005
Enclosed with
list Ex. 28
Xerox
13
Pension payment statement for the year 2012-13 of
Smt. Sarladevi G. Mehta, Mother of Shri Kalpesh G.
Mehta
Not
mentioned
Ex. 21/1
Xerox
14
Employment exchange slip of Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta
Illegible
Ex. 21/2
Xerox
15
Death Certificate of Shri Gajendrabhai, father of Shri
Kalpesh G. Mehta
27.10.2009
Ex. 21/3
Xerox
16
Letter written by The Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal to The Sub-Treasury Officer,
Treasury Office Gondal
27.07.1999
Ex. 21/4
Xerox
17
Letter written by The Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal to The Sub-Treasury Officer,
Treasury Office, Gondal
09.04.1997
Ex. 21/5
Xerox
18
Memorandum issued by Accountant, Bank of
Baroda, Gondal Branch, Gondal
04.01.1999
Ex. 21/6
Xerox
19
Letter written by The Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal to The Sub-Treasury Officer,
Treasury Office, Gondal
05.10.1999
Ex. 21/7
Xerox
20
Letter written by The Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal to The Sub-Treasury Officer,
Treasury Office, Gondal
30.11.1998
Ex. 21/8
Xerox
21
Letter written by The Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal to The Sub-Registrar,
Gondal
17.06.1994
Ex. 21/9
Xerox
22
Letter written by The Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal to The Sub-Treasury Officer,
Sub-Treasury Office, Gondal
14.06.1993
Ex. 21/10
Xerox
23
Letter written by The Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal to The Sub-Treasury Officer,
Sub-Treasury Office, Gondal
17.07.1998
Ex. 21/11
Xerox
24
Letter written by The Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal to The Regional Manager,
Bannk of Baroda, Regional Office, Rajkot
09.05.2001
Ex. 21/12
Xerox
25
List of Temporary / Casual Peon / Sweeper (Phase-I)
Not
mentioned
Ex. 21/13
Xerox
26
Application written by Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta and 3
others to The Assistant Manager, Bank of Baroda
(HR), Rajkot
12.11.2013
Ex. 21/14
Xerox
27
Details in respect of Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta
09.05.2001
Replica of Ex.
Xerox
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1601
furnished by the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch
8/5
28
Bank Voucher issued in favour of Shri Kalpesh G.
Mehta regarding bonus of 35 days for the year 1996-
97
10.09.1997
Ex. 21/15
(Double
filing)
Xerox
29
Bank Voucher issued in favour of Shri Kalpesh G.
Mehta regarding bonus for the year 2000-01
19.09.2001
Ex. 21/16
(Double
filing)
Xerox
30
‘Payment Advice’ of Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta issued
by Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gondal in
respect of Payment of Bonus for the year – Nil
23.09.2002
Ex. 21/17
(Double
filing)
Xerox
31
‘Payment Advice’ of Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta issued
by Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gondal in
respect of payment of Bonus for the year – Nil
16.10.2003
Ex. 21/18
(Double
filing)
Xerox
32
Certificate issued by the Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal
07.01.1998
Ex. 21/19
Xerox
4.
The second party / workman has deposed himself at Ex. 13 in his oral evidence.
5.
The first party / employer has filed documentary evidence detailed as under:
Sl.
No.
Name / Details of the document
Date
of
Document
Seriatam
of
Document
Type
/
Remarks
1
Certificate issued by the Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal for 33 days of working of Shri
Kalpesh G. Mehta in the year 1996
15.01.1997
Ex. 18
Xerox
2
Certificate issued by the Manager, Bank of Baroda,
Gondal Branch, Gondal for 57 days of working of Shri
Kalpesh G. Mehta in the year 1990-91
07.01.1998
Ex. 19
Xerox
3
Advertisement from Bank of Baroda
Not
mentioned
Ex. 20
Xerox
4
Rules for recruitment of Sub-ordinate Staff
Not
mentioned
Ex. 21
Xerox
6. The first party / employer has examined Shri Jaydev Avinash Mehta, Senior Manager (HRM), Bank of
Baroda, Rajkot at Ex. 20.
7. I have perused the records and heard Ld. Counsel for first party / employer Shri V. K. Mashra in addition to
his written argument at Ex. 24 and Ld. Counsel for second party / workman Ms. Pooja K. Ashar &
Shri S. R. Thakore in addition to their written arguments at Ex. 22 and additional written arguments at Ex.
27.
8. The main point for the consideration under reference is as to whether the action of the management of the
Bank of Baroda, Rajkot in terminating the services of Mr. Kalpesh G. Mehta Temporary Daily Wager w.e.f.
07.04.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
9. Ld. Counsel for the second party / workman has argued as per the statement of claim and his written
arguments at Ex. 22 & Ex. 27 and emphasized that the second party / workman was working with the
employer / Bank as daily wager / Peon since the year 1989 till he was terminated on 07.04.2003. It was
further argued that the workman had worked for more than 240 days during the year preceding the
termination order dated 07.04.2003 and his name was forwarded by the Branch Manager of the employer /
Bank for his regularization in view of one circular letter dated 03.05.2001 (not on record) issued by the first
party / employer. Despite fulfilling all required eligibilities, he has been illegally terminated without giving
any notice / notice pay in violation of principles of natural justice. Requested to grant the prayer of
reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. He has cited following case law in support of his
arguments which are briefly discussed herein. (1) D. K. Yadav V J. M. A. Industries Ltd., 1993 SCR (3)
930 – The Apex Court found the action of the management in terminating the appellant’s service even
under existing clause 13 (2) (iv) of certified standing order, as violative of the principles of natural justice.
(2) Madhu (Smt.) V Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar & anr., 2012 II CLR 332 (P&H) – It was
held that the termination of petitioner’s service in the back ground that it was seven days short of 240 days
and without enquiry, amounted to unfair labour practice. (3) Novartis India Ltd. V State of West Bengal &
ors., 2009 II LLJ (9) SC – It was held that burden of proving no alternative employment lies on workman, if
1602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
discharged by workman, it shifts to employer. (4) Central Bank of India V S. Satyam & ors., 1996 SCALE
(5) 567 SC – It was held that retrenchment is not limited only for the benefit of the workman to whom
Section 25 (F) applies but for all cases of retrenchment. (5) S. R. Bharai V Union of India, 2005 (0) AIJEL-
HC 214080 (Guj) – It was held that daily wager is entitled to protection of Section 25 F of I.D. Act
provided he has continuously served for a requisite statutory minimum period in a year. (6) State Bank of
India V N. Sundaramoney, AIR 1976 SC 1111 – Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 25 F, 25 B and 2
(oo) have a workers’ mission and the input of Part IV of the Constitution also underscores the benignant
approach. The requirement prescribed by S. 25 (F) (b) is condition precedent for the retrenchment of the
workman. (7) Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh V Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Chandigarh with 10 others, 1990 (0) AIJEL-SC 21711 – Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
‘retrenchment’ means the termination by the employer of the services of a workman for any reason
whatsoever except those expressly excluded in this Section. (8) Sarabhai Chemicals V Subhash N. Pandya,
1984 (1) GLR 329 (Guj) – Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the retrenchment in contravention of
Section 25 F is illegal. (9) Management of M. C. D. V Prem Chand Gupta, 1999 (0) AIJEL-SC 16977 –
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the termination of workman whose service was not less than 240 days of
continuous service for one calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination amounting to
retrenchment attracting S. 25 F of the I.D. Act. (10) Vikramaditya Pandey V Industrial Tribunal, Lunknow,
2001 (0) AIJEL-SC 34235 – Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the fact of this case that termination of
workman was clearly retrenchment, hence, he was reinstated with back wages. (11) Bank of Baroda V
Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari, 2005 (0) AIJEL-SC 2847 – Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of
Labour Court & Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in respect of the reinstatement of workman as no evidence
was produced by the Bank in support of its claim. (12) Veer Narmad South Gujarat University V
Satishkumar Ramjibhai Patel, 2010 (0) AIJEL-HC 223183 (Guj) – Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that
the provisions of S. 25 F of the I.D. Act are applicable to the retrenched employee who was engaged on
temporary basis to cope with burden of extra work in the University. (13) Dhrangadhra Municipality V
Ganpatbhai Jethabhai Makwana, 2007 (0) AIJEL-HC 219471 (Guj) – Hon’ble High Court held that mere
raising of contention in written statement and reiteration thereof in oral evidence and written submission is
not enough. Employer is required to satisfy as to how and why workman is not entitled for benefit of S. 25
F of the I.D. Act. (14) Bhavnagar Zilla Sahakari Sangh Ltd. V Dhiren P. Parekh, 2006 (0) AIJEL-HC
216882 (Guj) – Hon’ble High Court found termination of employee without following mandatory provision
of S. 25 F of the I.D. Act as illegal. (15) State of Gujarat V Dilipbhai Babubhai Patel, 2015 (1) CLR 690
(Guj) – Hon’ble High Court upheld Labour Court judgement of reinstatement of workman with 25 % back
wages as the termination was in disregard to S. 25 F of the I.D. Act. (16) Hitendrasinh A. Jadeja V
Integrated Child Development Scheme Officer, 2016 JX (Guj) 763 – Hon’ble High Court directed
reinstatement of the appellant on the ground of violation of S. 25 H of the I.D. Act by the employer.
10. Ld. Counsel for the first party / employer has argued as per his written statement and written argument at
Ex. 24 and emphasized that the said workman was not sponsored by the ‘Employment Exchange’ and has
not been recruited by the employer / Bank as per Bank’s rules and regulations. He was engaged as casual
worker on daily wages, purely on temporary basis, by the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gondal Branch
who was not competent to engage. Parties have no employer – employee relationship. No industrial dispute
exists between the parties, hence, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. He has cited Sindhu Resettlement
Corporation Ltd. V Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat, 1967 Law Suit (SC) 252 (3 judges bench), wherein
Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 25 (F) and Section 2 (oo) of the I. D. Act and held that where
an employee is transferred to subsidiary company with his consent and received retrenchment compensation
from new company, he cannot claim reinstatement in principal company. Refusal by Principal Company to
re-employ cannot be termed retrenchment. Mere demand with government cannot be an industrial dispute.
Ld Counsel for the employer has further argued that the burden is on the workman to prove his case and
cited Municipal Corporation, Faridabad V Siri Niwas, 2004 Law Suit (SC) 988, wherein Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the burden of proof is on the workman to show that he had worked for 240 days in
preceding twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment. In the fact of this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court
found the retrenchment valid as neither the relevant documents were produced by the workman nor did he
call upon the employer / appellant to produce the documents.
11. At the very outset, it is of utmost importance that the question raised by the first party / employer in respect
of this Tribunal lacking jurisdiction, be answered first. The perusal of the pleadings of both the parties
shows that the employer / Bank has admitted that the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gondal Branch,
Gondal engaged the present workman as casual daily wager and has not denied the duration of his working
with the Bank as stated in workman’s claim from the year 1989 till the date of termination on 07.04.2003.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1603
The employer / Bank is Bank of Baroda, a banking company as defined under Section 5 of the Banking
Companies Act, 1949, hence, an ‘Industry’ as defined under Section 2 (j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Employer / Bank has also admitted in his written statement that the wages were paid to the workman, hence
the parties have employer and employee relationship and the present dispute is an ‘Industrial Dispute’ under
Section 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. (supra)
are different and not applicable to the present case in hand. Hence, this Tribunal is competent and have
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the existing industrial dispute between the parties.
12. The substance of case law cited by the Ld. Counsel for the workman is that if the workman has completed
service of 240 days in preceding one year, the compliance of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act is
mandatory. The observance of principle of natural justice has become part and parcel even for the
administration and quasi judicial authorities. Termination without compliance of provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act amounts to unfair labour practice and illegal. Daily wager is entitled to the protection of
Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act provided he has continuity of service for a requisite statutory
minimum period in a year.
13. It is no doubt, well established principle of law that the workman has the burden to prove that he worked for
240 days in preceding twelve months prior to his termination. In terms of Section 25 F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, an order retrenching a workman would not be effective unless the conditions
precedents thereof are satisfied. The second party / workman Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta has, in his
examination-in-chief, repeated the averments of his statement of claim. In his cross-examination, he has
authenticated bank certificate (Ex. 18), in which, his working days are shown as 33 days in the year 1996
and also authenticated the bank certificate (Ex. 19) depicting his working of 57 days in the year 1990-91.
He has further tried to prove the advertisement Ex. 20 issued by the Bank of Baroda. Perusal of Ex. 20
shows that there is an invitation of applications from the workmen, working as Peon in the Bank of
Baroda’s Branch throughout India who have worked for 90 days from 01.01.1982 to 31.12.1990, for
preparing panel. The date of issuance of this advertisement in not legible. According to the workman’s
claim, he started working in the Bank from the year 1989, worked for 55 days in the year 1989 and worked
for 19 days in the year 1990, hence, according to this advertisement; the workman was not appearing to be
entitled for such empanelment. This apart, the second party / workman filed tripartite settlement dated
18.03.2008 enclosed with Bank’s circular letter dated 24.03.2008 (Ex. 8) between the Management of Bank
of Baroda and All India Bank of Baroda Employees’ Federation. The settlement appears to be in respect of
absorption of still working temporary Peons / Sweepers who had worked for 90 days or more from
01.01.1982 to 31.12.1989, from 01.01.1990 to 31.12.1990 and 240 days from 01.01.1991 to 29.02.1996.
The workman was not still working in the year 2008. This seems to have kept him out of the purview of
above circular letter.
14. It is worth mentioning that the second party / workman has given the details of his work done with the
employer / Bank from the year 1989 till the year 2003 as depicted above in the tabulation form. However,
the relevant period for counting 240 days of his work during the year preceding the termination order dated
07.04.2003 is to be seen. The workman has, in line with the statement of his claim, depicted 278 days from
12.01.2002 to 31.01.2003 and 78 days from 04.01.2003 to 07.04.2003. According to this description, the
number of days from 12.01.2002 to 07.04.2003 becomes 278+78-27=329 days. As the relevant period of
one year is to be taken from 07.04.2002 to 07.04.2003, hence even if all days including holidays from
12.01.2002 to 06.04.2003 (20+28+31+6=85 days) are to be excluded from this figure, the remaining
number of work days during preceding one year from the date of termination on 07.04.2003 will be equal to
329 days - 85 days =244 days. Now, it is to be seen whether this figure of 244 days, i.e. more than 240 days
in preceding year from the date of termination in terms of Section 25(B) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
substantiated by the evidence?
15. The workman Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta has repeated the averments of his claim of more than 240 days of
work done by him with the employer / Bank in his examination-in-chief. The first party / employer / Bank
has neither specifically denied the factum of working details of Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta, in written statement
nor suggested anything in the cross-examination that the workman did not work for more than 240 days in
the current year preceding the termination order.
16. However the information provided by Branch Manager, Gondal Branch, Bank of Baroda at Ex. 8/5 depicts
total 519 days as on issuance of this information on 09.05.2001. The workman moved an application dated
15.02.2010 for directing the employer for production of certain documents like application moved to seek
employment, vouchers of payment and bonus, muster roll, salary statement etc., on the ground that the said
documents were in the custody and in possession of the first party / Bank. This Court vide order dated
1604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
09.12.2013, when no reply was filed by the employer, passed an order directing the first party / employer /
Bank to produce the said documents. Instead of production of said documents in compliance of this Court’s
aforesaid order, the employer / Bank filed its objection dated 19.12.2013 stating that the workman has no
right for seeking production of said documents. The employer / Bank did not deny the fact of custody and
possession of said documents with it. The employer / Bank never pressed to set aside the order dated
09.12.2013. It is abundantly clear that the employer / Bank, without any reasonable excuse, did not produce
the said documents sought by the workman.
17. The second party / workman Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta has stated in his cross-examination that he used to
receive wages from the Bank after making his signatures and the amount was credited in his Bank’s account
no. 6918. He has further stated that he was also paid bonus in his Bank’s account. Bank’s slips to Sub-
treasury Officer / Registrar, Gondal filed at Ex. 21/4 dated 27.07.1999, Ex. 21/5 dated 09.04.1997, Ex. 21/6
dated 04.01.1999, Ex. 21/7 dated 05.10.1999, Ex. 21/8 dated 30.11.1998, Ex. 21/9 dated 17.06.1994, Ex.
21/10 dated 14.06.1997, Ex. 21/11 dated 17.07.1998 and Ex. 21/12 dated 09.05.2001, show that the Branch
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gondal has time and again authorised Mr. Mehta to receive certain documents,
stamps etc. from the concerned authorities.
18. According to the employer Bank’s payment advices marked as Ex. 21/15 dated 10.09.1997, bonus of
Rs. 219/- is shown to have been paid to Shri Mehta for the year 1996-97, according to Ex. 21/16 dated
19.09.2001, bonus of Rs. 2499/- is shown to have been paid to Shri Mehta for the year 2000-01, according
to Ex. 21/17 dated 23.09.2002, bonus of Rs. 2499/- is shown to have been paid to Shri Mehta for the year
Nil and according to Ex. 21/18 dated 16.10.2003, bonus of Rs. 2499/- is shown to have been paid to
Shri Mehta for the year Nil. The employer’ witness Shri Jaydev Avinash Mehta, Senior Branch Manager,
HRM, has in his cross-examination admitted the genuineness of the Bank’s documents including others as
Ex. 21/4 to Ex. 21/19. This witness has also admitted the genuineness of Bank’s papers Ex. 8/1 and Ex. 8/5
to Ex. 8/10 being Bank’s papers.
19. It is abundantly clear that the first party / employer has not denied the duration of work done by the second
party / workman Shri Kalpesh G. Mehta specifically in its written statement. The witness of the first party /
employer Shri Jaydev Avinash Mehta, working as Senior Manager, HRM, Bank of Baroda, has not denied
in his affidavit submitted in his examination-in-chief, the fact that the workman has not worked for
240 days in the calendar year preceding the termination order, rather he has in his cross-examination, shown
ignorance saying “I don’t know as to whether second party workman did work for more than 240 days in
each calendar year”. Even the employer has not suggested to the workman / witness Shri Mehta in his
cross-examination that he has not worked for 240 days in the preceding year before his termination order
dated 07.04.2003. An adverse inference may also be drawn against the employer / Bank for neither denying
the non-availability of the documents with the Bank nor producing the documents directed to be so
produced vide Court’s order dated 09.12.2013. The factum that Shri Mehta was being regularly paid bonus
and in particular, vide bonus receipt advice Ex. 21/18 dated 16.10.2003 indicating to be possibly paid for
the regular working of Shri Mehta in the preceding year i.e. 2002-03. The workman Mr. Mehta has
therefore provided documentary evidence along with his oral evidence. He also sought the employer to
produce those documents which were not in his custody. Hence the workman has discharged his burden of
proof. The facts of Municipal Corporation Federation (supra), being distinct and distinguishable, are not
applicable to the present case.
20. The employer / Bank cannot get away by saying that the engagement of the workman by its Branch
Manager was not approved by competent authority. Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Sundaramoney (supra)
has expressed its opinion that Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a welfare legislation. Section 25 F, 25 B and
2 (oo) of the Act, have a workers’ mission with the input of Part IV of the Constitution. Had the employer /
Bank known the law and acted on it, half a months pay would have concluded the story. But that did not
happen and now, some years have passed and the Bank has to pay for no service rendered. Shri Mehta
worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding to termination order dated 07.04.2003. His
termination amounts to retrenchment without mandatory compliance of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and is held as illegal. The action of the management of the Bank of Baroda, Rajkot in
terminating the services of Mr. Kalpesh G. Mehta Temporary Daily Wager w.e.f. 07.04.2003 is declared as
illegal and unjustified. The reference is accordingly answered in negative against the employer / Bank and
in favour of the workman.
21. As far as, grant of relief is concerned, it is traced from the paper Serial No. 5 dated 09.05.2001 annexed to
documents list Ex. 8 that the reasons of engagement of Shri Mehta were three fold (1) two sub-staff were on
leave (2) In august 1997, permanent sub-staff were transferred and other staff was on leave and (3) after
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1605
V.R.S., only one staff was in cash Peon and one Daftary etc. The employer’s witness Shri Jaydev Avinash
Mehta, Senior Branch Manager, HRM, has stated in his cross-examination that more than 20 persons were
appointed at various sub-staff cadre including part time staff after retrenchment of this workman in Rajkot
region. It is not clear as to whether any casual or daily wager post exists in the employer / Bank as on
today? In such circumstances, reinstatement may lead to confusion and multiplicity of proceedings, which
may not be in the public interest. Instead of reinstatement, it deems just and proper to award a lump-sum
compensation to the workman. Considering the service rendered by the workman from the year 1989 till the
year 2003 and also keeping in view the upward swing in cost inflation index, the workman Shri Kalpesh G.
Mehta is accordingly awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 200000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) to be
paid by the first party / employer / Bank within two months after the publication of the award.
22. The award is passed accordingly.
Let two copies of the Award be sent to the appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 मई, 2023
का.आ. 813.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/kra=z ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k िैिराबाि ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
(1/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-I) -59]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th May, 2023
S.O. 813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.1/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2023– IR(B-I) -59]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
HYDERABAD
Present: -
Shri Irfan Qamar,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 3rd day of March, 2023
M.P. No. 1/2019
Between:
Sri T. Suresh Babu,
S/o T. Somasesekhara Rao,
R/o Flat No.401, III floor, Aditya Vihar,
Akulavari Veedhi, Opp. Maruhti kalian Mandapam,
Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam -530028.
…..Petitioner
And
1606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Jagadamba Junction Branch,
Prakasaraopeta, Visakhapatnam -2.
2. The Asst. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office/Regional Office,
Bakajinagar, Sripuram,
Visakhapatnam.
…………Respondents
Appearance:
For the Petitioner:
Sri M. Madhusudhan, Advocate
For the Respondent :
M/s. V. Uma Devi & N. Srinivas, Advocates
ORDER
This petition under Sec.33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been filed by the Petitioner
seeking computation of wages due to as per award of this Tribunal dated 1.8.2017 passed in ID No.48/2006,
and to direct the Respondent Management to pay Rs. 2,77,627/- along with interest of 18% pa.
2.
Respondent is set exparte for non-appearnce. The case is posted for Petitioner’s evidence. Perusal of
the record reveals that Petitioner is absent since 4.2.2020. It appears that the Petitioner do not want to prosecute
his application u/s. 33C(2) of the Act. Therefore, the petition u/s 33C(@) is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Ordered accordingly.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the
3rd day of March, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2023
का.आ. 814.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj us'kuy cSad Qksj vxjhsdypj ,.M :jy fMiyksesaV ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds
deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iq.ks ds iapkV
(25/2018) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/09/2018- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2023
S.O. 814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.25/2018) of the Industrial .Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Pune as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of National Bank for Agriclutture
and Rural Development and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/09/2018- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1607
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUNE REFERENCE (IT) NO. 25 OF 2018
Dy. General Manager,
National Bank for Agriculture and
Rural Development,
54, Wellesley Road, Shivajinagar,
Pune 411 005.
…
First Party.
VERSUS
The Secretary,
NABARD Employees Association,
C/o NABARD, Maharashtra Regional Office,
54, Wellesley Road, Shivajinagar,
Pune 411 005.
…
Second Party.
CORAM
:-
SHRI. K.N. GAUTAM, PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
PUNE.
APPEARANCES
:-
•Shri. D.V. Kulkarni, Learned Advocate for the First Party.
•Shri. Sanam Kabre, Learned Advocate for the Second Party.
: - AWARD:-
(Dated : 10th April, 2023)
This is a reference made by Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi by its order
dated 26.09.2018 for deciding whether Mr. Suresh M. Dalvi is a workman, whether the action of the
management of NABARD not acting upon the recommendations of the selection panel which has being kept in
sealed cover in respect of interview/selection of Mr. S.M. Dalvi even after conclusion of disciplinary
proceedings is proper, legal, and justified, whether secret circular dated 04.03.2008 is applicable to the cases of
internal selection, whether the secret circular dated 04.03.2008 has force of law and whether it can be
considered as legal rule for the employees of NABARD.
Facts of the case of Second Party :
2.
It is the case of the Second Party that it is the registered trade union and sole recognized body
by the management of NABARD having its affiliation with All India NABARD Employees Association
(AINBEA), Mumbai. The First Party NABARD is an institution which comes into existence by virtue of
National Bank for Agriculture And Rural Development Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as “Act”), hence it is a
statutory body.
3.
The workman Mr. Suresh Dalvi is a member of the Second Party union and working with First
Party and he has completed 34 years of services. He was suspended on 16.03.2017 due to alleged incident of
misconduct taken place on 15.03.2017. The management of the First Party thereafter, conducted inquiry under
the provisions of NABARD Staff Rules, 1982. After completion of inquiry, the competent authority revoked the
suspension of Mr. Suresh Dalvi vide order dated 30.06.2017 with effect from 03.07.2017. The period of his
suspension from 06.03.2017 to 02.07.2017 has been regularized by granting extra-ordinary leave without pay
and allowances not counted for increment and not reckoning towards qualifying service for pension. Mr. Suresh
Dalvi has been awarded with punishment i.e. penalty of reducing his pay by two stages in the pay scale on a
permanent basis without affecting stagnation increment.
4.
The Second Party contended that the First Party management issued administrative circular
dated 21.03.2017 inviting the applications from the employees in ‘Group B’ for promotion by taking their test
and interview as per provisions of bipartite settlements. Mr. Suresh Dalvi was also called for interview for
promotion and he attended the interview accordingly on 22.05.2017, while he was under suspension. The First
Party conducted examination for said post for which about 250 employees appeared and out of which
49 candidates were selected and 37 candidates appeared for the interview. Mr. Suresh Dalvi has appeared for all
the three tests and he was called for interview. The result of his interview was kept in sealed cover and the
result of other candidates was declared on 19.06.2017. Mr. Suresh Dalvi was informed vide letter dated
19.09.2017 that his result of interview for promotion is kept in sealed cover and the findings in the sealed cover
shall not be acted upon in view of awarding of punishment as per the rules in vogue. Mr. Suresh Dalvi
1608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
requested the First Party management to supply him the copy of rules which are in vogue and accordingly, he
was furnished with the copy of rules which was in vogue. The results of Mr. Suresh Dalvi and other three
employees were kept in sealed cover as per circular dated 04.03.2008. As the penalty was imposed on
Mr. Suresh Dalvi due to disciplinary proceeding, hence the findings in the sealed cover were not acted upon in
terms of the provisions of the circular dated 04.03.2008. It is alleged that the circular dated 04.03.2008 has been
kept secret by the First Party management and clandestinely applied against Mr. Suresh Dalvi. Mr. Suresh
Dalvi has made application on 24.09.2017 for review of matter of his promotion, but not replied. No punishment
was awarded to Mr. Suresh Dalvi regarding withholding of his future promotion, even then his promotion was
withheld. Therefore, he filed complaint dated 08.01.2018 before Regional Labour Commissioner, Pune. The
First Party with malafide intention tried to convert the secret letter dated 04.03.2008 into a rule, which is against
the principles of natural justice and hence, said letter is required to be declared as null and void. The Second
Party contended that Mr. Suresh Dalvi is victimized and unfair labour practices have been committed against
him by the First Party. In such circumstances, the Second Party contended that the secret letter dated 04.03.2008
is null and void and having no force of law. It is also prayed that the sealed cover is required to be opened and
promotion be given Mr. Suresh Dalvi with retrospective effect along-with full back salary and incidental
benefits.
Facts of the case of the First Party :
5.
The First Party filed its written statement at Exh.C-4 and denied all the contentions of the
Second Party. However, it admitted that vide administrative circular dated 21.03.2017, applications were sought
from the employees in “Group B” for promotion. It is also admitted that Mr. Suresh Dalvi appeared in said
promotion process and attended interview when he was under suspension.
6.
The First Party contended that the statement of claim filed by the Second Party union is
misconceived in law and fact. It is contended that this Tribunal is having no jurisdiction for the purpose of
adjudication over the dispute raised before it under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and therefore, the Central Government having no authority to refer said dispute for adjudication. It
is contended that there are seven bipartite settlements, which are merely for financial purpose and by virtue of
which the service conditions of the employees are also being governed. It is contended that Mr. Suresh Dalvi is
by virtue of his nature of duties and salaries cannot be styled as a workman. Hence, this Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute.
7.
It is contended that charge-sheet was served on Mr. Suresh Dalvi on 15.03.2017 on the basis
of the incident occurred alleging therein, that he had indulged in the act of disobedience of the instructions and
for using inappropriate and insulting language against General Manager of NABARD. There was also charge of
tampering with the office record forcibly against him. He has given his explanation on 24.03.2017, which was
found unsatisfactory, hence the departmental inquiry conducted against him. In said inquiry, due opportunity of
being heard in accordance with the service conditions and as per the principles of natural justice were provided
to Mr. Suresh Dalvi. During pendency of inquiry, he was suspended vide order dated 16.03.2017 and after
completion of said inquiry, as per the rules his suspension was revoked and he was inflicted with the punishment
of reduction of his pay by two stages in the wage scale on permanent basis without affecting stagnation
increment and leave regularized by granting extra-ordinary leave without pay and allowance, not counting for
increment and not counting for qualifying service for pension. It is contended that by administrative circular
dated 21.03.2017, applications were sought from the employees of Group ‘B’ of NABARD for promotion. The
eligible employees including Mr. Suresh Dalvi appeared in said promotion test. However, as Mr. Suresh Dalvi
was subjected to departmental inquiry, hence his result of interview has been kept in sealed cover, which cannot
be disclosed to anyone in view of instructions/rules/circulars governing the service conditions of Mr. Suresh
Dalvi. It is contended that the result was declared on 19.06.2017 and the interview result of Mr. Suresh Dalvi is
kept in sealed cover as per circular dated 04.03.2008 in view of penalty imposed on him in pursuance of
disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that Mr. Suresh Dalvi cannot claim promotion as a matter of right and
the rules for sealed cover have been properly observed. It is contended that there are no malafides on the part of
NABARD and its action is legal, just and proper. Lastly, it is contended that statement of claim may be rejected.
8.
In view of rival pleadings of both the parties, my learned predecessor framed issues vide
Exh. O-6. The said issues are reproduced hereinbelow with my findings thereon for reasons to follow :-
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1.
Whether the Second Party proves his
status as workman within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, Yes.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1609
1947 ?
2.
Whether action of the First Party not acting
upon the recommendations of the selection
panel, which has been kept in sealed cover
in respect of interview/selection of Mr. S.M.
Dalvi even after conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings is proper, legal and justified?
No.
3.
Whether secret circular No. NB/HRMD.PA./
6961-7038/PA-29/2007-08 dt. 04.03.2008 is
applicable to the cases of internal selection ?
No.
4.
Whether the said circular was applicable for
employees of the First Party in normal course ?
No.
5.
Whether Second Party is entitled for
If the result
grant of promotion to S.M. Dalvi with
in sealed
retrospective effect, full back salary with
cover is found
interest, seniority and all the incidental
in favour of
benefits ?
Mr.S.M. Dalvi,
then he is
entitled for
promotion with
retrospective effect,
full back salary and
incidental benefits.
5.
Whether Second Party is entitled for
The Second
opening the sealed cover before the Court ?
Party is
entitled for
opening
sealed cover
by General
Manager of
the First party
in presence of
Mr.S.M.Dalvi.
6.
What Award ?
…
As per final order.
REASONS
9.
In the instant case, the Second Party has examined Mr. Ramchandra Pisal, the President of
Second Party union at Exh. U-22 and the workman Mr. Suresh Dalvi at Exh. U-29. However, Mr. Ramchandra
Pisal remained absent after his initial cross examination and thereafter, never appeared for further cross
examination. Hence, as he is not subjected to cross examination, therefore, his evidence cannot be considered to
prove the case of Second Party union.
As to Issue No.1 :
10.
It is the contention of the Second Party that Mr. Suresh Dalvi is a workman performing
various duties since 03.02.1984. Mr. Suresh Dalvi has deposed in his evidence at Exh. U-29 that during his
tenure, he was not having any authority to sign any cheque, to initiate any domestic inquiry against any
employee and to involve in any policy decision of the First Party Bank. He deposed that during his entire tenure,
he worked as per direction of his superiors and considering his nature of duty, he was working in clerical
capacity, hence he is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He
specifically deposed that only Class III and Class IV employees can become member of union and he became
member of union since the year 1985. To prove said fact, he relied upon receipt about payment of subscription
1610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to the union at Exh. U-37. During cross examination of said witness, the said facts deposed by him are not
disputed. On the contrary, it was brought on record that he consulted the Secretary of NABARD Employees
Association i.e. union before giving evidence in the instant case of which he is member. It shows that he is the
member of the Second Party Union. He has denied during his cross examination that he was doing
administrative and managerial nature of work.
11.
In fact, in her evidence at Exh. C-14, Deepa Karani, the witness of the First Party has not
uttered a single word that Mr. Suresh Dalvi is not a workman and he was performing administrative and
managerial function. It is nowhere brought on record by way of evidence that Mr. Suresh Dalvi was
performing administrative, supervisory and managerial functions and he was not workman. On the contrary,
Mrs. Deepa Karani deposed during her cross examination that Mr. Suresh Dalvi was a workman and he was
allowed to appear in examination. She has also admitted that Mr. Suresh Dalvi is the member of Second Party
union. Actually, she referred Mr. Suresh Dalvi as workman in her cross examination. It means that the First
Party has not disputed the fact that Mr. Suresh Dalvi is a workman.
12.
Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it is duly proved that Mr. Suresh Dalvi is a
workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. I, therefore, answered Issue No. 1
in the affirmative.
As to Issue No. 2 to 6 :
13.
The facts which leads to framing of Issue Nos. 2 to 6 are same and dispute involved is in
respect of circular dated 04.03.2008 by virtue of which the result of Mr. Suresh Dalvi was kept in sealed cover.
The said dispute is to be considered while deciding said issues. Hence, in order to avoid repetition and for the
sake of brevity, I find it desirable to discuss and decide said issues together.
14.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the First Party raised objection that this Court is having
no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present reference as per the provisions of Section 10(1)(d) read with Section
12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the matter is related to wages of the workman Mr. Suresh Dalvi,
which comes under third schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the reference made to this Court is
perfectly legal and valid.
15.
It is the pleading of the Second Party and also disclosed in the evidence of its witness Mr.
Suresh Dalvi (Exh. U-29) that, he was suspended on 16.03.2017 for alleged incident of misconduct took place
on 15.03.2017. Thereafter, the management of First Party conducted inquiry. On completion of inquiry, his
suspension was revoked vide office order dated 30.06.2017 (Exh. U-38). The period of his suspension was from
16.03.2017 to 02.07.2017. His suspension was regularized by granting extra ordinary leave without pay and
allowance and not counting for increment and not reckoning towards qualifying service for pension. After
conclusion of inquiry, he was awarded punishment of penalty of reducing his pay by two stages in the pay scale
on permanent basis.
16.
It is disclosed in the evidence of Mr. Suresh Dalvi (Exh. U-29) that First Party management
issued administrative circular dated 21.03.2017 (Exh. U-39) inviting the applications from the employees in
Group B for appearing in test/interview for promotion as per the provisions of bipartite settlements. He was also
called for interview for promotion and he attended the interview on 22.05.2017. He filed the list at Exh. U-41
showing that he was called for interview. He deposed that he appeared for all three tests, but not selected and his
result was kept in sealed cover. The results of other candidates were declared. He filed the list of candidates
who were promoted at Exh. U-40. He was intimated vide letter dated 19.09.2017 at Exh. U-42 that his result is
kept in sealed cover and the findings in the sealed cover shall not be acted upon as the competent authority
imposed penalty on him in respect of charge-sheet dated 15.05.2017. Thereafter, he requested to First Party
management to supply the copy of instructions/rules/provisions, which are in vogue and the First Party
furnished him the copy of instructions which is in vogue i.e. circular dated 04.03.2008 (Exh. U-43), wherein it is
mentioned that as per said circular, his result is kept in sealed cover. In Exh. U-43, it is mentioned that if a
penalty is imposed on the employee as a result of disciplinary proceedings, then the findings in the sealed cover
shall not be acted upon. The Second Party specifically contended that instructions/circular/letter dated
04.03.2008 at Exh. U-43 was kept secret by the First Party management and clandestinely applied against Mr.
Suresh Dalvi, which is against the principles of natural justice. Mr. Suresh Dalvi deposed that he requested the
First Party for opening sealed cover and to inform him about his result vide letter dated 24.09.2017 (Exh. U-44).
17.
The Second Party specifically pleaded that the secret letter dated 04.03.2008 was converted
into a rule by the First Party with malafide intention. It is also pleaded that letter dated 04.03.2008 is not
applicable to internal selection and legally it is not a circular but a formal letter having no force of law without
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1611
sanction from Board of Directors of NABARD. It is contended that it is advisory in nature and cannot be
considered as rule for employees of NABARD.
18.
Per contra, the First Party contended that the charge-sheet served on Mr. Suresh Dalvi on
15.03.2017, as he was indulged in act of disobedience of instructions and for using inappropriate and insulting
language against General Manager of NABARD and after inquiry he was inflicted with punishment of reducing
his pay by two stages in the wage scale on permanent basis. It is contended that Mr. Suresh Dalvi was punished
in departmental inquiry held against him and hence, his result of interview was kept in sealed cover as per
circular dated 04.03.2008 and there is no malafide on the part of First Party.
19.
The First Party has examined Deepa Karani, Assistant General Manager at Exh. U-41 to prove
its contention. She deposed that Mr. Suresh Dalvi was suspended during pendency of inquiry and at that time he
was called along-with other candidates for interview on 22.05.2017 for promotion from Group 'B' to Grade A
(Assistant Manager) and the result of interview was declared on 19.06.2017. She deposed that as per the Office
Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 of Government of India, the result of Mr. Suresh Dalvi was kept in sealed
cover to be acted upon on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. As per clause 3.1 of said circular, the
sealed cover was not opened and the result of Mr. Suresh Dalvi was not declared. She specifically deposed that
as per rules of NABARD, Mr. Suresh Dalvi cannot claim any relief pertaining to any promotion.
20.
The said witness i.e. Deepa Karani has not referred the letter/circular dated 04.03.2008 at Exh.
U-43 in her evidence as per which the First Party has kept the result of interview of Mr. Suresh Dalvi in sealed
cover. On the contrary, she referred the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 of Government of India. The
said Office Memorandum is not proved by the witness of the First Party. However, even if for the sake of
argument and not otherwise if said Office Memorandum is considered, even then its contents clearly shows that
it is applicable to the Government servants against whom the disciplinary proceedings are pending. Obviously,
the NABARD of which Mr. Suresh Dalvi is employee is the Government Undertaking and hence, he is the
employee of NABARD and not Government servant. Generally, the employee, whose salary is being paid out of
the consolidated funds of India is a central government employee. Hence, the employees of NABARD, whose
salary being paid by NABARD cannot said to be Government employee. In Office Memorandum dated
14.09.1992, it is nowhere mentioned that it is applicable to the employees of NABARD and even its copy was
not sent to NABARD. Moreover, there is nothing brought on record to show that Office Memorandum dated
14.09.1992 was adopted and made applicable by NABARD to its employees by passing any resolution in this
regard by its Board of Directors. In fact, Deepa Karani (Exh.C-41) deposed that she is unable to say that
whether the staff rules are silent in respect of directions included in Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992.
Therefore, in such circumstances, Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 is not applicable to NABARD i.e.
First Party.
21.
So far as secret letter dated 04.03.2008 at Exh. U-43 is concerned, the said letter is issued by
General Manager of NABARD and not by its Board of Director. Moreover, as discussed above the said secret
letter is not referred by the witness of the First Party in her evidence and she nowhere deposed that as per said
letter the result of Mr. Suresh Dalvi was kept in sealed cover. As per the NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982, which
is updated upto 11.2.2019, there is no provision of keeping result of employees undergone departmental inquiry
and punished in sealed cover. As per the Rule 4 of NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982, no new rule or alteration in
any existing rule shall have force until passed as a resolution of the Board and issued in the form of a circular
for circulation among the staff. The Rules 5 and 5A of NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982 are in respect of
delegation of power of Chairman and Managing Director of NABARD. However, there is nothing brought on
record to show that the rule mentioned in secret letter dated 04.03.2008 at Exh. U-43 was enforced by passing
any resolution as provided in Rule 4 of NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982. Moreover, there is nothing in secret letter
dated 04.03.2008 at Exh. U-43 to show that General Manager who issued said letter was delegated with power
by Chairman or Managing Director under Rule 5 and 5A of NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982 or authorized by
Board of Directors to issue said secret letter. As a last resort the learned counsel for the First Party at the time of
argument relied upon copy of internal communications of the year 2008 to prove that General Manager was
authorized to issue secret letter dated 04.03.2008. However, firstly, said document is not proved and even
otherwise as per the contents of said document, the draft circular about adopting procedure of sealed cover was
sent to law department for vetting. It is nowhere brought on record that law department has given approval to
said procedure. Moreover, in said document, it is nowhere provided that General Manager was authorized to
issue secret letter dated 04.03.2008. In fact, said document is in form of internal communications not reduced in
form of resolution and even not incorporated in staff rules. In staff rules i.e. NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982, there
is no procedure regarding keeping result of employees whose inquiry is pending in sealed cover.
1612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22.
The learned counsel for the First Party placed reliance on the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.
Janakiraman, 1991 II LLJ 570 (SC) to prove his contention regarding sealed cover procedure. However said
authority is in respect of as to when the sealed cover procedure has to be resorted to. In the present case, as
discussed above, the procedure of sealed cover is not applicable. Hence, the said authority on completely
different issue is not helpful to prove the contention of the learned counsel for the First Party.
23.
Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it is quite apparent that the secret letter dated
04.03.2008 having no force of law and it is simple letter issued by the General Manager and not converted into
the circular of staff rules applicable to the employees of First Party i.e. NABARD. Hence, certainly the action
of the First Party of keeping the result of Mr. Suresh Dalvi in sealed cover as per letter dated 04.03.2008 at Exh.
U-43 is not legal and justified. I also held that said secret letter/circular dated 04.03.2008 at Exh. U-43 is not
applicable to the cases of internal selection of the employees of the First Party. So, in such circumstances, the
Second Party is entitled to get open said sealed cover before the competent authority of the First Party i.e.
General Manager of the First Party. If the result in said sealed cover found in favour of Mr. Suresh Dalvi, then
he is entitled for grant of promotion with retrospective effect, seniority, full back salary in cadre of post to which
he could be promoted with incidental benefits. I, therefore, answered Issue Nos. 2 to 4 in the negative and Issue
Nos. 5 and 6 accordingly.
24.
In the result, I pass following order :-
ORDER
•It is hereby declared that secret circular No. NB.HRMD.PA./6961-7038/PA-29/2007-08 dated 04.03.2008 is
illegal and having no force of law.
•The Second Party is entitled for opening of sealed cover by General Manager of First Party in presence of Mr.
Suresh Dalvi.
•If the result of Mr. Suresh M. Dalvi in sealed cover is found in his favour i.e. granting promotion to him, then
the First Party is directed to grant promotion to him with retrospective effect from the date of his result with full
back salary in the cadre of post to which he could be promoted with all incidental benefits.
•The reference is answered accordingly.
•No order as to the costs.
•The copy of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publication.
Place : Pune
K.N. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2023
का.आ. 815.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj मैससा इरकॉन इंटरनेिनल जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] I-दिल्ली ds iapkV
(110/2019) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41011/10/2019-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2023
S.O. 815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 110/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court I
- Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s IRCON
International Limited and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/10/2019- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1613
ANNEXURE
Before the Justice Vikas Kuvar Shrivastava (Retd.) Presiding Officer,
Government of India Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
Cum – Labour Court-I, New Delhi
ID No.110/2019
Shri Shakti Singh Rana and Sh. Shyam Lal
Through Delhi Karamchari Sangh, Head Office W4,
In front of Kalkaji Bus Depot, Govind Puri, New Delhi- 110019.
Workman…
VERSUS
1.
M/s. IRCON International Limited,
C-4 District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi- 110017
2.
M/s. Surya Infra Project Private Limited,
Shop No. 10, 1st Floor, A- Block,
Omaxe Gurgaon Mall, Sohan Road,
Gurgaon (Haryana)- 122018.
3.
M/s. CMM Infraprojects Limited, 108,
Shalimar Corporate Centre, 8-B,
South Tukoganj,
Indore (M.P.) – 452001.
Management…
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-L-
41011/10/2019-IR(B.I) dated 16.04.2019 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 Service of Sh.Shakti Singh Rana and Sh. Shyam Lal have been terminated w.e.f. 15.12.2017 &
27.12.2017 respectively by the management of M/s Surya Infra Project Private Limited, M/s CMM
Infraprojects Limited a contractor the management of IRCON International Limited, illegally and / or
unjustifiably and whether their earned wages have been withheld illegally and /or unjustifiably and if yes
what relief is the workman entitled to and what direction are necessary in this regard?’
2.
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.
3.
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 favor of the fact that 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.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor 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.
JUSTICE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
1614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2023
का.आ. 816.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj bykgkckn cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] िनबाि-II ds iapkV (29/2022) izdkf'kr djrh
gSA
[सं. ,y-39025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-16]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2023
S.O. 816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.29/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Dhanbad-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B-II)-16]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, DHANBAD, SHRAM
BHAWAN, MURLINAGAR, DHANBAD.
In the matter of I.D. under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
ID NO. 29/2022
PARTIES
WORKMAN
:
Sri Rohit Kumar, S/o Late Sunil Ram
Vs.
MANAGEMENT
: The General Manager/Zonal Manager, Zonal
Office, Indian Bank/Allahabad Bank, 1st Floor, Govind Bhawan,
Patna – 800001
The Branch Manager, Indian
Bank/Allahabad Bank, Muradpur Branch, B.N. College, Patna.
The Branch Manager, Indian Bank/Allahabad Bank, Hanuman
Nagar Branch, Hanuman Nagar, Patna – 800002.
ORDER
06.01.2022
A petition has been filed on 16.12.2022 under section 2A of the Industrial Dispute, 1947 and
registered as ID 29/2022.
Provisions U/S 2A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 reads as following
“1.
Where any employer discharge, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of
an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected
with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be
an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to
the dispute.”
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-
section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the
dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty five days from the date he has made the application
to the conciliation officer of the appropriate Government for the conciliation of the dispute, and in
receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1615
adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to
such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate
Government.”
3.
The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the labour court or Tribunal
before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise
termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).”
Whereas the petitioner has stated in his petition that he had been terminated from the service in the
month of March, 2019 (specific date of March 2019 not mentioned) and whereas the petition U/S 2 A of the I.D.
Act, 1947 has been filed on 16.12.2022, that is , beyond the expiry of three years.
As the dispute has been raised after expiry of statutory period of three years after claimed termination
of the service of the workman (March, 2019), the application is time barred as per sub-section (3) of Section 2A
of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Hence, the instant petition registered as ID 29/2022 is rejected on the
ground of period of limitation.
Dr. S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2023
का.आ. 817.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj iwosZrj रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] लखनऊ ds iapkV (26/2017) izdkf”kr djrh
gSA
[सं. ,y -41012/44/2016-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2023
S.O. 817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.26/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Eastern Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-41012/44/2016-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 26/2017
Ref. No. 41012/44/2016 dated 30.05.2017
BETWEEN
Working President, Rail Sevak Sangh
Shri D.P. Avasthi, 49 Tilak Nagar, Lucknow
Vs
1. The Mandal Railway Manager, Eastern Railway
Ashok Marg, Lucknow
2. Seniors Mandal Personal Officer, Eastern Railway
1616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
DRM Office Ashok Marg, Lucknow
AWARD
By order No. 41012/44/2016 dated 30.05.2017, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication with following
schedule:
“क्या प्रबंधन, पूर्वोत्तर रेलर्वे, लखनऊ द्वारा श्री ज्ञानेन्द्र बहादुर पुत्र स्व0 शोहरत, एक्स रेलर्वे कामगार की
मृत्यु के उपरांत देय समापक का भुगतान उसके पुत्र को न करना करुणामूलक आधार पर नौकरी न ददया
जाना न्यायोदित एर्वं र्वैध है? यदद नहीं तो र्वादी दकस राहत को पाने का हकदार है?”
In pursuance to the above said reference, the workman on 16.08.2017 filed his claim statement, W-4, inter alia
stating therein that father of applicant, Shohrat was a regular employee and was working on the post of Senior
Trackman [Gangman] under senior section Workman for engineer [P. Way] previously designated as P.W.I. at
North Eastern Railway, Biswa falls under administrative control of opposite parties, died during service on
31.01.2003.
It is further submitted in the claim petition that the wife of Late Sri Shohrat viz. had already died on 09.11.1986.
In view of the above said factual background he made a request to the respondent for giving him compassionate
appointment vide representations dated 28.03.2011, 06.062011, 21.03.2014, 22.05.2014, 19.11.2014 &
18.12.2014; but no heed has been paid; accordingly, be filed present adjunction case with following prayer:
“WHEREFORE as it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may very
kindly be pleased to answer the present reference in favour of claimant and against the
management/ opposite parties and it is requested that claimant Gyanendra Bahadur
the only son of deceased railway employee may be held entitled to receive payment of
all retiral dues and also appointment on compassionate grounds in interest of justice.”
Sri Narendra Nath, learned counsel for the respondent, in rebuttal, placed reliance on the following facts as
stated in the written statement:
“6. That in reply to the para 3 of the claim petition only this much is admitted that Smt.
Phoolkali, the wife of the deceased employee late Shorat, had died on 09.11.1986. However it is
absolutely denied that the applicant Sri Gyanendra Bahadur is her son and was born on
09.11.1986, when Smt. Phoolkali has died.
7. That the lies of the applicant with regard to his date of birth would be clear by the following
contradictory documents:
(i) Marksheet of class 5 -2002-2003, issued by Hd. Master/ Pachpedwa, wherein date of birth as
recorded is 01.07.1992 and the same is confirmed vide Hd. Master's letter dated 04.03.2016.
(ii) Mark sheet of Jr. High School 2007 issued by Maha Vidhyalay Haraiya, Chandrasi
contains, date of birth as recorded therein is 09.11.1986.
The copy of the letter dated 04.03.2016, marksheet of Class-5, 2002-2003 and marksheet of Jr.
High School 2007 are annexed herewith as Annexure No.1, 2 and 3 respectively.
8. That from the above documents mark sheets, the applicant has mislead the railway
administration as well as to the Hon'ble Court with regard to his date of birth as well as his
paternity.
The copy of reply dated 17.05.2016 filed by Sr. D.P.O. N.E. Railway, Lucknow, before the
Regional Labour Commissioner, Aliganj, Lucknow is annexed herewith as Annexure No.4.
………………………
10. That in reply to the para 6 and 7 of the claim 10. petition, it is submitted that the minimum
educational qualification for appointment in Railways is High School pass. The applicant is
since only VIIIth class pass, as such he is not eligible for appointment in Railways under the
existing Rules.
The applicant has also, accordingly, been advised by Divl. Railway Manager (P), N.E. Railway,
Lucknow (Opposite Party No.2) vide their letter No.E/1/227/3/dated 22.06.2018. The copy of
letter dated 22.06.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure No.5.
11. That in reply to the para 8 of the claim petition, it is submitted that with regard to payment
of settlement dues of late Shohrat, ex employee, since the paternity of the applicant is doubtful,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1617
hence he has been advised to submit declaratory decree from the competent Court of law vide
letter dated 30.01.2019 issued by Divl. Rly. Manager, ) N.E. Railway, Lucknow.
The photocopy of letter dated 30.01.2019 is annexed herewith as Annexure No.6.”
After hearing Sri Narendra Nath, learned counsel for the respondent and going through the record, the position
which emerges out is that after death of Shohrat Ali who was working as Tack Man at Biswa with the
respondent an application has been submitted by the workman for compensate appointment. As per the case of
respondent along with his application he submitted a marksheet of class fifth for the year 2002-2003, issued by
the Pradhanacharya, Harriaya, Distt. Balrampur in which the date of birth of the claimant was mentioned as
01.07.1992.
Another document which is annexed is mark sheet of Junior High School 2007, in which date of birth of the
claimant was mentioned as 09.11.1986, issued by the Purv Madhyamik Vidhayalay, Harriaya, Chandausi.
In view of the above said facts and taking into the consideration the service record of late Sri Shaukat Ali in
which he has mentioned that the mother of the claimant had died on 09.11.1986 and in the service record of late
Sri Shaukat Ali has been mentioned name of his son as Virendra, so, so taking into consideration a notice dated
30.01.2019 has issued which reads as under:
“पूर्वोत्तर रेलर्वे
कार्ाालर्
मण्डल रेल प्रबन्धक (का०)
लखनऊ।
दिनाांक 30.01.2019सेर्वा में,
श्री ज्ञानेन्द्र बहािुर
पुत्र स्व0 सोहरत ग्राम मझौली पो० गैसडी दिला बलरामपुर।
दर्वषर्ः घोषणात्मक प्रमाण-पत्र प्रस्तुत करने के सम्बांध में ।
आपके द्वारा इस मण्डल कार्ाालर् में समापक भुगतान हेतु आर्वेिन दकर्ा गर्ा था। इसके सन्दभा में
आपको सूदित दकर्ा िाता है दक आप सक्षम न्यार्ालर् में घोषणात्मक र्वाि िाखखल कर घोषणात्मक
दिग्री प्राप्त कर इस कार्ाालर् में उपलब्ध करार्ें दिससे आपके मामले में उदित प्रशासदनक दनणार् दलर्ा
िा सके। इस पर सक्षम अदधकारी का आिेश प्राप्त है।
ह० (अपदित)
कृते मण्डल रेल प्रबांधक (कादमाक)
पूर्वोत्तर रेलर्वे, लखनऊ ।“
However, no reply has been submitted by the claimant.
Thus, taking into consideration, the above said facts as well as the fact that neither any rejoinder affidavit nor
voral/documentary evidence have been filed on behalf of the claimant to support his claim, as such, the
adjudication case is liable to be dismissed in view of the law as laid by Hon’ble High Court in the case of V. K.
Raj Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to
prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the
Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination
of service if is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out
grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If
the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be
entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, iabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as
under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit
Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P.
1618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in
the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be
answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the
employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no
evidence is led.”
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v.
Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519 has held as under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the
shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead
evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any
evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the
reference has to be dismissed.”
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
LUCKNOW.
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
21st April, 2023.
नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2023
का.आ. 818.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj mrj iwosZrj रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] लखनऊ ds iapkV (57/2015)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y -41012/72/2014-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2023
S.O. 818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.57/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Eastern
Railway and their workmen.
[No. L-41012/72/2014-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 57/2015
No. L-41011/72/2014-IR(B-I) dated 31.08.2015
BETWEEN
Aanchal Sangthan Secretary, Rail Sevak Sangh,North Eastern Railway, C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49 Tilak Nagar,
Lucknow - 226004
Vs
1. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway
DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1619
2. Coaching Department Officer, North Eastern Railway
Lucknow
AWARD
By order No. No. L-41011/72/2014-IR(B-I) dated 31.08.2015, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication with
following schedule:
“क्या प्रबंधन, पूर्वोत्तर रेलर्वे, लखनऊ द्वारा श्री अनर्वर श्री अली पुत्र श्री ददलशेर ररटायर्ड को लारजस
योजना में दनयुक्ति न ददया जाना न्यायोदित एर्वं बैध है? यदद नहीं तो कामगार/श्रमसंघ दकस राहत को
पाने का हक़दार है ?”
Facts of the case:
Brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) The claimant/workman Shri Dilsher was appointed in group 'D' service as Khallasi on 24.04.1982 promoted
to the post of Helper Khallasi in the same group of service under coaching depot officer Carriage & Wagon)
NER, Lucknow, which is classified under Safety Category.
(b) While working as helper Khalasi under opposite Parties the Railway management formulated a policy for
"Safety Related Retirement Scheme" Covering the employees Pay of safety categories with grade of Rs. 1800
vide its letter dated 01.01.2013 as per the said Scheme the workman who on working in Safety Category may
submit their applications for appointment of their one Son in class IV cadre Subject to the condition that they
voluntarily retire, with condition that the workman submitting the said application should have completed more
than 20 years of the service on the cutoff Date for eligibility which was fixed as 01.01.2013.
In pursuance of the said notification the workman/Dilsher submitted his application on 18.01.2013 for seeking
appointment of his son Anwar Ali under the said LARSGESS Scheme.
(c)
As the per the case of the claimant/workman, his son, Anwar Ali, was allowed to appear in the test for
selection against the said group 'D' Post and was found suitable for appointment of Khalasi which is group 'D'
Post.
However, due to his illness he was transferred and posted in the signal Department against the Post of
Chaukidaar vide letter dated 25.02.2014 which is classified as non-safety category in Railways.
(d)
Accordingly it has been prayed by the claimant that his son was entitled for appointment/posting under
LARSGESS SCHEME on the basis of cutoff date 01.01.2013but opposite parties declined to consider the
appointment/posting of his son Anwar Ali in LARSGESS SCHEME despite the fact that workman was fully
entitled to get the benefit of appointment of his son under the LARSGESS SCHEME on the basis of requisite
eligibility on cutoff date i.e. 01.01.2013.
On behalf of the respondent in its written statement it has been pleaded as under:
Claimant while posted as helper Khalasi under Chief Depot Officer (in short C.D.O.) N.E. RI.y, Lucknow, was
declared medically unfit for the post of helper Khalasi falling under B-1 Medical Category by the Chief Medical
Supdt. N.E. Rly., Badshahnagar, Lucknow vide their Medical Certificate dated 12.10.2012.
However, the claimant had requested vide his application dated 24.12.2012 for re-medical examination. And
pursuant to his application dated 24.12.2012 a medical Board was constituted to re-examine the applicant. The
medical Board after re-examination of the applicant also found that applicant was unfit for medical category B-
1, B-2 and C-1; however, found fit for C-2 medical category vide medical board's recommendation dated
04.07.2013.
Keeping in view the said facts, applicant was medically decategorised for the post of helper Khalasi, was posted
as Chowkidar in the signal Deptt. in pay Band 5200- 20000+ 2000 G.P. under Sr. Sec. Engineer/ Sig./ Aishbagh
vide office order dated 25.02.2014.
And after his medical decategorization being unfit from the post of Helper Khalasi w.e.f. 12.10.2012 vide Chief
Medical Superintendent's Certificate dated 12.10.2012, applicant applied for appointment of his son Anwar Ali
under the Scheme of the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (in
short LARSGESS Scheme) vide application dated 18.01.2013.
It is specifically stated in the written statement that the scheme of LARSGESS was introduced by Railway
Board for the benefit of Staff of Safety Categories only.
1620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Further, the medical certificate dated 12.10.2012 issued by Chief Medical Superintendent, N.E. Rly.,
Badshahnagar would show that the applicant was declared medically unfit for the post of Helper Khalasi w.e.f.
12.10.2012. Thereafter he did not work as helper Khalasi.
Accordingly, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that after his medical decategorization being medically
unfit for the safety category post of helper Khalasi w.e.f. 12.10.2012, the applicant was no more in the cadre of
Helper Khalasi.
And applicant also did not seek his voluntary retirement after his medical decategorization and joined duty on a
alternative job of Chowkidar, a non-safety category post. Moreover, a candidate qualifying the written test or
included in the panel has no right to appointment. Accordingly, it has been pleaded that claim as filed by the
applicant is prima facie misconceived and devoid of merit, hence deserved to be summarily dismissed.
After filing of statement of claim on behalf of claimant on 18.11.2015 and written statement on behalf of
respondent on 09.09.2016, rejoinder affidavit was field on 27.10.2016.
On 09.02.2017 on behalf of the respondent following documents were filed by way of application, M-10:
(1) ADMO, NE Rly, Aishbaagh’s letter dated 19.10.2012.
(2) Medical Certificate dated 12.10.2012, 4.7.2013 and 5.7.2013.
(3) Divl. Rly, Manger (P) NE Rly, Lucknow’s letter Dt. 25.2.2014.
(4) Application Dt. 18.1.2013 by Sri Dilsher.”
On 24.4.2017, on behalf of the workman following documents were filed, on record as W-11:-
1. Application for appointment showing cut of date 01.01.2013.
2. Selection list showing name of Anwar All at serial no. 116.
3. Letter dated 26.08.2003 issued by Divisional personnel officer addressed To C.D.O. NER
Lucknow.
4. Letter dated 20.04.2014 showing de- Categories Dates posting from C & W depot to signal
Department”
Thereafter workman Dilsher filed his evidence on affidavit (examination-in-chief) on 09.09.2017, was cross-
examined on 23.02.2018.
On behalf of respondent the evidence by way of affidavit (examination-in-chief) of following persons have been
filed: (a) Rahul Yadav, the then Assistant Personnel Officer, NER, Lucknow on 21.012.2018; (b) R.K. Pandey,
Assistant Personnel Officer, NER, Lucknow on 25.02.2019; (c) Ravi Kant Mishra, Assistant Personnel Officer,
NER, Lucknow on 25.05.2019; and (d) Anand Kumar, Assistant Personnel Officer, NER, Lucknow on
18.02.2020.
When the matter was taken up for hearing none appeared on behalf of claimant in spite of the fact that notices
were sent to him for ex-parte hearing.
Accordingly, I have heard Sri Narendera Nath, learned counsel for respondent and gone through the record.
Core question to be decided in the present case whether the prayer as made by the claimant for seeking
employment of his son under the scheme known as “LARSGESS Scheme”, he is entitled to the same or not?
In order to decide the said controversy, it is relevant to state the relevant schemes which is as follows:
“RBE No. 4/2004.
No. E(P&A) I-2001/RT-2(KW) New Delhi, dated 02.01.2004.
The GM/CAOS/OSDS
All Indian Railways & Production Units etc (As per mailing list)
Sub: Safety Related Retirement Scheme - Drivers and Gangmen
Arising out of deliberations in the Workshop on Safety on Indian Railways conducted on 12th
and 13th of July, 2003 the Ministry of Railways have decided to introduce a Safety Related
Retirement Scheme for the categories of Gangmen and Drivers.
2.
The main features of the Scheme are as follows:-
(i) The Scheme may be called Safety Related Retirement Scheme. The Scheme will cover two
safety categories viz, Drivers (excluding shunters) and Gangmen whose working has a
critical bearing on safety of train operations and track maintenance. The scheme has been
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1621
framed on the consideration that with advancing age, the physical fitness and reflexes of
staff of these categories deteriorate, thereby causing a safety hazard.
Drivers: This category is directly rest ansible for the running of trains. Running duties
demand continued attention and alertness. The element of stress combined with uncertain
hours of work entailed in the performance of running duties over long periods of time tend
to have a deleterious psychosomatic effect on their health. There is a slowing down of
reflexes with the passage of time making them vulnerable to operational lapses.
Gangmen: This category is responsible for the proper maintenance of tracks. Their duties
involve heavy manual labour in the laying of tracks, repair of tracks, patrolling etc. Unlike
workshops/locosheds. all this labour is performed in the open environment, they are subjected
to the vagaries of extreme weather conditions, non- availability of fork lifts, EOT cranes, wheel
barrow etc. As a result the infirmities associated with the aging processes and spinal and back
problems catches up quite early in life.
These categories, work in conditions, in which fatigue sets in earlier, than in the case of staff
who work indoors or within station limits or in depots and workshops. Although the other
categories nomenclatured as safety categories also have a vital role to play in ensuring
operational safety, the nature of their duties, IS less arduous. Therefore no other category other
than Gangmen and Drivers is included in the Scheme. For the same reason, shunters who
perform less strenuous, shift wise, duties within station yards, will also not be included in the
scheme.
(ii) Under the Scheme, Drivers and Gangmen in the age group of 50 to 57 years may seek
retirement.
(iii) Employment to a suitable ward of the employee, whose application for retirement under the
scheme is accepted, will be considered.
(iv) The employee should have completed 33 years of qualifying service in order to be eligible
for seeking retirement under this scheme.
(v) The request for retirement will be on a voluntary basis and there will be no element of
compulsion on the part of the Administration.
(vi) The ward will be considered for appointment only in the lowest recruitment grade of the
respective category from which the employee seeks retirement, depending upon his/her
eligibility and suitability, but not in any other category.
(vii) Applications from those who propose to retire under this scheme will be taken once in a
year. The cut off date for reckoning the eligibility of employees for seeking retirement under this
scheme will be 30th June of the respective year. All conditions of appointment for the ward of
such retires such as age limits, educational qualifications etc will also be determined with
reference to that date.
(viii) The last date for submission of requests for retirement and consideration of, a ward for
appointment under the scheme, will be the 31st of July of the *respective year.
(ix) Employees who desire to withdraw their requests for retirement may be allowed to do so,
not later than 30 September of the respective year. No request for withdrawal of request will be
entertained thereafter.
(x) The discretion to accept the request for retirement will vest with the administration
depending upon the shortage of staff, physical fitness and the suitability of the ward for
appointment in the category of Driver/Gangmen as the case may be.
(xi) Those who have completed 33 years of qualifying service and are in the age group of 55 to
57 years would be considered in the first phase of the scheme to be followed by those in the age
group of 53 years onwards but less than 55 years.
(xii) The conditions of eligibility, In the case of wards, being considered for appointment would
be the same as prescribed for direct recruitment from the open market.
1622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(xiii) Suitability of the wards will be assessed in the same manner as is being done in the case of
direct recruitment. The assessment will be done through respective Railway Recruitment
Boards. The request of the employee for retirement under this scheme would be considered only
if the ward is considered suitable for appointment in all respects, including medical fitness.
(xiv) Since the Safety Related Retirement Scheme is a package having no nexuses with any of
the existing schemes, no weightage towards qualifying service will be admissible to the
employee who seeks retirement under this scheme. The wards appointed under this scheme will
not be allowed to change their category, except as is being allowed under the already existing
rules.
(xv) For the purpose of reckoning eligibility for residential accommodation, wards appointed
under this scheme will be treated at par, with those appointed through direct recruitment, from
the open market; the terms of regularization of accommodation as applicable to the wards of
employees appointed on compassionate basis, will not be applicable in their case.
3. After the successful Implementation of the first phase of the scheme, the implementation of
the second phase covering employees with less than 33 years of qualifying service would be
considered for clearance by the Railway Board.
4. The Scheme will come into force from the date of issue of this letter.
5. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways.”
“No E(P&A)1-2004/RT-5 New Delhi, dated 12-03-2008.
The General Manager,
All Indian Railways.
Sub: Safety Related Retirement Scheme – Drivers and Gangmen.
The Safety Related Retirement Scheme (SRRS) for the categories of Drivers and
Gangmen who are directly involved in operation of trains has been introduced vide Board's letter No.
E(P&A)1-2001/RT-2 (KW) dated 02.01.2004. This scheme has been introduced on the consideration that
with advancing age the physical fitness and reflexes of staff of these categories deteriorates, thereby
causing a safety hazard. The employees of the said categories within the age group of 55-57 years can
seek retirement under the scheme. Such employees are compensated by offering job to their suitable
wards in the respective categories.
2. The cut off date for reckoning the eligibility of a railway employee and his ward is 30th June.
The last date for submission of requests is 31st July and the last date for withdrawal of such
requests is 30th September of the respective year. The requests under the SRRS are thereafter to
be processed by the railways accordingly. Request for retirement may be accepted only if the
ward is found suitable for recruitment in all respect including medical fitness. As such,
retirement of the employee and recruitment of the ward take place simultaneously.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1623
3. In view of the upper age limit for the employees seeking retirement, the process of
recruitment of wards required to be completed by the end of the respective year so that the
concerned employees should not cross upper age limit maximum by more than six months.
Instruction in this regard were also issued vide Board's letter of even number dated 25.7.06.
4- It has come to the notice that the instructions conveyed vide Board's letter dt. 25.07.2006 are
not being followed by the Railways and they are taking much time in completing the process of
recruitment of the wards with the result the concerned employees cross upper age limit by more
than 1-2 years. As such the purpose of introduction of the scheme is being defeated.
5 Board has taken a serious view in the matter. It is, therefore, re-iterated that process of
recruitment of eligible wards of the eligible employees should be completed well in time so as
the retirement of the employee and recruitment of the ward take place by 31st December of the
respective year positively as per the time schedule enclosed.
6. Further while submitting the panel of successful wards for recruitment to the competent
authority for approval, the concerned CPO should also certify that he was personally satisfied
that the whole process of recruitment of wards has been completed within the time schedule
fixed by Railway Board.”
“RBE No. 131/2010.
No. E(P&A)I-2010/RT-2 New Delhi, dated 11.09.2010.
The General Managers, All Indian Railways.
Sub: Safety Related Retirement Scheme covering safety categories with Grade Pay of .1800/-.
Please refer to Board's letter No. E(P&A)I-2001/RT-2 (KW) dated 02.01.2004 regarding
introduction of Safety Related Retirement Scheme (SRRS) for Drivers and Gangmen,
2. It has now been decided to extend the benefit of Scheme to other safety categories of staff
with a grade pay of Rs. 1800/-p.m. The qualifying service has been reduced from 33 years to 20
years and the eligibility age group from 55-57 years to 50-57 years for seeking retirement
under the Scheme in the case of Safety categories with Grade Pay of 1800. The list of Safety
categories covered under the Scheme is enclosed as Annexure.
2.1 It has also been decided to modify the nomenclature of the Scheme as Liberalized Active
Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) with Grade Pay
of .1800. However, the employment under the Scheme would be guaranteed only to those found
eligible/suitable and finally selected as per procedure.
3. The condition of qualifying service (i.e. 33 years) and age group (i.e 55-57 years) for Drivers
will remain unchanged.
1624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 20, 2023/ VAISAKHA 30, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. It is also reiterated that the retirement of the employee be considered only if the ward is
found suitable in all respects. Retirement of the employee and appointment of the ward should
take place simultaneously.
5. The other terms and conditions of the Scheme will remain unchanged.
6. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways.”
Reverting to the facts of the present case, admitted position which emerges out that applicant while posted as
helper Khalasi in Chief Depot Officer, in NER was declared medically unfit, in this regard a certificate dated
12.10.2012 was issued by the Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, Badshah Nagar, Lucknow, a copy of
which is filed as annexure No. 1 to the written statement.
Thereafter, applicant again made a request for re-medical examination by application dated 14.12.2012.
Accordingly, he was re-examined by the Medical Board and in this regard medical report was field by the
respondent dated 04.07.2013 (annexure no. 2). And as per the said report he was found unfit for medical
category B-1, B-2 and C-1; however, found fit for C-2 medical category.
Accordingly, he was given appointment on the post of Chowkidar and worked, discharged his duties on the said
post (Chowkidar) even after 57 years.
As per facts on record, in order to entitled the benefit for LARSGESS Scheme employee has to be working on
the post which falls under safety category with Grade Rs. 1800/-, getting employment of his son, provided
he/employee having age of 55-57 years, also opt for voluntary retirement.
Needless to mention herein that from the material on record the positon which emerged out, applicant does not
come within the ambit of the said Scheme i.e. LARSGESS Scheme because, he has not submitted voluntary
retirement which is one of the mandatory condition of Scheme and worked as Chowkidar even after the age of
57 years when he was medically decategorised as C-2 and appointed on the said post So, it is evident from the
cross-examination of the claimant which took place on 23.02.2018, relevant portion of the same is quoted herein
below:
“वतामान में वतामान में मैं चौकीिार के पि पर o/o Section Engineer (Signal), NER, Lko में कायारत हं
इसके पूवा में मैं LKo Jn. में CDO के आिीन खलासी के पि पर काया था.
मुझे light duty जलखकर Medical Board ने भेिा था, मैं निीं बता सकता दक B-1, B-2 category में
unfit घोजषत हुआ था या निीं.
यि किना सिी िै दक मैंने VRS Scheme Opt की थी. कागि सं. 10/8 में द्वारा िी गई
एप्लीकेिन िै जिसे CDO ने 18.01.2013 को forward दकया िै.
मैंने उि application कागि सं. M-12/1 – 12/2 के अनुपालन में िी थी. यि किना गलत िै दक मेरी
जनयुजि चौकीिार के पि पर 25.02.2014 को हुई. खुि किा 21.03.2014 को चौकीिार के पि पर
जनयुजि हुई.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : मई 20, 2023/ वैिाख 30, 1945
1625
कागि सं. 8/15 के अनुसार मुझे चौकीिार के पि पर काया करने िेतु आिेजित दकया गया. यि सिी
िै दक मैंने VRS ना लेकर चौकीिार के पि पर काया दकया. मैंने मौजखक रूप से चौकीिारी का काया
ना कर सकने की असमथाता िाजिर की थी.”
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
MANOJ KUMAR
VERMA
Digitally signed by MANOJ
KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2023.05.27 11:43:12 +05'30'