5497 GI/2023

(2859)

रजजस्ट्री 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. 36]

नई दिल् ली, जसतम् बर 3—जसतम् बर 9, 2023, िजनवार/भाद्र 12—भाद्र 18, 1945

No. 36]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 3—SEPTEMBER 9, 2023, SATURDAY/BHADRA 12—BHADRA 18, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या िी जाती िज जजससे दक यि ृृ क संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी 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)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1349.—भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक अजिजनयम, 1955 की िारा 19 के खण्ड (च) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग

करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री अजनल कुमार िमाा के स्ट् ान ृर श्री अजय कुमार (जन् म जतज : 20.5.1969),

कायाकारी जनिेिक, भारतीय ररजवा बैंक को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आिेिों तक भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक के केंद्रीय बोडा में

जनिेिक के ृि ृर नाजमत करती िज।

[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-23092023-248930

CG-DL-W-23092023-248930

2860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2023

S.O. 1349(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of section 19 of the State Bank of India

Act, 1955, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Ajay Kumar (DOB: 20.5.1969), Executive Director,

Reserve Bank of India as director on the Central Board of State Bank of India with immediate effect and until further

orders, vice Shri Anil Kumar Sharma.

[eF. No. 6/3/2011-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1350.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंि और प्रकीर्ा उृबंि) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के ृजरा 3 के उृ-ृजरा (1) के सा

ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजान और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा 3 के खंड (ग) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, नीचे िी गई सारर्ी के कालम (3) में जवजनर्दिष्ट व्यजियों को

उि सारर्ी के कालम (2) में जवजनर्दिष्ट व्यजियों के स्ट् ान ृर कालम (1) में जवजनर्दिष्ट बैंकों के बोडा में तत्काल प्रभाव से

और अगले आिेिों तक, जनिेिक के प ृ में नाजमत करती िजैः-

(1)

(2)

(3)

बैंक आफ इंजडया

श्री सुब्रत िास

श्री अिोक नारायर्

(जन्मजतज : 28.10.1962)

बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र

श्री एम के वमाा

श्री संजीव प्रकाि

(जन्मजतज : 08.11.1972)

सेन्रल बैंक आफ इंजडया

श्री ृी.जे ॉमस

श्रीमती चाप लता कर

(जन्मजतज : 15.1.1967)

इंजडयन बैंक

डॉ. आदित्य गजिा

श्रीमती के. जनजखला

(जन्मजतज : 28.8.1969)

इंजडयन ओवरसीज बैंक

श्री जववेक अग्रवाल

श्रीमती सोनाली सेनगुप्ता

(जन्मजतज : 04.9.1968)

ृंजाब नजिनल बैंक

श्री अजनल कुमार जमश्र

श्रीमती उमा िंकर

(जन्मजतज : 29.8.1966)

यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया

श्री अप र् कुमार ससि

श्री प्रकाि बजलयारससि

(जन्मजतज : 25.6.1963)

[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2023

S.O. 1350(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph

3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government

hereby nominates the persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Director on the Board of the Banks

specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (2) of the said table, with immediate effect

and until further orders:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2861

(1)

(2)

(3)

Bank of India

Shri Subrata Das

Shri Ashok Narain

(DOB: 28.10.1962)

Bank of Maharashtra

Shri M K Verma

Shri Sanjeev Prakash

(DOB: 8.11.1972)

Central Bank of India

Shri P J Thomas

Smt Charulata Kar

(DOB:15.1.1967)

Indian Bank

Dr Aditya Gaiha

Smt K. Nikhila

(DOB: 28.8.1969)

Indian Overseas Bank

Shri Vivek Agrawal

Smt Sonali Sengupta

(DOB: 4.9.1968)

Punjab National Bank

Shri Anil Kumar Misra

Smt Uma Sankar

(DOB: 29.8.1966)

Union Bank of India

Shri Arun Kumar Singh

Shri Prakash Baliarsingh

(DOB: 25.6.1963)

[eF. No. 6/3/2011-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1351.—भारतीय ररजवा बैंक अजिजनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) की िारा 42 की उृ-िारा (6) के खंड

(क) के उृ-खंड (iii) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग

द्वारा 29 अप्रजल, 2013 को भारत के राजृत्र भाग II, खंड 3, उृ-खंड (ii) में प्रकाजित अजिसूचना सं्‍या का.आ. 953 के

अजिक्रमर् में त ा ऐसे अजिक्रमर् से ृूवा दकए गए अ वा लोृ दकए गए कायों को छोड़कर केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, यि

अजिसूजचत करती िज दक लगातार िो वर्ा के जलए रटयर-3 ििरी सिकारी बैंक के प ृ में वगीकृत दकए जाने िेतु अृेजक्षत

न्यूनतम जमाराजि के रख-रखाव के अध्यिीन, भारतीय ररजवा बैंक द्वारा जवत्तीय प ृ से सुिृढ़ और सुप्रबंजित ििरी

सिकारी बैंकों के जलए जनिााररत मानिंड को ृूरा करने वाले लाइसेंस प्राप्त रटयर-3 त ा रटयर-4 प्रा जमक (ििरी)

सिकारी बैंक उि उृ-खंड के प्रयोजना ा ृात्र जवत्तीय संस्ट् ान िोंगे।

यि अजिसूचना सरकारी राजृत्र में अृने प्रकािन की तारीख से प्रवृत्त िोगी।

[फा. सं. 3/16/2023-एसी]

चन्द्रगुप्त िौया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2023

S.O. 1351.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (6) of section

42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934(2 of 1934) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of

India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section

3, Sub-section (ii) vide number S.O. 953 dated the 29th April, 2013, except as respects things done or omitted to be

done before such supersession, the Central Government, hereby notifies that, licensed Tier 3 and Tier 4 Primary

(Urban) Co-operative Banks, fulfilling the criteria stipulated for Financially Sound and Well Managed Urban

Co-operative Banks by the Reserve Bank of India, subject to maintenance of minimum deposits required for

categorisation as a Tier 3 Urban Co-operative Bank for two consecutive years, would be the eligible financial

institutions for the purpose of the said sub-clause.

2. This Notification shall come into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. 3/16/2023-AC]

CHANDRAGUPTA SHAURYA, Under Secy.

2862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जविेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1352.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरर् में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के राजिूतवास ृनामा में श्री मनीर्, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को 31 अगस्ट्त,

2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवािन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(28)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-1)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2023

S.O. 1352.—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 Manish, Assistant

Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Warsaw, as Assistant Consular Officer to perform Consular services with

effect from August 31, 2023.

[F. No.T. 4330/01/2023(28)]

S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1353.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2

के खंड (क) के अनुसरर् में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के राजिूतवास ृनामा में श्री नवीन कुमार, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को

31 अगस्ट्त, 2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवािन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(29)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-1)

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2023

S.O. 1353.—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 Naveen Kumar,

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

services with effect from August 31, 2023.

[F. No.T.4330/01/2023(29)]

S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2863

कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत त ा ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षर् जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 5 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1354.—केन् द्र सरकार एति द्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज् य सरकार की अजिसूचना

जी.ओ.

(एमएस.)

सं.

113/2022/गृि

दिनांक

09.06.2022,

गृि

(एससी)

जवभाग

जतरुवनंतृुरम

[एस.आर.ओ सं. 579/2022 के प ृ में प्रकाजित] और अजिसूचना जी.ओ. (एमएस) सं. 259/2022/गृि दिनांक

09.12.2022, गृि (एससी) जवभाग जतरुवनंतृुरम [एस.आर.ओ सं. 1199/2022 के प ृ में प्रकाजित] के माध्यम से

जारी सम्मजत से मेससा यूजनवसाल रेसडग सोल्यूिन्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड द्वारा जवजभन्न व्यजियों से जलए गए जडृॉजजट्स, जो

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का केंद्रीय अजिजनयम 45), इनामी जचट और िन ृररचालन स्ट्कीम (ृाबंिी) अजिजनयम,

1978 (1978 का अजिजनयम 43) और अजवजनयजमत जनक्षेृ स्ट्कीम ृाबंिी अजिजनयम, 2019 (2019 का अजिजनयम

21) के प्राविानों के तित िंडनीय िज, संबंिी अग्रजलजखत ताजलका में उजल्लजखत मामलों एवं अन्य मामलों से जुड़े

अृराि(िों) का अन्वेर्र् त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्रयास िु्‍प्रेरर्ा और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र

एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराि का अन्वेर्र् करने के जलए दिल्ली

जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल राज्य में करती िज:-

ताजलका

क्रम सं.

ृुजलस ाने का

नाम

जिकायतकताा का नाम एवं ृता

एफआईआर सं. और

दिनांक

कानून की िारा

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

मलाप्ृुरम

श्री ंकामनी ृीके, ृुत्र रमन,

कू रत

िाउस,

ृेरुमृरंब,

मेलमरर, मलाप्ृुरम, केरल

अृराि सं. 315/2019

दिनांदकत 10.11.2019

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406, 420 और

506

मलाप्ृुरम

श्री जमिुन, ृुत्र रमन, कुन्ना

िाउस,

ओ ुकुंगल,

मत्ता ुर,

मलाप्ृुरम

अृराि सं. 333/2019

दिनांदकत 26.11.2019

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406, 420 और

506

कोट्टाक्कल

श्री िबीरअली, ृुत्र अिमि,

कझुजगल िाउस, ृरमजबलंगडी,

एडारीक्कोड, कोट्टाक्कल, मलाप्ृुरम

अृराि सं. 231/2019

दिनांदकत 09.11.2019

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406, 420 और

506

ृालक्काड टाउन

नॉ ा

श्री मनोज कुमार, ृुत्र केसवमरर

के,

अमृ म,

अंजबका

नगर,

अक े ारा, ृालक्काड

अृराि सं. 795/2020

दिनांदकत 25.07.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406 और 420

कोंगिु

श्री रामाकृ्‍र्न, ृुत्र नारायर्न,

कृुकड

िाउस,

कांजीक्कुलम,

कोंगिु, ृालक्काड

अृराि सं. 60/2020

दिनांदकत 24.02.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406 और 420

ृालक्काड कस्ट्बा

श्री

सजु

िेव,

ृुत्र

सुिेवन,

ृौरनामी, सुरजभ नगर, ृुिुस्ट्सेरी

डाकखाना,

ृालक्काड

कस्ट्बा,

ृालक्काड

अृराि सं. 445/2020

दिनांदकत 22.06.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406 और 420

ृेरमंगलम

श्री जवनोि कुमार, ृुत्र के एस

मेनन, अलाप्ृट्ट वीजतल, मुंिूर

िेसम, अंजुर गााँव, ृेरमंगलम,

जिस्ट्सूर ििर, केरल

अृराि सं. 1094/2020

दिनांदकत 24.07.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 420 त ा इनामी

जचट और िन ृररचालन

स्ट्कीम (ृाबंिी) अजिजनयम,

1978 की िारा 3, 4, 5 एवं

जनलंबूर

श्री अब्िुरजिमन, ृुत्र कुनिरमु

वल्लीक्काडन

िाउस,

ओक्कड,

अकमृिम, एडीवन्ना, जनलंबूर,

मलाप्ृुरम, केरल

अृराि सं. 417/2020

दिनांदकत 17.09.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 420, 406 और

506

2864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नेडुृुझा

श्रीमजत बेबी एन मेनन, ृत्नी वी

एन मेनन, कोराप्ृ िाउस,

जछययरम

िेसम,

जछययरम,

नेडुृुझा, जिस्ट्सूर ििर, केरल

अृराि सं. 929/2020

दिनांदकत 14.10.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406 और 420 त ा

इनामी

जचट

और

िन

ृररचालन स्ट्कीम (ृाबंिी)

अजिजनयम, 1978 की िारा

3, 4, 5 एवं 6

जिस्ट्सूर ईस्ट्ट

श्री सी के दिनेसन, ृुत्र कोचुमोन,

चेननगट्टु िाउस एसएनआरए II

स्ट्रीट, जिस्ट्सूर ईस्ट्ट

अृराि सं. 3527/2020

दिनांदकत 09.10.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406 और 420 त ा

इनामी

जचट

और

िन

ृररचालन स्ट्कीम (ृाबंिी)

अजिजनयम, 1978 की िारा

3, 4, 5 एवं 6

ृेरीं लमन्ना

श्री जवनयन, ृुत्र चन्द्रसेखरन

नायर, कमला जनवास, एनीप्ृरा

रोड, मुरट्टनगल, ृेरीं लमन्ना,

मलाप्ृुरम, केरल

अृराि सं. 843/2020

दिनांदकत 16.09.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406, 420 और

506 त ा इनामी जचट और

िन

ृररचालन

स्ट्कीम

(ृाबंिी) अजिजनयम, 1978

की िारा 3 एवं 4

ृेरीं लमन्ना

श्री अब्िुल ल ीफ़, ृुत्र कोयाकुट्टी,

करुअल्ली िाउस, ृुझाक्कारट्टरी,

कडूाँगाृुरम, कोला ुर, मलाप्ृुरम

अृराि सं. 842/2020

दिनांदकत 16.09.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406, 420 और

506 त ा इनामी जचट और

िन

ृररचालन

स्ट्कीम

(ृाबंिी) अजिजनयम, 1978

की िारा 3 एवं 4

ृंजडक्कड

श्री अब्िुल सलाम केके, ृुत्र

अब्िुल करीम, कक्कीडीकडाव

िाउस,

कलमकवु,

ृंजडक्कड,

मलाप्ृुरम

अृराि सं. 276/2020

दिनांदकत 23.09.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 34, 406 और 420

कोट्टाक्कल

ृीएस

श्री उमर फाप ख, ृुत्र िमसा,

चोलाजयल िाउस, कोझीजचना,

ेनमला, कोट्टाक्कल, मलाप्ृुरम,

केरल

अृराि सं. 201/2019

दिनांदकत 11.10.2019

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 420 और 506

ृालघाट

टाउन

नॉ ा

श्री रमेि कुमार, ृुत्र कृ्‍र्न,

102, श्रु ी लयम, श्री िुगाा नगर,

कल्लेक्कुलंगरा,

ृालक्काड,

ृालघाट टाउन नॉ ा

अृराि सं. 76/2020

दिनांदकत 05.02.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406 और 420

कोजझकोड कस्ट्बा

श्री िानवास एवं श्रीमजत फ़सना,

ृुत्र ृुत्री उसमाकोया, ृोट्टाम्मल

िाउस, कररक्कमकुलम, कराृरंबु,

कोजझकोड ििर, केरल

अृराि सं. 1238/2020

दिनांदकत 03.08.2020

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

की िारा 406, 420 और

506 त ा इनामी जचट और

िन

ृररचालन

स्ट्कीम

(ृाबंिी) अजिजनयम, 1978

की िारा 3 एवं 4

[फा. सं. 228/87/2021-एवीडी-II]

संजय कुमार चौरजसया अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2023

S.O. 1354.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O. (MS) No.113/2022/Home dated 09.06.2022, Home (SC)

Department, Thiruvananthapuram [Published as S.R.O. No. 579/2022] and Notification G.O. (Ms)

No. 259/2022/HOME. dated 09.12.2022, Home (SC) Department, Thiruvananthapuram [Published as

S.R.O. No. 1199/2022], hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Kerala for investigation into the offence(s) relating to cases mentioned in the

following table and any other cases relating to the deposits taken by M/s Universal Trading Solutions Private Limited

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2865

from various persons punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860), The Prize

Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Act 43 of 1978) and The Banning of Unregulated

Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (Act 21 of 2019) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts :-

TABLE

Sl.

No.

Name of Police

Station

Name & Address of the

Complainant

FIR No. and Date

Sections of Law

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Malappuram

Shri Thankamany PK, S/o

Raman, Koothrat House,

Perumparamb, Melmury,

Malappuram, Kerala

Crime

No.

315/2019

dated

10.11.2019

Sections 406, 420 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code,

1860

Malappuram

Shri Midhun, S/o Raman,

Kunnath House, Othukungal,

Mattathur, Malappuram

Crime

No.

333/2019

dated

26.11.2019

Sections 406, 420 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code,

1860

Kottakkal

Shri Shabeerali, S/o Ahamed,

Kazhugil House, Parambilangadi,

Edarikkode, Kottakkal,

Malappuram

Crime

No.

231/2019

dated

09.11.2019

Sections 406, 420 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code,

1860

Palakkad Town North Shri Manoj Kumar, S/o

Kesavamarar K, Amritham,

Ambika Nagar, Akathethara,

Palakkad

Crime

No.

795/2020

dated

25.07.2020

Sections 406 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Kongadu

Shri Ramakrishnan, S/o

Narayanan, Kapukad House,

Kanjikkulam, Kongadu, Palakkad

Crime

No.

60/2020

dated

24.02.2020

Sections 406 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Palakkad Cusba

Shri Saju Dev, S/o Sudevan,

Pournami, Surabhi Nagar,

Pudusserry PO, Palakkad Cusba,

Palakkad

Crime

No.

445/2020

dated

22.06.2020

Sections 406 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Peramangalam

Shri Vinod Kumar, S/o K S

Menon, Alappatt Veetil, Mundur

Desam, Anjur Village,

Peramangalam, Thrissur City,

Kerala

Crime

No.

1094/2020

dated

24.07.2020

Section 420 of the Indian

Penal

Code,

1860

and

sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the

Prize Chits and Money

Circulation

Schemes

(Banning) Act, 1978

Nilambur

Shri Abdurahiman, S/o Kunharmu

Vallikkadan House, Okkad,

Akampadam, Edivanna,

Nilambur, Malappuram, Kerala

Crime

No.

417/2020

dated

17.09.2020

Sections 420, 406 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code,

1860

Nedupuzha

Smt. Baby N Menon, W/o V N

Menon, Korappath House,

Chiyyaram Desom, Chiyyaram,

Nedupuzha, Thrissur City, Kerala

Crime

No.

929/2020

dated

14.10.2020

Sections 406 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860

and sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of

the Prize Chits and Money

Circulation

Schemes

(Banning) Act, 1978

Thrissur East

Shri C K Dinesan, S/o

Kochumon, Chenangattu House

SNRA IInd Street, Thrissur East

Crime

No.

3527/2020

dated

09.10.2020

Sections 406 and 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860

and sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of

the Prize Chits and Money

Circulation

Schemes

(Banning) Act, 1978

Perinthalmanna

Shri Vinayan, S/o

Chandrasekharan Nair, Kamala

Niwas, Enippara Road, Muttingal,

Perinthalmanna, Malappuram,

Kerala

Crime

No.

843/2020

dated

16.09.2020

Sections 406, 420 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and sections 3 and 4

of the Prize Chits and

Money

Circulation

Schemes (Banning) Act,

1978

2866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Perinthalmanna

Shri Abdul Latheef, S/o

Koyakutty, Karualli House,

Puzhakkattiri, Kadungapuram,

Kolathur, Malappuram

Crime

No.

842/2020

dated

16.09.2020

Sections 406, 420 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and sections 3 and 4

of the Prize Chits and

Money

Circulation

Schemes (Banning) Act,

1978

Pandikkad

Shri Abdul Salam KK, S/o Abdul

Kareem, Kakkidikadavath House,

Kalamkavu, Pandikkad,

Malappuram

Crime

No.

276/2020

dated

23.09.2020

Sections 34, 406 and 420 of

the Indian Penal Code,

1860

Kottakkal P S

Shri Umer Faarookh, S/o

Hamsa, Cholayil House,

Kozhichina, Thenmala,

Kottakkal, Malappuram,

Kerala

Crime

No.

201/2019

dated

11.10.2019

Sections 420 and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code,

1860

Palghat Town North Shri Ramesh Kumar, S/o

Krishnan, 102, Sruthi Layam,

Sree Durga Nagar,

Kallekkulangara, Palakkad,

Palaghat Town North

Crime

No.

76/2020

dated

05.02.2020

Sections 406 and 420 of

the

Indian

Penal

Code, 1860

Kozhikode Cusba

Shri Shanavas and Smt. Fasna,

S/o D/o Usmakoya, Pottammal

House, Karikkamkulam,

Karaparambu, Kozhikode City,

Kerala

Crime

No.

1238/2020 dated

03.08.2020

Sections 406, 420 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and sections 3 and 4

of the Prize Chits and

Money

Circulation

Schemes

(Banning)

Act, 1978

[F. No. 228/87/2021-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नई दिल् ली, 5 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1355.—ृेट़्रोजलयम और खजनज ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजिकार का अजान) अजिजनयम 1962

(1962 का 50) (इसके बाि उि अजिजनयम किा गया िज) की िारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरर् में, केन् द्र सरकार उि

अजिजनयम के अिीन जनम् न ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में उजल्लजखत क्षेत्र के संबंि में कॉलम (3) में उजल्लजखत प्रचालनरत

ृेरोजलयम ृाइृलाइन के जलए इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड िेतु उि अजिजनयम के अंतगात सक्षम प्राजिकरर् के

कायों के जन्‍ृािन के जलए जनम्न ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लजखत व्यजि को प्राजिकृत करती िज :-

व्यजि का नाम और ृता

क्षेत्राजिकार का क्षेत्र

ृेरोजलयम ृाइृलाइन (न् स) का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

श्री राहुल चौिान, अनुरक्षर् प्रबंिक

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड

बरौनी कानृुर ृाइृलाइन् स

जबिार और झारखंड स्ट्टेट

बरौनी कानृुर ृाइृलाइन

ृटना मोतीिारी बजतालृुर ृाइृलाइन

मोतीिारी अमलेखगंज ृाइृलाइन

30” िजल्िया बरौनी ृाइृलाइन

ृारािीृ िजल्िया बरौनी मजनलाइन

ृारािीृ िजल्िया बरौनी लूृलाइन

ृारािीृ िजल्िया बरौनी मोतीिारी ृाइृलाइन

बरौनी ृटना ृाइृलाइन

12” िजल्िया बरौनी ृाइृलाइन

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2867

इससे ृूवा दिनांक के 11 फरवरी 2022 भारत के राजृत्र में प्रकाजित दिनांक 19 फरवरी 2022 के का.आ. 193 के

अंतगात झारखंड राज्य में इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए अजिसूजचत सक्षम प्राजिकारी, श्री राहुल चौिान,

अनुरक्षर् प्रबंिक, इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, बरौनी कानृुर ृाइृलाइन् स, को डी-नोरटफ़ाइड समझा जाए।

यि अजिसूचना जारी िोने की तारीख से लागू िोगी ।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/239/2017-ओ आर-I/ई-13892]

ृी. सोमाकुमार अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2023

S.O. 1355.—In pursuance of sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition

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

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

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

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

Name and Address of the

Person

Area of Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum Pipeline(s)

Shri Rahul Chauhan,

Maintenance Manager, Indian

Oil Corporation Limited

Barauni Kanpur Pipelines

Bihar and Jharkhand

state

Barauni Kanpur Pipeline

Patna Motihari Baitalpur Pipeline

Motihari Amlekhganj Pipeline

30‖ Haldia Barauni Pipeline

Paradip Haldia Barauni Mainline

Paradip Haldia Barauni Loopline

Paradip Haldia Barauni Motihari Pipeline

Barauni Patna Pipeline

12‖ Haldia Barauni Pipeline

Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the Bihar and Jharkhand state, Shri Rahul

Chauhan, Maintenance Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, vide S.O. 193 dated 11th February 2022 published

in the Gazette of India dated 19th February 2022 stands de-notified.

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

[F. No. R-11025(11)/239/2017-OR-I/E-13892]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 5 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1356.—केन्द्रीय सरकार ने ृजरोजलयम और खजनज ृाइृलाइन (भूजम मे उृयोग के अजिकार का अजान)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 6 की उृिारा (1) अिीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के ृजरोजलयम और

प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय की नीचे िी गई अजिसूजच मे य ा उजल्लजखत तारीखों की सं्‍या का.आ.द्वारा उन अजिसूचनाओ से

संलग्न अनुसूची मे जवजनर्दिष्ट भूजम मे उृयोग के अजिकार का अजान दकया ा।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,

उि भूजमयो में, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि, उृयोग का अजिकार जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम काृोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.ृी.सी.एल)

में जनजित दकया ा।

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को ररृोटा िी िज दक ृजरोजलयम उत्ृाि के ृररविन के जलए आंध्र प्रिेि

राज्य मे जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम काृोरेिन जलजमटेड (एच.ृी.सी.एल) की िास्ट्सन से चेरलाृल्ली प्रोजेक् ट एलृीजी

ृाइृलाइन जबछाई जा चुकी िज, अत: उस भूजम के बारे मे, जजसका संजक्षप्त इस जववरर् अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची से

जवजनर्दिष्ट दकया गया िज, मागााजिकार गजतजवजियो को आंध्र प्रिेि राज्य मे समाप्त दकया जाए।

2868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अत: अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, ृजरोजलयम और खजनज ृाइृलाइन (भूजम मे उृयोग के अजान) अजिजनयम, 1963 के

जनयम 4 के स्ट्ृष्टीकरर् -1 के अिीन उन तारीखों को जजन ृर यि अजिसूचना भारत के राजृत्र मे प्रकाजित िोती िज, आंध्र

प्रिेि राज्य के श्री सत्य साई ( नया जजला जो अनंतृुरमु के कुछ जिस्ट्सो से बना िज ), अनंतृुरमु, नंियाल (नया जजला जो

कुनूाल के कुछ जिस्ट्सो से बना िज) त ा कुनूाल जजले के नीचे वर्मर्त गााँवो मे मागााजिकार गजतजवजियो की समाप्ती की तारीख

के प ृ मे घोजर्त करती िज ।

अनुसूची

जजला:श्री सत्य साई (नया जजला जो अनंतृुरमु के कुछ जिस्ट्सो से बना िज) राज्य : आंध्र प्रिेि

क्रम सं.

का.आ. सं. एवं दिनांक

गााँव का नाम

मंडल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2054 (E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

अमाराृुरम

4565 (E) दिनांक 29.10.2021

4567 (E) दिनांक 29.10.2021

म्माडेिल्ली

4568 (E) दिनांक 29.10.2021

311(E) दिनांक 19.01.2023

जजला: अनंतृुरमु राज्य : आंध्र प्रिेि

1466 (E) दिनांक 28.04.2020

जनजावल्ली

कुंिुर्मृ

1467(E) दिनांक 28.04.2020

कुंिुर्मृ

1468(E) दिनांक 28.04.2020

जम्बुगुमृाला

1469(E) दिनांक 28.04.2020

एजृलेृल्ली

2049(E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

बेसतरृल्ली

2050(E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

कारीगन्नाृल्ली

2051 (E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

एस. मल्लाृुरम

2052 (E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

एनूमल्लािोडी

2053 (E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

मुलाकानूर

कंबािूर

2055(E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

ृाल्लूर

2459 (E) दिनांक 27.07.2020

वारला

कल्यार्िुगाम

108(E) दिनांक 11.01.2021

मुदिनयानीृल्ली

109(E) दिनांक 11.01.2021

मनीरेवु

110 (E) दिनांक 11.01.2021

आत्माकुरु

906 (E) दिनांक 24.02.2021

ृिमातीयालेप

3017(E) दिनांक 26.07.2021

ीम्माृुरम

कुडेरु

3018 (E) दिनांक 26.07.2021

कुडेरु

3331(E) दिनांक 11.08.2021

कामूरु

3332(E) दिनांक 11.08.2021

गोटुकुरु

3649(E) दिनांक 31.08.2021

टाटीचेरला

अनंतृुरमु

3993(E) दिनांक 24.09.2021

ृोड़राला

बुकरायासमुद्रम

3994(E) दिनांक 24.09.2021

लोलुरु

ससगनमाला

3995(E) दिनांक 24.09.2021

मोरताडू

गारलािीने

3996 (E) दिनांक 24.09.2021

गारलािीने

4565(E) दिनांक 29.10.2021

बुिेडू

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2869

5097 (E) दिनांक 29.11.2021

जसररवारम

5098 (E) दिनांक 29.11.2021

अंकमृेटा

5099 (E) दिनांक 29.11.2021

मुंजतमाडुगु

5100(E) दिनांक 29.11.2021

वंकाराजूकालवा

ृाजमडी

5101(E) दिनांक 29.11.2021

नेमल्लाृल्ली

4909 (E) दिनांक 17.10.2022

ृाजमडी

4910 (E) दिनांक 17.10.2022

िेवराृल्ली

311(E) दिनांक 19.01.2023

अक्क्जमृल्ली

अय्यावारीृल्ली

गुंतकल

मामाडुरु

गूती

एरागुड़ी

अनगनीिुड्डी

ृेद्दोड़ी

मानेृल्ली

रजाृुरम

खोज्जेृल्ली

बसीनेृल्ली

बेताृल्ली

ऊटाकल्लू

जजला:नंियाल (नया जजला जो कुनूाल के कुछ जिस्ट्सो से बना िज) राज्य : आंध्र प्रिेि

क्रम सं.

का.आ. सं. एवं दिनांक

गााँव का नाम

मंडल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2056(E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

कालाचेतला

प्याृुली

2057(E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

एस.रंगाृुरम

3019(E) दिनांक 26.07.2021

ृेद्दाृोिीला

312(E) दिनांक 19.01.2023

को ाबुरुजु

िोन

एस.गुंडाला

एिुृेंटा

यप्ृादिन्ने

जजला: कनूाल राज्य : आंध्र प्रिेि

क्रम सं.

का.आ. सं. एवं दिनांक

गााँव का नाम

मंडल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2058(E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

कंिमकुंतला

तुग्गली

2059(E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

काजत्रकोंडा

दक्र्‍र्ाजगरर

2060(E) दिनांक 25.06.2020

जचत्याला

2460(E) दिनांक 27.07.2020

कंबालाृाडु

2828(E) दिनांक 14.08.2020

दक्र्‍र्ाजगरर

2829(E) दिनांक 14.08.2020

एरागुडीईनाम

3019(E) दिनांक 26.07.2021

तालागोकुलाृाडु

4032(E) दिनांक 24.09.2021

लद्दागीरी

कोडुमुर

2870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4033(E) दिनांक 24.09.2021

एरािोड्डी

4566(E) दिनांक 29.10.2021

अनुगोंडा

4569(E) दिनांक 29.10.2021

बुिीडाृाडु

गुडूर

4908(E) दिनांक 17.10.2022

कुरुवानागलाृुरम

4912(E) दिनांक 17.10.2022

के. मारकाृुरम

कल्लुरु

312(E) दिनांक 19.01.2023

ृारला

उल्चला

कनूाल

बसावाृुरम

गोृालाससगावरम

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/4/2019-ओ आर-I/ई-32252]

ृी. सोमाकुमार अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 5th September, 2023

S.O. 1356.—Whereas, by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, S.O. numbers and dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub-section (i) of section 6,

Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central

Government acquired the Right of User in the said lands specified in the Schedules appended to those notifications.

AND WHEREAS, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-Section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act,

the Central Government vested the Right of User in the said lands free from all encumbrances in the Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited;

AND WHEREAS, the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline

has been laid for the purpose of transportation of LPG, in the said lands and hence the operation may be terminated

from Hassan (Karnataka) to Cherlapalli (Telangana) Pipeline Project in the state of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the

said lands which in brief are specified in the Schedule annexed to the Notification;

―Now, therefore, as required under explanation – 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules 1963, the Central Government hereby declare the dates on which the

notification is published in the Gazette of India as the date of ―Termination of Operation‖ in ROU Village mentioned

in Sri Satya Sai (New district formed from part of Ananthapuramu), Ananthapuramu, Nandyal (New district

formed from part of Kurnool), And Kurnool district in the state of Andhra Pradesh‖

SCHEDULE

District: Sri Satya Sai (New district formed from part of Ananthapuramu) State: Andhra Pradesh

Sl.No.

S.O. No. & Date

Name of the Village

Name of the Mandal

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2054 (E) Date 25.06.2020

Amarapuram

4565 (E) Date 29.10.2021

4567 (E) Date 29.10.2021

Thammadehalli

4568 (E) Date 29.10.2021

311(E) Date 19.01.2023

District: Ananthapuramu State: Andhra Pradesh

Sl. No.

S.O. No. & Date

Name of the Village

Name of the Mandal

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1466 (E) Date 28.04.2020

Nijavalli

Kundurpi

1467(E) Date 28.04.2020

Kundurpi

1468(E) Date 28.04.2020

Jambugumpala

1469(E) Date 28.04.2020

Apilepalle

2049(E) Date 25.06.2020

Bestarapalli

2050 (E) Date 25.06.2020

Kariganapalle

2051 (E) Date 25.06.2020

S. Mallapuram

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2871

2052 (E) Date 25.06.2020

Eenumuladoddi

2053 (E) Date 25.06.2020

Mulakanur

Kambadur

2055(E) Date 25.06.2020

Pallur

2459 (E) Date 27.07.2020

Varla

Kalayandurgam

108(E) Date 11.01.2021

Muddinayanipalli

109(E) Date 11.01.2021

Manirevu

110 (E) Date 11.01.2021

Atmakur

906 (E) Date 24.02.2021

Padamatiyaleru

3017(E) Date 26.07.2021

Timmapuram

Kudair

3018 (E) Date 26.07.2021

Kudair

3331(E) Date 11.08.2021

Kammuru

3332(E) Date 11.08.2021

Gotukur

3649(E) Date 31.08.2021

Taticherla

Anantapuramu

3993 (E) Date 24.09.2021

Podaralla

Bukkarayasamudram

3994 (E) Date 24.09.2021

Loluru

Singanamala

3995 (E) Date 24.09.2021

Marthadu

Garladinne

3996 (E) Date 24.09.2021

Garladinne

4565(E) Date 29.10.2021

Budedu

5097 (E) Date 29.11.2021

Sirivaram

5098 (E) Date 29.11.2021

Ankampeta

5099 (E) Date 29.11.2021

Muntimadugu

5100(E) Date 29.11.2021

Vankarajukalava

Pamidi

5101(E) Date 29.11.2021

Nemallapalle

4909 (E) Date 17.10.2022

Pamidi

4910 (E) Date 17.10.2022

Devarapalle

311(E) Date 19.01.2023

Akkajampalle

Ayyavaripalle

Guntakal

Mamaduru

Gooty

Erragudi

Aniganidoddi

Peddoddi

Marnepalle

Rajapuram

Khojjepalle

Basinepalle

Bethapalle

Utakallu

District: Nandyal (New district formed from part of Kurnool) State: Andhra Pradesh

Sl.No.

S.O. No. & Date

Name of the Village

Name of the Mandal

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2056(E) Date 25.06.2020

Kalachetla

Peapully

2057(E) Date 25.06.2020

S.Rangapuram

3019(E) Date 26.07.2021

Peddapodilla

312(E) Date 19.01.2023

Kotha Buruju

Dhone

S.Gundala

Eddupenta

Yapadinne

2872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

District: Kurnool State: Andhra Pradesh

Sl.No.

S.O. No. & Date

Name of the Village

Name of the Mandal

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2058(E) Date 25.06.2020

Kandamakuntla

Tuggali

2059(E) Date 25.06.2020

Katarikonda

Krishnagiri

2060(E) Date 25.06.2020

Chityala

2460(E) Date 27.07.2020

Kambalapadu

2828(E) Date 14.08.2020

Krishnagiri

2829(E) Date 14.08.2020

Yerragudi Inam (Shotrium

Yerragudi)

3019(E) Date 26.07.2021

Tallagokulapadu

4032(E) Date 24.09.2021

Laddagiri

Kodumur

4033(E) Date 24.09.2021

Yerradoddi

4566(E) Date 29.10.2021

Anugonda

4569(E) Date 29.10.2021

Budidapadu

Gudur

4908(E) Date 17.10.2022

Kuruva Nagalapuram

4912(E) Date 17.10.2022

K.Markapuram

Kallur

312(E) Date 19.01.2023

Parla

Ulchala

Kurnool

Basavapuramu

Gopala Singavaram

[F. No. R-11025(15)/4/2019-OR-I/E-32252]

P. SOMA KUMAR, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल् ली, 31 अगस्ट् त, 2023

का.आ.1357.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

कमांसडग ऑदफसर, राजली, नेवल एयर स्ट्टेिन, अराकोर्म, गजरीसन इंजीजनयर जमजलरी इंजीजनयररग सर्मवसेज, आईएनएस

राजली, अराकोर्म, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री डी. दिवाकरन, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर् सि श्रम न्यायालय -चेन्नई ृंचाट(संिभा सं्‍या 369/2001) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 16.08.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल -14011/35/2000-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2023

S.O. 1357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 369/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The Commanding Officer, Rajali, Naval Air Station, Arakkonam, The Garrison Engineer Military

Engineering Services, INS Rajali, Arakkonam, and Shri D. Divakaran, Worker, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-14011/35/2000-IR (DU)

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2873

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI

ID 369/2001

Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 04.08.2023

Sri D. Divakaran

107, Somasundaram 1^st Street

Palanipet Post

Arakkonam-631002

Address as per Additional Claim

Statement

Sri D. Divakaran

No. 29, 1^st Street

Somasundhar Nagar

Palanipet

Arakkonam-631002

1^st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Management

Represented by its Garrison Engineer

Military Engineering Services

INS Rajali

Arakkonam-631002

2. The Commanding Officer

Rajali, Naval Air Station

Camp Post, Akash Ganga

Arakkonam-631002

2^nd Party/Respondents

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s Balan & Haridas

For the 2^nd Party/Respondents :

Advocate, Sri R. Kumar

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-14011/35/2000/IR(DU)

dtd 27.12.2000 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam

in terminating the services of Sh. D. Divakaran who has been engaged through Palani Enterprises for

operation and maintenance of DG Sets w.e.f. 19.11.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

A little reference to the backdrop of the case needs mention that the Award dtd. 26.04.2016 of the Tribunal was

challenged by the both the parties on their respective pleas vide separate Writ Petitions, before the Hon‘ble Court of

High Court of Madras. The Hon‘ble Court disposed of all the individual (separate) Writ Petitions preferred by 30

Petitioners along with the Writ Petition preferred by the Respondents vide a Common Order dtd 18.09.2017 and

remanded back the case by setting aside the common Award passed by the Tribunal (in respect of all 30 petitioners)

with a direction for fresh hearing and adjudication at the earliest. In compliance to the direction of the Hon‘ble Court

2874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and after receipt of the records, both parties were duly noticed for hearing afresh. The Petitioner since reserved his

right to file additional Claim Statement, filed only after the case is remanded from Hon‘ble Court for fresh trial.

Additional Counter Statement was also filed.

3. The Petitioner‘s case in a nutshell is that he joined the Respondent on 03.07.1993 as AC Operator through

Contractor and continued to work even often when there was change of Contractors. The nature of duties performed

by the Petitioner is operating and maintaining the AC which is same work carried out by the Permanent employees of

the Principal Employer. But the Administrative control remained with the Principal Employer as such the petitioner

and others worked under the supervision of Respondent and not under the Contractors. The Petitioner continued to

work for more than seven years under the direct supervision of Respondent. The Contractors had no valid license

under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, thereby the Contractor and the Contract are sham and

nominal. The Respondent played unfair labor practice by terming the Petitioner as Contract Labor only for the

obvious purpose to deprive the petitioner and others from their legitimate entitlements at par with the permanent staff.

He was paid with only the monthly salary without any other benefits. The Petitioner along with others (all Other

Petitioners of the Batch ID Cases) joined in ―Socialist Workers Union‖ which placed certain ―Charter of Demands

dtd 16.08.1999‖ before the Respondent regarding confirmation and wage revision at par with the permanent

Workmen. But the demand was never taken into consideration by the Management, The dispute was raised before the

Labour Commissioner on 22.09.1999 to fix the wages at par with Permanent Employees, The Petitioner and all other

co-worker (other Petitioners) even send letters to their respective Contractors, Grade officers of the Principal

Employer to pay the full salary as per their entitlements. Respondent did not pay a heed to their such request. Their

written Representations were not even received. The Petitioner along with others raised dispute before conciliation

officer. Even pending disposal of the dispute before the Conciliation officer, the Respondent terminated the

Petitioner along with co-workers (Petitioners of the batch case) on 19.11.1999 without Notice or Notice Pay. The

petitioner requested the Respondent through the Union to reinstate him, but his such request was also turned

down. The termination without notice attracts 25(f) & (n) of the ID Act. Thus the Petitioner seeks relief of his

reinstatement, with full back wage, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

The Respondents entered appearance and filed Common Counter Statement, traversing almost all the pleadings

of the Petitioner. The maintainability is challenged. It is contended that the Respondent has never appointed the

petitioner at any point of time. It is further pleaded that the Respondent, being a Defence Organization carrying out all

works for all three wings i.e, Army, Navy and Air Force through the Contractors of the respective empaneled

Firms/Companies of the department of MES. All such Contractors are employed with the approval of the Competent

Authority, the Engineer in Chief. These Contractors provide service according to the need of the Department by

engaging employees temporarily but not permanently. Thus, the plea of the Petitioner and Other Petitioners of the

batch case regarding their direct engagement by the Respondents was denied as much as they themselves have

admitted to have worked under the Contractors who had no valid license under Contract Labour (Regulation &

Abolition) Act. Thus, the Respondents can never be fastened with any liabilities. Besides, the claim of Unfair Labour

Practice by the Respondents is also denied. It is vehemently pleaded that the present Petitioner and Other Petitioners

in batch case are trying to get into the job through backdoor entry. There exists no Employer–Employee relationship

in between the Respondent and the Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case. The present Petitioner nor any

of the Petitioners of the batch case since were never engaged / employed, their claim of termination has got no bearing

for consideration. The dispute raised under the Schedule of Reference is not sustainable within the purview of the ID

Act. The case is liable for dismissal. The Petitioner and Others are not entitled to any relief as sought for.

5. In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The

Petitioner, D. Divakaran while examined himself as WW1, relied on 3 documents marked as (i) Three Gate passes,

one for the period from July 1995 to 02.10.1996 issued on 10.04.1995, the second for the period from 21.01.1997 to

15.10.1997 issued on 22.10.1996, the third for the period from 02.03.1998 to 02.12.1998 issued on 03.12.1997 and

the details of the fourth Gate Pass is not legible (ii) Attendance Register for the years 1997 to 1999 and (iii) Duty

Roster for the year 1998-1999 Ext.W1 to Ext.W3. The Respondent examined two Witnesses viz. Sh R. Uma Shankar,

the Asst Garrison Engineer (Contract) (M), NAS Rajali, Arakkonam as MW1 and Sri K. Ramkumar, AGE (E/M) as

MW2. Seventeen documents were produced and marked as Ext.M1 to Ext. M17.

Issues (i) & (ii)

6. Since both the Issues (i) and (ii) are interlinked inter-alia are taken up together for a convenient discussion. The

crux of the issues would set at rest only when the Petitioner would prove the existence of relationship of Employer-

Employee in between the Respondent and the Petitioner.

The Petitioner in support of his Claim Statement adduces evidence that he joined the Respondents on

03.07.1993 as AC Operator and working continuously for more than 6 years till his illegal termination on 19.11.1999.

It is further stated that he himself and the Other Petitioners of the batch case faced interview and submitted their Bio-

Data. Two-Three persons of the Department asked some technical questions to the Petitioner and Others and made

them wait throughout the day and finally informed him and Others to report the next day. As per the direction of the

competent official, the Petitioner and Others went to the site of work within the campus of INS Rajali, Arakkonam

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2875

and from that day onwards joined the service and was paid monthly salary within the campus itself. They were

working under the direct control of MES Officers viz. Grade I and Grade II and CWE, GE etc. The Petitioner was

working at ATH, RAIO and LRMR to the best of his ability. The Petitioner was working under the control and

supervision of the Respondents and not under the Contractor, as pleaded by the Respondents. The so-called

Contractors had no valid license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The Petitioner was

continuing as such for more than six years and paid with only the basic salary and without any other benefits. Even

though their job was of perennial in nature. The Attendance Register was duly maintained. They were paid with

monthly salary. While the matter stood thus it came to his knowledge that the Respondent were confirming some

employees in Permanent cadre of Fitter General Mechanic (FGM, Technical Operator and Technicians). The

Petitioner along with his co-employees approached the Grade I and Grade II Officers to regularize their job and to

pay full salary and benefits as of the other Permanent employees. Their such request was never considered. Even the

Written Representations of the Petitioner and Co-Workers (the Petitioners in the batch cases) were not received by

them. But to their utter surprise, the Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case were terminated from job on

19.11.1999 without any prior Notice and Notice Pay. Their entry to the campus of Respondent was prevented. It is

stated that the so called Contract and Contractor is sham and nominal. By terming the Petitioner as a Contract Labour,

the Respondents simply denied the eligible benefits at par with the Permanent labour.

The Respondent adduced evidence through two of its Witnesses, Sri R. Uma Sankar, Assistant Garrison

Engineer (Contract) (M) NAS Rajali. and K Ramkumar, Assistant Garrison Engineer (E/M). In support of the

pleadings in the Counter Statement both of them adduced evidence denying almost all the claims raised by the

Petitioner. It is submitted that the Respondent Department has entered into Contracts with different Contractors such

as M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation (IEC) (Madras) and M/s Palani Enterprises for different spells of time to

provide technical persons, labours for the purpose of the maintenance work undertaken by the Respondent‘s

Organization, the MES for all the Defence Wings i.e. Air Force, Naval and Military. The MES Organization never

engages any employee as Petitioners. The Contractors are engaged with due approval of the Competent Authority of

the Department. There is no direct relationship in between the Respondents and Petitioner and Petitioners in the batch

case.

During the course of his examination, attention was drawn to the documents relied by the Respondent.

Ext.M1 & Ext.M2 (Page 1 & 3) are the contracts executed in between the Contractor, M/s Blue Star Ltd. Enterprises

with Respondents. Ext.M3 & Ext.M4 are the contract agreements in between the Contractor M/s Industrial

Engineering Corporation (IEC) (Madras), Ext.M5 is the contract agreement between M/s Palani Enterprisers with the

Respondents, the MES for successive years commencing from 1994 to 1998. The document, Ext.M6 to Ext.M10 are

the Work Orders issued to respective Contractors. Ext.M11 is the correspondence made by the Contractor, M/s

Industrial Engineering Corporation (IEC) (Madras) declaring the name of the employees including the name of the

Petitioner. Similarly, Ext.M12 and Ext.M13 are such letters issued by M/s Palani Enterprises to the Respondent

declaring the enlisted name of the employees including the name of the Petitioner. Ext.M14 and Ext.M15 are the

RAR (Running Account Receipt) Payment made by the MES, the Respondent in favour of the respective Contractors

viz. M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation (IEC) (Madras) and M/s Palani Enterprises, Arakkonam towards payment

for the work done. Ext.M16 is the payment made by the Contractor, M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation (IEC)

(Madras) to the Petitioner and Others for the period 19.11.1997 to 18.12.1997. Ext.M17 shows the name of the

Petitioner as Operator at S.No. 9, Page No. 56 with payment of Rs. 2,700/- disbursed by the Contractor, M/s Palani

Enterprises. This Ext.M17 speaks about the payment made by the said Contractors towards its employees for the

period from 19.12.1998 to 18.01.1999. The documents under both the above exhibits are signed by the respective

Contractors and countersigned by the Official of the Respondent. It is stated by MW2 that all the relevant documents

including the Attendance and Muster Roll were maintained by the Department. Those are signed by the respective

Contractors and the Official of the Department in token of verification.

The Counsels for both the parties advanced argument in support of their respective pleadings. Admittedly,

the Petitioner claims to have joined the Respondent on 03.07.1993 but no document has been filed by him. But

Ext.W1 contains four Gate Passes. The Contractors name, M/s Blue Star Ltd. and M/s IEC (Madras) appear on Gate

Passes as against the column meant for Employer‘s name. It clearly shows that the Petitioner was never employed by

the Respondents but employed for a short spell by the above named Contractors. The Petitioner though relied on two

more documents viz. Ext.W2 and Ext.W3, the extract of the Attendance Register for the period 1997 to 1999 and

Duty Roster for the period 1998 to 1999 respectively will in no way substantiate the claim of the Petitioner that he

was directly employed under the Respondents. MW2 while corroborates the facts stated by MW1 categorically states

that all the relevant documents including the Attendance Registers, Duty Roster and Muster Roll are usually signed by

the respective Contractor and Countersigned by the Department in token of verification. The Petitioner cannot take

any undue advantage of such signatures of the Departmental Officials. It reveals from Ext.M14 to Ext.M17 that the

Contractors were paid with the estimated expenditure, borne by them and they used to disburse the same to the

employees. On a combined reading and perusal of the documents filed by the Petitioner under Ext.W1 (Four Gate

Passes), Ext.W2, the extract of Attendance Register alongwith the documents relied by the Respondent under

Ext.M14 to Ext.M17 undoubtedly makes a clear cut picture that the Petitioner was directly engaged by above-named

2876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Contractors for different spells of time and also paid by them. Besides, so far his claim of joining the Respondent on

03.07.1993 is not also supported with any document. Not a single scrap of document is also furnished by the

Petitioner to show his continuity in job from the date of so-claimed joining till issuance of Gate Pass on 10.04.1995

by the Contractor, M/s Blue Star Ltd. At the cost of repetition, even if the Gate Pass is taken into consideration, it is

found that the Petitioner worked for a short spell of time under the Contractor, M/s Blue Star Ltd. and M/s I EC

(Madras) from 1995 to 1999 with intermittent gaps. The above fact as discussed clearly shows the Petitioner engaged

only by the Contractor and not by the Respondent at any point of time.

10.

On the other hand, it reveals that only in order to make out a case, the Petitioner for the first time introduced

some new statements during his evidence which was never pleaded either in the original Claim Statement before this

Tribunal on 15.02.2001 as per the Court seal affixed on it or in the Additional Claim Statement which was filed on

04.03.2019, only after the case was remanded for fresh hearing that the Respondent‘s MES office had displayed a

Notice on the Notice Board at the Main Guard Room, INS, Rajali Arakkonam for recruitment of AC & DG operator.

The Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case approached the concerned officials and handed over their

respective Bio Data and attended the Interview conducted by them. The Petitioner and Others were told to join on the

next day. Accordingly the Petitioner as per the direction of the competent official went to the site of work within the

campus of INS Rajali, Arakkonam and from that day onwards joined the service and paid monthly salary within the

campus itself. In this context, the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the above

statement of the Petitioner (WW1) cannot be accepted as an after-thought statement. Admittedly, the Petitioner failed

to produce a single scrap of document to substantiate his claim of joining on 03.07.1993 directly under the

Respondent. The Petitioner not only failed to produce any supporting document of his engagement but also miserably

failed to produce a single scrap of document if at all he ever received any wage / remuneration from any of the

Respondents.

11.

On the contrary the documents under Ext.M14 to Ext.M17 relied by the Respondent which are vividly

discussed in preceding paragraphs gives a clear-cut picture of the engagement of the Petitioner along with Other

Petitioners in the batch Case were made by the Contractors, M/s Blue Star Ltd., M/s Industrial Engineering

Corporation (Madras) and M/s Palani Enterprises for the period from 1994 to 1998 respectively and the related Work

Orders were accordingly issued in their favour for the relevant period and the employees including the Petitioner and

the Petitioners of the batch case have been paid adequately for their engagement by the respective Contractors. In the

instant case, the Petitioner is found to have been engaged and was paid adequately by the respective Contractor vide

Ext.M16 and Ext.M17. As such, it is well evident that the Petitioner and the Petitioners of the batch case have never

been engaged by the Respondent. Besides, not a single document is placed by the Petitioner to show that at any point

of time if he and Other Petitioners in the Batch Case were under the direct control and supervision of the

Respondents or paid by them. In such circumstance, if at all the Petitioner and Other Petitioners of the batch case, if

have got any grievance, they are at liberty to approach the respective Contractors for redressal.

Accordingly, it is held that there exists no Employer-Employee relationship in between the Respondents and

the Petitioner. Further, from the discussion held in preceding paragraphs, this Tribunal holds that the Petitioner was

never employed by any of the Respondents. Thus, no question arises on his part to claim that he was terminated by

Respondents on 19.11.1999. His claim that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in a Calender Year prior to

his termination on 19.11.1999 is no way acceptable as do not attract the Section 25(f) and (n) of the ID Act.

In the result Issue No. (i) and (ii) are answered against the Petitioner

Issue No. (iii)

Consequent to the decision arrived at on Issue No. (i) and (ii), the Issue No. (iii) needs no

discussion.

The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for.

This Issue No. (iii) is answered against the Petitioner.

The ID case stands dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and

corrected and pronounced in the open

court on this day the 04.08.2023)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2877

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri D. Divakaran

For the Respondents

: MW1, Sri R. Uma Sankar, A.G.E.(Contract) (M) NAS,

Rajali Arakkonam

MW2 Sri K. Ramkumar Asst Garrison Engr. (E/M)

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side.

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

1995-1999

Gate Passes

Ext.W2 1997-1998

Attendance Register

Ext.W3

1998-1999

Duty Roster

On the Respondent’s side:

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

14.06.1994

Contract Agreement C.A.No.CWE (P)/NAS/ARK/03

of 1994-1995 Operation and Comprehensive

Maintenance of Air-Conditioning Installations at NAS

Arakkonam.

Ex.M2

24.07.1995

Contract Agreement C.A.No.CWE/NAS/ARK/04 of

1995-1996 Operation and Comprehensive

Maintenance of Air-Conditioning Installations at NAS

Arakkonam

Ex.M3

11.10.1996

Contract Agreement C.A.No.CWE /NAS/ARK/14 of

1996-1997

Operation

and

Comprehensive

Air-

Conditioning Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M4

18.10.1997

Contract Agreement C.A.No. CWE/NAS/ARK/11 of

1997-1998 Operation and Comprehensive

Maintenance of Air Conditioning Installations at NAS

Arakkonam

Ex.M5

12.11.1998

Contract Agreement C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/17 of

1998-1999 Operation and Comprehensive

Maintenance of Air-Conditioning Installations at NAS

Arakkonam

Ex.M6

18.06.1994

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE(P)/NAS/ARK/03 of 1994-1995

Operation and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-

Conditioning Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M7

03.08.1995

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE(P)/NAS/ARK/04 of 195-1996

Operation and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-

Conditioning Installations at NAS Arakkonam

2878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M8

18.10.1996

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/14 of 1996-1997 Operation

and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-Conditioning

Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M9

18.10.1997

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/11 of 1997-1998 Operation

and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-Conditioning

Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M10

18.11.1998

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/17 of 1998-1999 Operation

and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-Conditioning

Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M11

30.12.1997

Contractor M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation

(Madras) letter declaring the Petitioner as his

employee.

Ex.M12

20.11.1998

Contractor M/s Palani Enterprises Arakkonam letter

declaring the Petitioner as his employee

Ext.M13

25.11.1998

Contractor M/s Palani Enterprises Arakkonam letter

declaring the Petitioner as his employee

Ext.M14

18.12.1997

RAR Payment made to Contractor by Respondent

Department (M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation

(Madras)

Ext.M15

08.02.1999

RAR Payment made to Contractor by Respondent

Department (M/s Palani Enterprises Arakkonam)

Ext.M16

18.12.1997

19/11/1997 to 18/12/1997 Payment disbursed by the

Contractor (M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation

(Madras) to the Petitioner for the period above.

Ext.M17

18.01.1999

19/12/1998 to 18/01/1999 Payment disbursed by the

Contractor (M/s Palani Enterprises Arakkonam) to

the Petitioner for the period above.

नई दिल् ली, 31 अगस्ट् त, 2023

का.आ. 1358.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

कमांसडग ऑदफसर, राजली, नेवल एयर स्ट्टेिन, अराकोर्म, गजरीसन इंजीजनयर जमजलरी इंजीजनयररग सर्मवसेज,

आईएनएस राजली, अराकोर्म, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ए. एस.एंड्रयूज बाबू, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर् सि श्रम न्यायालय -चेन्नई ृंचाट(संिभा सं्‍या 363/2001) को जजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 16.08.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल -14011/27/2000-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2879

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2023

S.O. 1358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 363/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The Commanding Officer, Rajali, Naval Air Station, Arakkonam, The Garrison Engineer Military

Engineering Services, INS Rajali, Arakkonam, and Shri A.S. Andrews Babu, Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-14011/27/2000-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

ID 363/2001

Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 04.08.2023

Sri A.S. Andrews Babu

C/o T. Fennwalter

161, Thambuchetty Street

2^nd Floor

Chennai-600001

Address as per Additional Claim

Statement

Sri A.S. Andrews Babu

N. 20/52, Vasantha Nagar

Arriyur Post, Nemmili Taluk

Vellore District

Pin Code - 631102

1^st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Commanding Officer

Rajali, Naval Air Station

Camp Post

Arakkonam-631006

2. The Management

Represented by its Garrison Engineer

Military Engineering Services

INS Rajali

Arakkonam-631006

2^nd Party/Respondents

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s Balan & Haridas

For the 2^nd Party/Respondents

Advocate, Sri R. Kumar

2880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-14011/27/2000/IR(DU)

dtd 27.12.2000 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in

terminating the services of Sh. A.S. Andrews Babu who has been engaged through Palani Enterprises

for operation and maintenance of DG Sets w.e.f. 19.11.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

A little reference to the backdrop of the case needs mention that the Award dtd. 26.04.2016 of the Tribunal

was challenged by the both the parties on their respective pleas vide separate Writ Petitions, before the Hon‘ble

Court of High Court of Madras. The Hon‘ble Court disposed of all the individual (separate) Writ Petitions preferred

by 30 Petitioners along with the Writ Petition preferred by the Respondents vide a Common Order dtd 18.09.2017

and remanded back the case by setting aside the common Award passed by the Tribunal (in respect of all 30

petitioners) with a direction for fresh hearing and adjudication at the earliest. In compliance to the direction of the

Hon‘ble Court and after receipt of the records, both parties were duly noticed for hearing afresh. The Petitioner since

reserved his right to file additional Claim Statement, filed only after the case is remanded from Hon‘ble Court for

fresh trial. Additional Counter Statement was also filed.

The Petitioner‘s case in a nutshell is that he joined the Respondent on 03.05.1992 as Electrician through

Contractor and continued to work even often when there was change of Contractors. The nature of duties performed

by the Petitioner is operating and maintaining the AC which is same work carried out by the Permanent employees

of the Principal Employer. But the Administrative control remained with the Principal Employer as such the

petitioner and others worked under the supervision of Respondent and not under the Contractors. The Petitioner

continued to work for more than seven years under the direct supervision of Respondent. The Contractors had no

valid license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, thereby the Contractor and the Contract are

sham and nominal. The Respondent played unfair labor practice by terming the Petitioner as Contract Labor only

for the obvious purpose to deprive the petitioner and others from their legitimate entitlements at par with the

permanent staff. He was paid with only the monthly salary without any other benefits. The Petitioner along with

others (all Other Petitioners of the Batch ID Cases) joined in ―Socialist Workers Union‖ which placed certain

―Charter of Demands dtd 16.08.1999‖ before the Respondent regarding confirmation and wage revision at par with

the permanent Workmen. But the demand was never taken into consideration by the Management, The dispute was

raised before the Labour Commissioner on 22.09.1999 to fix the wages at par with Permanent Employees, The

Petitioner and all other co-worker (other Petitioners) even send letters to their respective Contractors, Grade officers

of the Principal Employer to pay the full salary as per their entitlements. Respondent did not pay a heed to their

such request. Their written Representations were not even received. The Petitioner along with others raised dispute

before conciliation officer. Even pending disposal of the dispute before the Conciliation officer, the Respondent

terminated the Petitioner along with co-workers (Petitioners of the batch case) on 19.11.1999 without Notice or

Notice Pay. The petitioner requested the Respondent through the Union to reinstate him, but his such request

was also turned down. The termination without notice attracts 25(f) & (n) of the ID Act. Thus the Petitioner seeks

relief of his reinstatement, with full back wage, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

The Respondents entered appearance and filed Common Counter Statement, traversing almost all the

pleadings of the Petitioner. The maintainability is challenged. It is contended that the Respondent has never

appointed the petitioner at any point of time. It is further pleaded that the Respondent, being a Defence Organization

carrying out all works for all three wings i.e, Army, Navy and Air Force through the Contractors of the respective

empaneled Firms/Companies of the department of MES. All such Contractors are employed with the approval of

the Competent Authority, the Engineer in Chief. These Contractors provide service according to the need of the

Department by engaging employees temporarily but not permanently. Thus, the plea of the Petitioner and Other

Petitioners of the batch case regarding their direct engagement by the Respondents was denied as much as they

themselves have admitted to have worked under the Contractors who had no valid license under Contract Labour

(Regulation & Abolition) Act. Thus, the Respondents can never be fastened with any liabilities. Besides, the claim

of Unfair Labour Practice by the Respondents is also denied. It is vehemently pleaded that the present Petitioner and

Other Petitioners in batch case are trying to get into the job through backdoor entry. There exists no Employer–

Employee relationship in between the Respondent and the Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case. The

present Petitioner nor any of the Petitioners of the batch case since were never engaged / employed, their claim of

termination has got no bearing for consideration. The dispute raised under the Schedule of Reference is not

sustainable within the purview of the ID Act. The case is liable for dismissal. The Petitioner and Others are not

entitled to any relief as sought for.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2881

5. In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The

Petitioner, A.S. Andrews Babu while examined himself as WW1, relied on 2 documents marked as (i) Two Gate

Passes one for the period from 21.11.1996 to 20.02.1997 issued on 11.11.1996 and the Other Gate Pass issued on

01.12.1998 but the period is not legible (ii) Attendance Register for the years 1997 to 1999 are marked as Ext.W1

and Ext.W2. The Respondent examined two Witnesses viz. Sh R. Uma Shankar, the Asst Garrison Engineer

(Contract) (M), NAS Rajali, Arakkonam as MW1 and Sri K. Ramkumar, AGE (E/M) as MW2. Seventeen

documents were produced and marked as Ext.M1 to Ext. M17.

Issues (i) & (ii)

Since both the Issues (i) and (ii) are interlinked inter-alia are taken up together for a convenient discussion.

The crux of the issues would set at rest only when the Petitioner would prove the existence of relationship of

Employer-Employee in between the Respondent and the Petitioner.

The Petitioner in support of his Claim Statement adduces evidence that he joined the Respondents on

03.05.1992 as Electrician and working continuously for more than 7 years till his illegal termination on 19.11.1999.

It is further stated that he himself and the Other Petitioners of the batch case faced interview and submitted their

Bio-Data. Two-Three persons of the Department asked some technical questions to the Petitioner and Others and

made them wait throughout the day and finally informed him and Others to report the next day. As per the direction

of the competent official, the Petitioner and Others went to the site of work within the campus of INS Rajali,

Arakkonam and from that day onwards joined the service and was paid monthly salary within the campus itself.

They were working under the direct control of MES Officers viz. Grade I and Grade II and CWE, GE etc. The

Petitioner was working at ATH, LRMR, MAGAZINE, RAIO, WTS & ATC to the best of his ability. The Petitioner

was working under the control and supervision of the Respondents and not under the Contractor, as pleaded by the

Respondents. The so-called Contractors had no valid license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

Act. The Petitioner was continuing as such for more than seven years and paid with only the basic salary and

without any other benefits. Even though their job was of perennial in nature. The Attendance Register was duly

maintained. They were paid with monthly salary. While the matter stood thus it came to his knowledge that the

Respondent were confirming some employees in Permanent cadre of Fitter General Mechanic (FGM, Technical

Operator and Technicians). The Petitioner along with his co-employees approached the Grade I and Grade II

Officers to regularize their job and to pay full salary and benefits as of the other Permanent employees. Their such

request was never considered. Even the Written Representations of the Petitioner and Co-Workers (the Petitioners

in the batch cases) were not received by them. But to their utter surprise, the Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the

batch case were terminated from job on 19.11.1999 without any prior Notice and Notice Pay. Their entry to the

campus of Respondent was prevented. It is stated that the so called Contract and Contractor is sham and nominal.

By terming the Petitioner as a Contract Labour, the Respondents simply denied the eligible benefits at par with the

Permanent labour.

The Respondent adduced evidence through two of its Witnesses, Sri R. Uma Sankar, Assistant Garrison

Engineer (Contract) (M) NAS Rajali. and K Ramkumar, Assistant Garrison Engineer (E/M). In support of the

pleadings in the Counter Statement both of them adduced evidence denying almost all the claims raised by the

Petitioner. It is submitted that the Respondent Department has entered into Contracts with different Contractors

such as M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation (IEC) (Madras) and M/s Palani Enterprises for different spells of

time to provide technical persons, labours for the purpose of the maintenance work undertaken by the Respondent‘s

Organization, the MES for all the Defence Wings i.e. Air Force, Naval and Military. The MES Organization never

engages any employee as Petitioners. The Contractors are engaged with due approval of the Competent Authority of

the Department. There is no direct relationship in between the Respondents and Petitioner and Petitioners in the

batch case.

During the course of his examination, attention was drawn to the documents relied by the Respondent.

Ext.M1 & Ext.M2 (Page 1 & 3) are the contracts executed in between the Contractor, M/s Blue Star Ltd. Enterprises

with Respondents. Ext.M3 & Ext.M4 are the contract agreements in between the Contractor M/s Industrial

Engineering Corporation (IEC) (Madras), Ext.M5 is the contract agreement between M/s Palani Enterprisers with

the Respondents, the MES for successive years commencing from 1994 to 1998. The document, Ext.M6 to Ext.M10

are the Work Orders issued to respective Contractors. Ext.M11 is the correspondence made by the Contractor,

M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation (IEC) (Madras) declaring the name of the employees including the name of

the Petitioner. Similarly, Ext.M12 and Ext.M13 are such letters issued by M/s Palani Enterprises to the Respondent

declaring the enlisted name of the employees including the name of the Petitioner. Ext.M14 and Ext.M15 are the

RAR (Running Account Receipt) Payment made by the MES, the Respondent in favour of the respective

Contractors viz. M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation (IEC) (Madras) and M/s Palani Enterprises, Arakkonam

towards payment for the work done. Ext.M16 is the payment made by the Contractor, M/s Industrial Engineering

Corporation (IEC) (Madras) to the Petitioner and Others for the period 19.11.1997 to 18.12.1997. The name of the

Petitioner as Electrician appears at S.No. 6, Page No. 46 under Ext.M16, paid with Rs. 2,550/-. Ext.M17 shows the

name of the Petitioner as Electrician at S.No.3 Page No. 56 with payment of Rs. 2,700/- disbursed by the Contractor,

2882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s Palani Enterprises. These Ext.W16 and Ext.M17 speaks about the payment made by the said Contractors

towards its employees for the period from 19.12.1998 to 18.01.1999. The documents under both the above exhibits

are signed by the respective Contractors and countersigned by the Official of the Respondent. It is stated by MW2

that all the relevant documents including the Attendance and Muster Roll were maintained by the Department.

Those are signed by the respective Contractors and the Official of the Department in token of verification.

The Counsels for both the parties advanced argument in support of their respective pleadings. Admittedly,

the Petitioner claims to have joined the Respondent on 03.05.1992 but no document has been filed by him. But

Ext.W1 contains two Gate Passes. One for the period from 21.11.1996 to 20.02.1997 issued on 11.11.1996 by M/s

IEC (Madras) and the Other Gate Pass issued on 01.12.1998 by M/s Palani Enterprises but the validity period is not

legible whereas the Petitioner says that it is till the end of 1999. The Contractors name, M/s IEC (Madras) Blue Star

Ltd. and M/s Palani Enterprises appear on Gate Passes as against the column meant for Employer‘s name. It clearly

shows that the Petitioner was never employed by the Respondents but employed for a short spell by the above

named Contractors. The Petitioner though relied on two more documents viz. Ext.W2 the extract of the Attendance

employed under the Respondents. MW2 while corroborates the facts stated by MW1 categorically states that all the

relevant documents including the Attendance Registers, Duty Roster and Muster Roll are usually signed by the

respective Contractor and Countersigned by the Department in token of verification. The Petitioner cannot take any

undue advantage of such signatures of the Departmental Officials. It reveals from Ext.M14 to Ext.M17 that the

Contractors were paid with the estimated expenditure, borne by them and they used to disburse the same to the

employees. On a combined reading and perusal of the documents filed by the Petitioner under Ext.W1 (Gate Pass),

Ext.W2, the extract of Attendance Register alongwith the documents relied by the Respondent under Ext.M14 to

Ext.M17 undoubtedly makes a clear cut picture that the Petitioner was directly engaged by above-named

Contractors for different spells of time and also paid by them. Besides, so far his claim of joining the Respondent on

03.05.1992 is not also supported with any document. Not a single scrap of document is also furnished by the

Petitioner to show his continuity in job from the date of so-claimed joining till issuance of Gate Pass on 11.11.1996

by the Contractor, M/s IEC (Madras). At the cost of repetition, even if the Gate Pass is taken into consideration, it is

found that the Petitioner worked for a short spell of time under the Contractor, M/s M/s IEC (Madras) and M/s

Palani Enterprises from 1996 to 1999 with intermittent gaps. The above fact as discussed clearly shows the

Petitioner engaged only by the Contractor and not by the Respondent at any point of time.

10.

On the other hand, it reveals that only in order to make out a case, the Petitioner for the first time introduced

some new statements during his evidence which was never pleaded either in the original Claim Statement before this

Tribunal on 15.02.2001 as per the Court seal affixed on it or in the Additional Claim Statement which was filed on

04.03.2019, only after the case was remanded for fresh hearing that the Respondent‘s MES office had displayed a

Notice on the Notice Board at the Main Guard Room, INS, Rajali Arakkonam for recruitment of AC & DG operator.

The Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case approached the concerned officials and handed over their

respective Bio Data and attended the Interview conducted by them. The Petitioner and Others were told to join on

the next day. Accordingly the Petitioner as per the direction of the competent official went to the site of work within

the campus of INS Rajali, Arakkonam and from that day onwards joined the service and paid monthly salary within

the campus itself. In this context, the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the above

statement of the Petitioner (WW1) cannot be accepted as an after-thought statement. Admittedly, the Petitioner

failed to produce a single scrap of document to substantiate his claim of joining on 03.05.1992 directly under the

Respondent. The Petitioner not only failed to produce any supporting document of his engagement but also

miserably failed to produce a single scrap of document if at all he ever received any wage / remuneration from any

of the Respondents.

11.

On the contrary the documents under Ext.M14 to Ext.M17 relied by the Respondent which are vividly

discussed in preceding paragraphs gives a clear-cut picture of the engagement of the Petitioner along with Other

Petitioners in the batch Case were made by the Contractors, M/s Blue Star Ltd., M/s Industrial Engineering

Corporation (Madras) and M/s Palani Enterprises for the period from 1994 to 1998 respectively and the related

Work Orders were accordingly issued in their favour for the relevant period and the employees including the

Petitioner and the Petitioners of the batch case have been paid adequately for their engagement by the respective

Contractors. In the instant case, the Petitioner is found to have been engaged and was paid adequately by the

respective Contractor vide Ext.M16 and Ext.M17. As such, it is well evident that the Petitioner and the Petitioners of

the batch case have never been engaged by the Respondent. Besides, not a single document is placed by the

Petitioner to show that at any point of time if he and Other Petitioners in the Batch Case were under the

direct control and supervision of the Respondents or paid by them. In such circumstance, if at all the Petitioner and

Other Petitioners of the batch case, if have got any grievance, they are at liberty to approach the respective

Contractors for redressal.

Accordingly, it is held that there exists no Employer-Employee relationship in between the Respondents and

the Petitioner. Further, from the discussion held in preceding paragraphs, this Tribunal holds that the Petitioner was

never employed by any of the Respondents. Thus, no question arises on his part to claim that he was terminated by

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2883

Respondents on 19.11.1999. His claim that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in a Calender Year prior to

his termination on 19.11.1999 is no way acceptable as do not attract the Section 25(f) and (n) of the ID Act.

In the result Issue No. (i) and (ii) are answered against the Petitioner

Issue No. (iii)

Consequent to the decision arrived at on Issue No. (i) and (ii), the Issue No. (iii) needs no

discussion.

The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for.

This Issue No. (iii) is answered against the Petitioner.

The ID case stands dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and

corrected and pronounced in the open

court on this day the 04.08.2023)

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri A.S. Andrews Babu

For the Respondents

: MW1, Sri R. Uma Sankar, A.G.E.(Contract) (M) NAS,

Rajali Arakkonam

MW2 Sri K. Ramkumar Asst Garrison Engr. (E/M)

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side.

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

1996-1999

Gate Passes

Ext.W2 1997-1999

Attendance Register

On the Respondent’s side:

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1 14.06.1994

Contract Agreement C.A.No.CWE (P)/NAS/ARK/03 of 1994-

1995 Operation and Comprehensive

Maintenance of Air-Conditioning Installations at NAS

Arakkonam.

Ex.M2

24.07.1995

Contract Agreement C.A.No.CWE/NAS/ARK/04 of

1995-1996 Operation and Comprehensive

Maintenance of Air-Conditioning Installations at NAS

Arakkonam

Ex.M3

11.10.1996

Contract Agreement C.A.No.CWE /NAS/ARK/14 of

1996-1997 Operation and Comprehensive of Air-Conditioning

Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M4

18.10.1997

Contract Agreement C.A.No. CWE/NAS/ARK/11 of

1997-1998 Operation and Comprehensive

2884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Maintenance of Air Conditioning Installations at NAS

Arakkonam

Ex.M5

12.11.1998

Contract Agreement C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/17 of

1998-1999 Operation and Comprehensive

Maintenance of Air-Conditioning Installations at NAS

Arakkonam

Ex.M6

18.06.1994

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE(P)/NAS/ARK/03 of 1994-1995

Operation and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-

Conditioning Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M7

03.08.1995

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE(P)/NAS/ARK/04 of 195-1996

Operation and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-

Conditioning Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M8

18.10.1996

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/14 of 1996-1997 Operation

and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-Conditioning

Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M9

18.10.1997

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/11 of 1997-1998 Operation

and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-Conditioning

Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M10

18.11.1998

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/17 of 1998-1999 Operation

and Comprehensive Maintenance of Air-Conditioning

Installations at NAS Arakkonam

Ex.M11

30.12.1997

Contractor M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation

(Madras) letter declaring the Petitioner as his

employee.

Ex.M12

20.11.1998

Contractor M/s Palani Enterprises Arakkonam letter

declaring the Petitioner as his employee

Ext.M13

25.11.1998

Contractor M/s Palani Enterprises Arakkonam letter

declaring the Petitioner as his employee

Ext.M14

18.12.1997

RAR Payment made to Contractor by Respondent

Department (M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation

(Madras)

Ext.M15

08.02.1999

RAR Payment made to Contractor by Respondent

Department (M/s Palani Enterprises Arakkonam)

Ext.M16

18.12.1997

19/11/1997 to 18/12/1997 Payment disbursed by the

Contractor (M/s Industrial Engineering Corporation

(Madras) to the Petitioner for the period above.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2885

Ext.M17

18.01.1999

19/12/1998 to 18/01/1999 Payment disbursed by the

Contractor (M/s Palani Enterprises Arakkonam) to

the Petitioner for the period above.

नई दिल् ली, 31 अगस्ट् त, 2023

का.आ. 1359.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

आईएनएस राजली, अराकोर्म, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री के. रािाकृ्‍र्न, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर् सि श्रम न्यायालय -चेन्नई ृंचाट(संिभा सं्‍या 316/2001) को जजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 16.08.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल-14012/39/2000-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2023

S.O. 1359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 316/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The Commanding Officer, Rajali, Naval Air Station, Arakkonam, The Garrison Engineer Military

Engineering Services, INS Rajali, Arakkonam, and Shri K .Radhakrishnan, Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-14012/39/2000-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

ID 316/2001

Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 24.07.2023

K .Radhakrishnan

S/o S. Kadhirvelu

Flat No. 52B, D.No. 04

4^th Cross Street

Lakshmi Nagar, Porur

Chennai-600116

1^st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Commanding Officer

INS Rajali Air Station

Camp Post

Arakkonam-631006

2. The Management

2886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rep. by its Garrison Engineer

Military Engineering Services

INS Rajali

Arakkonam-631006

2^nd Party/Respondents

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s Balan & Haridas

For the 2^nd Party/Respondents :

Advocate, Sri R. Kumar

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-14012/39/2000/IR(DU)

dtd 30.11.2000 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali,

Arakkonam in terminating the services of Sh. K Radhakrishnan who has been engaged through

TNR Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG Sets w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified?

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

A little reference to the backdrop of the case needs mention that the Award the Award dtd. 26.04.2016 of

the Tribunal was challenged by the both the parties on their respective pleas vide separate Writ Petitions, before the

Hon‘ble Court of High Court of Madras. The Hon‘ble Court disposed of all the individual (separate Writ Petitions

preferred by 30 Petitioners along with the Writ Petition preferred by the Respondents vide a Common Order dtd

18.09.2017 and remanded back the case by setting aside the common Award passed by the Tribunal (in respect of

all 30 petitioners) with a direction for fresh hearing and adjudication at the earliest. In compliance to the

direction of the Hon‘ble Court and after receipt of the records, both parties were duly noticed for hearing afresh. The

Petitioner since reserved his right to file additional Claim Statement, filed only after the case is remanded from

Hon‘ble Court for fresh trial. Additional Counter Statement was also filed.

Petitioner‘s case in a nutshell is that he joined the Respondent on 15.08.1996 as DG Operator through

Contractor and continued to work even often when there was change of Contractors. But the Administrative control

remained with the Principal Employer as such the petitioner and others worked under the supervision of Respondent

and not under the Contractors. The Petitioner‘s continued to work for four years under the direct supervision of

Respondent. The Contractors had no valid license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,

thereby the Contractor and the Contract are sham and nominal. The Respondent played unfair labor practice by

terming the Petitioner as Contract Labor only for the obvious purpose to deprive the petitioner and others from their

legitimate entitlements at par with the permanent staff.. He was paid with only the monthly salary without any other

benefits. The Petitioner along with others (all Other Petitioners of the Batch ID Cases) joined in ―Socialist Workers

Union‖ which placed certain ―Charter of Demands dtd 10.08.1999 before the Respondent, regarding confirmation

and wage revision at par with the permanent Workmen. But the demand was never taken into consideration by the

Management, The dispute was raised before the Labor Commissioner to fix the wages at par with Permanent

Employees, The Petitioner and all other co-worker (other Petitioners) even send letters to their respective

Contractors, Grade officers of the Principal Employer to pay the full salary as per their entitlements. Respondent did

not pay a heed to their such request. Their written Representations were not even received. The Petitioner along

with others raised dispute before conciliation officer. Even pending disposal of the dispute before the Conciliation

officer, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner along with co-workers (Petitioners of the batch case) on

02.02.2000 without Notice or Notice Pay. The petitioner requested the Respondent through the Union to reinstate

him, vide his letter on 22.11.1999 but his such request was also turned-down. The termination without notice attracts

25(f) and (n) of the ID Act. Thus the Petitioner seeks relief of his reinstatement, with full back wage, continuity of

service and all other attendant benefits.

The Respondents entered appearance and filed Common Counter Statement, traversing almost all the

pleadings of the Petitioner. The maintainability is challenged. It is contended that the Respondent at any point of

time. It is further pleaded that the Respondent, being a Defence Organization carrying out all works for all three

wings i.e, Army, Navy and Air Force through the Contractors of the respective empaneled Firms/Companies of the

department of MES. All such Contractors are employed with the approval of the Competent Authority, the Engineer

in Chief. Thus, the plea of the Petitioner and Other Petitioners of the batch case regarding their direct engagement by

the Respondents was denied as much as they themselves have admitted that these Contractors had no valid license

under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. Thus, the Respondents can never be fastened with any

liabilities. Besides, the claim of Unfair Labour Practice by the Respondents is also denied. It is vehemently pleaded

that the present Petitioner and Other Petitioners in batch case are trying to get into the job through backdoor entry.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2887

There exists no Employer–Employee relationship in between the Respondent and the Petitioner and Other

Petitioners in the batch case. The present Petitioner nor any of the Petitioners of the batch case since were never

engaged / employed, their claim of termination has got no bearing for consideration. The dispute raised under the

Schedule of Reference is not sustainable within the purview of the ID Act. The case is liable for dismissal. The

Petitioner and Others are not entitled to any relief as sought for.

5. In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The

Petitioner, K. Radhakrishnan while examined himself as WW1, relied on 3 documents marked as (i) Gate Pass for

the year 1998-1999, 1999-2000 (ii) Extract of Attendance Register for the month of August to June1999 (iii) Duty

Roster for the month of October 1998 to December 1999 marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W3. The Respondent examined

Sh S. Jagannathan, the Asst Garrison Engineer (E/M) Manager (HR) as MW1. Thirteen (13) documents were

produced and marked as Ext.M1 to Ext. M13 (These 13 documents are common for all batch ID cases).

The following issues emerge in the pleadings of the parties:

(I)

Whether there exists relationship of Employer-Employee in between the Respondents and the Petitioner?

(II)

Whether the Applicant was terminated without prior notice and notice pay and attracts 25(f)of the Act

(III)

To what relief the Applicant / Petitioner is entitled to?

Issues (i) & (ii)

Since both the Issues (i) and (ii) are interlinked inter-alia are taken up together for a convenient discussion.

The crux of the issues would set at rest only when the Petitioner would prove the existence of relationship of

Employer-Employee in between the Respondent and the Petitioner.

The Petitioner in support of his Claim Statement adduces evidence that he joined the Respondents on

15.08.1996 as DG Operator and working continuously for 4 years till his illegal termination on 02.02.2000. It is

further stated that he himself and the Other Petitioners of the batch case faced interview and as per the direction of

the competent official went to the site of work within the campus of INS Rajali, Arakkonam and from that day

onwards joined the service and was paid monthly salary within the campus itself. It is also added by the Petitioner

that he has been working on deputation in the event of absence of any Operator in any other Wing such as Sub-

Station-I ATC, ATH, LRME, CADF, WTC and NDB site. Not only that, at times he was performing some

challenging duties at NDB site to open up the panel at NDB for fault rectification and thereby worked continuously

for 24 to 36 hours. The Petitioner was working under the control and supervision of the Respondents and not under

the Contractor, as pleaded by the Respondents. The so-called Contractors had no valid license under the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The Petitioner was continuing as such for 4years and paid with only the

basic salary and without any other benefits. The Attendance Register was duly maintained. They were paid with

monthly salary. While the matter stood thus it came to his knowledge that the Respondent were confirming some

employees in Permanent cadre of Fitter General Mechanic (FGM, Technical Operator and Technicians). The

Petitioner along with his co-employees approached the Grade I and Grade II Officers to regularize their job and to

pay full salary and benefits as of the other Permanent employees. Their such request was never considered. Even

the Written Representations of the Petitioner and Co-Workers (the Petitioners in the batch cases) were not received

by them. But to their utter surprise, the Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case were terminated from job

on 02.02.2000 without any prior Notice and Notice Pay. Their entry to the campus of Respondent was prevented. It

is stated that the so called Contract and Contractor is sham and nominal. By terming the Petitioner as a Contract

Labour, the Respondents simply denied the eligible benefits at par with the Permanent labour.

The Respondent adduced evidence through one of its Witness, Sri S. Jagannathan, the Assistant Garrison

Engineer (M) NAS. In support of the pleadings in the Counter Statement he adduces evidence denying almost all the

claims raised by the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Respondent Department has entered into Contracts with

different Contractors such as M/s T.N.R Enterprises and M/s R.D. Enterprises for different spells of time to

provide technical persons, labours for the purpose of the maintenance work undertaken by the Respondent‘s

Organization, the MES for all the Defence Wings i.e. Air Force, Naval and Military. The MES Organization never

engages any employee as Petitioners. There is no direct relationship in between the Respondents and Petitioners and

also the Co-Petitioners.

During the course of his examination, he drew attention to the documents relied by the Respondent. Ext.M1

to Ext.M5 (Page 1 to 298) are the contracts executed in between the Contractor M/s T.N.R. Enterprises and the MES

for successive years commencing from 1995 to 1997. Ext.M6 (Page 299 to 332) and Ext.M11 (Page 382 to 401)

contains the declaration of the said Contractor enlisting a number of labours (the Petitioners and Others) with

Educational Qualification Certificate to carry out the work entrusted to them. Ext.M7 is the extract of the Muster

Roll (Page 333 to 339) duly approved by the Department. Ext.M8 ( Page 340 to 346) is the payment made by the

Contractor M/s T.N.R. Enterprises to the Petitioner and Other Petitioners and countersigned by the Department. The

name of the present Petitioner appears in these sheets vide Serial No 7. Ext.M9 ( Page 347 to 380) shows payment

made to Contractor by the Respondent for the Period 1997-1998. Ext.M10 (Page 381) is the intimation by the

2888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Contractor to the Department regarding the probability of wage hike from April onwards pertaining to the year

1997-1998. Ext.M12 contains a series of documents from Page 402 to 429 including the document of payment of

Rs. 1,33,000/- made by the Respondent, the MES to the Contractor, M/s R.D. Enterprises (Page No. 406) for the

year 1999-2000. The series of documents, those are Work Done Statement, Vouchers of different Automobile

Dealers and some extract (3 Sheets) of the relevant Register showing payment of remuneration / wage made by the

then Contractor, M/s R.D. Enterprises to the Petitioner and Others for the period from 15^th August 1999 to 14^th

October 1999. Ext.M13 (Page 430 to 435) is a forwarding letter of the complaint made by the Petitioner and Others

(DG Operators). In that complaint the DG Operators sought for the intervention of the Respondent to enhance their

salary / payment of full salary as their such request was not heeded by their Contractors. MW1 was Cross-Examined

by the Counsel for the Petitioner at length.

In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs as well as the documents filed by both the parties, the

argument is well advanced by the representing Counsels in support of their respective pleadings. Admittedly, the

Petitioner claims to have joined the Respondent on 15.08.1996 but the documents relied by the Petitioner under

Ext.W1, Ext.W2 and Ext.W3 are the series of extracts of the Attendance Register commencing with period from

August 1998 to June 1999. Similarly the extract of the Duty Roster was for the months October 1998 to December

1999 and Ext.W1 contains two Gate Passes i.e. the Gate Pass was issued on 13.04.1998 for the year 1998-1999 and

subsequent Gate Pass was issued for the years 1999-2000, On those Gate Passes, the name of the Contractors, M/s

T.N.R. Enterprises and then M/s R.D. Enterprisers appear respectively against the relevant column meant for the

Name of the Employer. It clearly shows that the Petitioner was directly employed by the Contractor, M/s T.N.R.

Enterprise from the date of issuance of Gate Pass i.e on 13.04.1998 till 13.08.1999 when the Gate Pas was issued by

RD Enterprises which was in force till 01.02.2000. The Petitioner fails to produce a single scrap of document, if at

all he was ever employed by the Respondent as per his claim on 15.08.1996 and continued upto the issuance of the

Gate Pass on 13.04.1998 by the Contractor, M/s T.N.R. Enterprises.

10.

On the other hand, it reveals that only in order to make out a case, the Petitioner for the first time

introduced some new statements during his evidence which was never pleaded either in the original Claim Statement

before this Tribunal which was filed 15.02.2001 as per the Court seal affixed on it or in the Additional Claim

Statement which was filed on 04.03.2019, only after the case was remanded for fresh hearing that the Respondent‘s

MES office had displayed a Notice on the Notice Board at the Main Guard Room, INS, Rajali Arakkonam for

recruitment of AC & DG operator. The Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case approached the concerned

officials and handed over their respective Bio Data and attended the Interview conducted by them. The Petitioner

and Others were told to join on the next day. Accordingly the Petitioner as per the direction of the competent official

went to the site of work within the campus of INS Rajali, Arakkonam and from that day onwards joined the service

and paid monthly salary within the campus itself. In this context, the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for

the Respondent that the above statement of the Petitioner (WW1) cannot be accepted as an after-thought statement.

Admittedly, the Petitioner has newly introduced the ,failed to produce a single scrap of document to substantiate

his claim of joining on 15.06.1994 directly under the Respondent. The Petitioner not only failed to produce any

supporting document of his engagement but also miserably failed to produce a single scrap of document if at all he

ever received any wage / remuneration from any of the Respondents.

11.

On the contrary the documents relied by the Respondent which are vividly discussed in preceding paragraphs

gives a clear-cut picture of the engagement of the Petitioner along with Other Petitioners in the batch Case were

made by the Contractor, M/s T.N.R. Enterprises for the period from 1995-1997 vide Ext.M1 to Ext.M5. The

document under Ext.M8 shows payment made by the Contractor to the Petitioners. The Petitioner‘s name finds

place at S.No. 7 in Ext.M8 showing payment of Rs. 2,550/- in the month of September, 1997. The Contractor, M/s

T.N.R. Enterprises signed on it which is countersigned by the Respondent official. Similarly, Ext.M9 reveals that an

amount of Rs. 1,31,500/-, being the estimated dues paid to the Contractor, M/s T.N.R. Enterprises by the

Respondent (Page No. 351). On perusal of these two documents it reveals the named Contractors were engaged by

the MES to carry out the works by engaging labours / employee and the Petitioner is one of such employee under the

Contractor. It is well convinced that the Petitioner and Others have never been engaged by the Respondent but

directly engaged by the Contractors, M/s T.N.R. Enterprises for the period from 1995-1997. It is also well evident

from Ext.M12 that the Respondent engaged M/s R.D. Enterprises to carry out the maintenance work through its

employees for the period 1999-2000. The entire document clearly disclose that the Respondents engaged the

Contractors and made regular payment with regard to the estimated expenditure borne by them to carry out the

maintenance and other works, as required by the Respondent, MES. As such, even if except Ext.W1 (the Gate

Passes) the Petitioner has relied on two more documents under Ext.W2 and Ext.W3 i.e. the Attendance Register and

Muster Roll, will in no way suffice to prove that the Petitioner and Others were ever engaged directly under the

Respondent for the relevant period 1998 to 1999 and 1999-2000 but were under the Contractors. Besides, not a

single document is placed by the Petitioner to show that at any point of time that he and Others Petitioners in the

Batch Case were under the direct control and supervision of the Respondents. The contract executed in between the

Respondents and the above named Contractors defined a clear-cut clause that these labours / employees are to be

supervised by the Supervisors of the named Contractors. Some relevant documents regarding work-order and

Payment of estimated amount to Respondent are also signed by the Supervisors. Thus, it is well presumed that the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2889

Contractor engaged the Supervisors to supervise the Petitioner and other employees. In that case, if there exists any

grievance for redressal, the Petitioner and his Co-Workers could have approached the respective Contractors. It is

also well evident from Ext.M13 that the Petitioner alongwith Other Petitioners in batch case have made a letter to

the Respondent to intervene as their request to hike the wages at par with the regular employees was turned down by

their Contractor. Thus, the documents as discussed clearly discloses that they were not directly employed by the

Respondents but they are liberty to approach only their respective Contractors.

Accordingly, it is held that there exists no Employer-Employee relationship in between the Respondents and

the Petitioner. Further, from the discussion held in preceding paragraphs, this Tribunal holds that the Petitioner was

never employed by any of the Respondents. Thus, no question arises on his part to claim that he was terminated by

Respondents on 02.02.2000. His claim that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in a Calender Year prior to

his termination on 02.02 2000 is no way acceptable as do not attract the Section 25(f) and (n) of the ID Act.

In the result Issue No. (i) and (ii) are answered against the Petitioner

Issue No. (iii)

Consequent to the decision arrived at on Issue No. (i) and (ii), the IssueNo. (iii) needs no discussion.

The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for.

This Issue No. (iii) is answered against the Petitioner.

The ID case stands dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and

corrected and pronounced in the open

court on this day the 24.07.2023)

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri K. Radhakrishnan

For the Respondents

: MW1, Sri S. Jagannathan A.G.E.(E/M) Manager

(HR)

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side.

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

July 1998-Oct.1999

Two Gate Passes

Nov. 1999-Feb.2000

Ext.W2

Aug. 1998-June 1999

A series of extracts of Attendance Register

Ext.W3

Oct. 1998-Dec.1999

Duty Roster

On the Respondent’s side:

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

19.04.1995

Contract Agreement C.A. No. CWE(P)/NAS/ARK/02

of 1995-1996 Operation and Maintenance of

Generating sets at NAS

Arakkonam

Ext.M2

17.06.1996

Contract Agreement C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/07 of

1996-1997 Operation and Maintenance of Diesel

Generating sets at NAS Arakkonam

2890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ext.M3

20.07.1998

Contract Agreement C.A. No. CW!/NAS/ARK/14 of

1998-1999 Operation and Maintenance of Diesel

Generating sets at NAS Arakkonam

Ext.M4

20.06.1997

Acceptance letter

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/06 of 1997-1998 O&M of Diesel

Generating sets at NAS Arakkonam

Ext.M5

07.07.1997

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/14 of 1998-1999 O&M

of Diesel Generating sets at NAS Arakkonam

Ext.M6

15.07.1997

Declaration of the Contractor for appointment of

labour for the subject on S.No. 4 alongwith

educational qualification of the individuals for

approval of the department

Ext.M7

15.07.1997

Must role of labour duly approved by the department

14.08.1997

Ext.M8

15.07.1997

Payment made by the Contractor to employees

(Petitioner) Countersigned by Department

14.08.1997

Ext.M9

16.08.1997

Copy of payment made to the Contractor by the

Department (1^st RAR)

Ext.M10

16.08.1997

Intimation of Contractor to the Department regarding

hike in Minimum fair wages letter

Ext.M11

01.09.1999

Declaration of the contractor for appointment of

labour for the subject work. C.A. No.

CWE/NAS/ARK/08 of 1999 to 2000 alongwith

educational qualification of the individuals for

approval of the department

Ext.M12

01.08.1999

Payment made by the Contractor to his employees

(Petitioner) Countersigned by Department

14.09.1999

Ext.M13

31.01.2000

Complaint made by the Contractor‘s Labour

(Petitioner) on the Contractor requesting department

to intervene for the payment

नई दिल् ली, 31 अगस्ट् त, 2023

का.आ. 1360.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

आईएनएस राजली, अराकोर्म, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ृी. राजिेखरन, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर् सि श्रम न्यायालय -चेन्नई ृंचाट(संिभा सं्‍या 322/2001) को जजसा दक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2891

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 16.08.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल-14012/33/2000-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2023

S.O. 1360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 322/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The Commanding Officer, Rajali, Naval Air Station, Arakkonam, The Garrison Engineer Military

Engineering Services, INS Rajali, Arakkonam, and Shri P. Rajasekaran, Worker, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-14012/33/2000-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

ID 322/2001

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 24.07.2023

Sri P. Rajasekaran

S/o P. Punniyakotti

No. 138, Soma Sundaram Nagar

1^st Street, Palani Pet

Arakkonam Taluk

Pin Code-631002

1^st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Management

Military Engineering Services

(Rep. by its Garrison Engineer)

INS Rajali

Arakkonam-631002

2. The Commanding Officer

INS Rajaji, Naval Air Station

Camp Post

Akash Ganga

Arakkonam-631002

2^nd Party/Respondents

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s Balan & Haridas

For the 2^nd Party/Respondents :

Advocate, Sri R. Kumar

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-14012/33/2000/IR(DU)

dtd 30.11.2000 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali,

Arakkonam in terminating the services of Sh. P. Rajasekar who has been engaged through TNR

2892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Enterprises for operation and maintenance of DG Sets w.e.f. 02.02.2000 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

A little reference to the backdrop of the case needs mention that the Award the Award dtd.

26.04.2016 of the Tribunal was challenged by the both the parties on their respective pleas vide separate Writ

Petitions, before the Hon‘ble Court of High Court of Madras. The Hon‘ble Court disposed of all the individual

(separate) Writ Petitions preferred by 30 Petitioners along with the Writ Petition preferred by the Respondents vide a

Common Order dtd 18.09.2017 and remanded back the case by setting aside the common Award passed by the

Tribunal (in respect of all 30 petitioners) with a direction for fresh hearing and adjudication at the earliest. In

compliance to the direction of the Hon‘ble Court and after receipt of the records, both parties were duly noticed for

hearing afresh. The Petitioner since reserved his right to file additional Claim Statement, filed only after the case is

remanded from Hon‘ble Court for fresh trial. Additional Counter Statement was also filed.

Petitioner‘s case in a nutshell is that he joined the Respondent on 15.06.1994 as DG Operator

through Contractor and continued to work even often when there was change of Contractors. But the Administrative

control remained with the Principal Employer as such the petitioner and others worked under the supervision of

Respondent and not under the Contractors. The Petitioner‘s continued to work for six years under the direct

supervision of Respondent. The contractors had no valid license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, thereby the Contractor and the Contract are sham and nominal. The Respondent played unfair labor

practice by terming the Petitioner as contract Labor only for the obvious purpose to deprive the petitioner and others

from their legitimate entitlements at par with the permanent staff. He was paid with only the monthly salary without

any other benefits. The Petitioner along with others (all Other Petitioners of the Batch ID Cases) joined in ―Socialist

Workers Union‖ which placed certain ―Charter of Demands dtd 16.08.1999‖ before the Respondent, regarding

confirmation and wage revision at par with the permanent Workmen. But the demand was never taken into

consideration by the Management, The dispute was raised before the Labor Commissioner to fix the wages at par

with Permanent Employees, The Petitioner and all other co-worker (other Petitioners) even send letters to their

respective Contractors, Grade officers of the Principal Employer to pay the full salary as per their entitlements.

Respondent did not pay a heed to their such request. Their written Representations were not even received. The

Petitioner along with others raised dispute before conciliation officer. Even pending disposal of the dispute before the

Conciliation officer, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner along with co-workers (Petitioners of the batch case)

on 02.02.2000 without Notice or Notice Pay. The petitioner requested the Respondent through the Union to reinstate

him, but his such request was also turn-down. The termination without notice attracts 25(f) and (n) of the ID Act.

Thus the Petitioner seeks relief of his reinstatement, with full back wage, continuity of service and all other attendant

benefits.

The Respondents entered appearance and filed common counter statement, traversing almost all the

pleadings of the Petitioner. The maintainability is challenged. It is contended that the Respondent has never appointed

the petitioner at any point of time. It is further pleaded that the Respondent, being a Defence Organization carrying

out all works for all three wings i.e, Army, Navy and Air Force through the Contractors of the respective empaneled

Firms/Companies of the department of MES. All such Contractors are employed with the approval of the Competent

Authority, the Engineer in Chief. Thus, the plea of the Petitioner and Other Petitioners of the batch case regarding

their direct engagement by the Respondents was denied as much as they themselves have admitted that these

Contractors had no valid license under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. Thus, the Respondents can

never be fastened with any liabilities. Besides, the claim of Unfair Labour Practice by the Respondents is also denied.

It is vehemently pleaded that the present Petitioner and Other Petitioners in batch case are trying to get into the job

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2893

through backdoor entry. There exists no Employer–Employee relationship in between the Respondent and the

Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case. The present Petitioner nor any of the Petitioners of the batch case

since were never engaged / employed, their claim of termination has got no bearing for consideration. The dispute

raised under the Schedule of Reference is not sustainable within the purview of the ID Act. The case is liable for

dismissal. The Petitioner and Others are not entitled to any relief as sought for.

5. In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence.

The Petitioner, P. Rajasekar while examined himself as WW1, relied on (i) Gate Passes (2) for the years June 1998 to

Sept. 1998 and (ii) Nov. 1999 to Feb. 2000 marked as Ext.W1 and Ext.W2. The Respondent examined

Sh S. Jagannathan, the Asst Garrison Engineer (E/M) Manager (HR) as MW1. Thirteen (13) documents were

produced and marked as Ext.M1 to Ext. M13 (These 13 documents are common for all batch ID cases).

The following issues emerge in the pleadings of the parties:

(I)

Whether there exists relationship of Employer-Employee in between the Respondents and the

Petitioner?

(II)

Whether the Applicant was terminated without prior notice and notice pay and attracts

25(f)of the Act

(III)

To what relief the Applicant / Petitioner is entitled to?

Issues (i) & (ii)

6. Since both the Issues (i) and (ii) are interlinked inter-alia are taken up together for a convenient

discussion.

The crux of the issues would set at rest only when the Petitioner would prove the existence of relationship of

Employer-Employee in between the Respondent and the Petitioner. The Petitioner in support of his Claim Statement

adduces evidence that he joined the Respondents on 15.06.1994 as DG Helper and working continuously for 6 years

till his illegal termination on 02.02.2000. It is further stated that he himself and the Other Petitioners of the batch case

faced interview and as per the direction of the competent official went to the site of work within the campus of INS

Rajali, Arakkonam and from that day onwards joined the service and was paid monthly salary within the campus

itself. It is also added by the Petitioner that he has been working on deputation in the event of absence of any Operator

in any other Wing such as Sub-Station-I ATC, ATH, LRME, CADF, WTC and NDB site. Not only that, at times he

was performing some challenging duties at NDB site to open up the panel at NDB for fault rectification and thereby

worked continuously for 24 to 36 hours. The Petitioner was working under the control and supervision of the

Respondents and not under the Contractor, as pleaded by the Respondents. The so-called Contractors had no valid

license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The Petitioner was continuing as such for six years

and paid with only the basic salary and without any other benefits. The Attendance Register was duly maintained.

They were paid with monthly salary. While the matter stood thus it came to his knowledge that the Respondent were

confirming some employees in Permanent cadre of Fitter General Mechanic (FGM, Technical Operator and

Technicians). The Petitioner along with his co-employees approached the Grade I and Grade II Officers to regularize

their job and to pay full salary and benefits as of the other Permanent employees. Their such request was never

considered. Even the Written Representations of the Petitioner and Co-Workers (the Petitioners in the batch cases)

were not received by them. But to their utter surprise, the Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case were

terminated from job on 02.02.2000 without any prior Notice and Notice Pay. Their entry to the campus of Respondent

was prevented. It is stated that the so called Contract and Contractor is sham and nominal. By terming the Petitioner

as a Contract Labour, the Respondents simply denied the eligible benefits at par with the Permanent labour.

2894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. The Respondent adduced evidence through one of its Witness, Sri S. Jagannathan, the Assistant Garrison

Engineer (M) NAS. In support of the pleadings in the Counter Statement he adduces evidence denying almost all the

claims raised by the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Respondent Department has entered into Contracts with

different Contractors such as M/s T.N.R Enterprises and M/s R.D. Enterprises for different spells of time to

provide technical persons, labours for the purpose of the maintenance work undertaken by the Respondent‘s

Organization, the MES for all the Defence Wings i.e. Air Force, Naval and Military. The MES Organization never

engages any employee as Petitioners. There is no direct relationship in between the Respondents and Petitioners and

also the Co-Petitioners.

8. During the course of his examination, he drew attention to the documents relied by the Respondent.

Ext.M1 to Ext.M5 (Page 1 to 298) are the contracts executed in between the Contractor M/s T.N.R. Enterprises and

the MES for successive years commencing from 1995 to 1997. Ext.M6 (Page 299 to 332) and Ext.M11 (Page 382 to

401) contains the declaration of the said Contractor enlisting a number of labours (the Petitioners and Others) with

Educational Qualification Certificate to carry out the work entrusted to them. Ext.M7 is the extract of the Muster Roll

(Page 333 to 339) duly approved by the Department. Ext.M8 (Page 340 to 346) is the payment made by the

Contractor M/s T.N.R. Enterprises to the Petitioner and Other Petitioners and countersigned by the Department.

However, the name of the present Petitioner does not appear in these sheets. Ext.M9 (Page 347 to 380) shows

payment made to Contractor by the Respondent for the Period 1997-1998. Ext.M10 (Page 381) is the intimation by

the Contractor to the Department regarding the probability of wage hike from April onwards pertaining to the year

1997-1998. Ext.M12 contains a series of documents from Page 402 to 429 including payment of Rs. 1,33,000/- was

made by the Respondent, the MES to the Contractor, M/s R.D. Enterprises for the year 1999-2000 (Page 406). The

series of documents, those are Work Done Statement, Vouchers of different Automobile Dealers and some extract

(3 Sheets) of the relevant Register showing payment of remuneration / wage made by the then Contractor, M/s R.D.

Enterprises to the Petitioner and Others for the period from 15^th August 1999 to 14^th October 1999. Ext.M13 (Page

430 to 435) is a forwarding letter of the complaint made by the Petitioner and Others (DG Operators). In that

complaint the DG Operators sought for the intervention of the Respondent to enhance their salary / payment of full

salary as their such request was not heeded by their Contractors. MW1 was Cross-Examined by the Counsel for the

Petitioner at length.

9. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs as well as the documents filed by both the parties,

the argument is well advanced by the representing Counsels in support of their respective pleadings. Admittedly, the

Petitioner claims to have joined the Respondent on 15.06.1994 but the Petitioner relies on Two Gate Passes (three

months each) i.e. from June 1998 to Sept. 1998 and Nov. 1999 to Feb. 2000. The name of the Contractors, M/s T.N.R.

Enterprises and M/s R.D. Enterprises appear against the relevant column meant for the Name of the Employer. It

clearly shows that the Petitioner was directly employed by the Contractors for a short period of three months each.

The Petitioner though claims to have joined on 15.06.1994 fails to produce a single scrap of document to show if at

all he joined directed under the Respondent on 15.06.1994 till the Gate Pass was issued by the Contractors.

10. On the other hand, it reveals that only in order to make out a case, the Petitioner for the first time

introduced some new statements during his evidence which was never pleaded either in the original Claim Statement

before this Tribunal on 06.09.2001 as per the Court seal affixed on it or in the Additional Claim Statement which was

filed on 15.04.2019, only after the case was remanded for fresh hearing that the Respondent‘s MES office had

displayed a Notice on the Notice Board at the Main Guard Room, INS, Rajali Arakkonam for recruitment of AC &

DG operator. The Petitioner and Other Petitioners in the batch case approached the concerned officials and handed

over their respective Bio Data and attended the Interview conducted by them. The Petitioner and Others were told to

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2895

join on the next day. Accordingly the Petitioner as per the direction of the competent official went to the site of work

within the campus of INS Rajali, Arakkonam and from that day onwards joined the service and paid monthly salary

within the campus itself. In this context, the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the

above statement of the Petitioner (WW1) cannot be accepted as an after-thought statement. Admittedly, the Petitioner

failed to produce a single scrap of document to substantiate his claim of joining on 15.06.1994 directly under the

Respondent. The Petitioner not only failed to produce any supporting document of his engagement but also miserably

failed to produce a single scrap of document if at all he ever received any wage / remuneration from any of the

Respondents.

11.

On the contrary the documents relied by the Respondent which are vividly discussed in preceding

paragraphs gives a clear-cut picture of the engagement of the Petitioner along with Other Petitioners in the batch Case

were made by the Contractor, M/s T.N.R. Enterprises for the period from 1995-1997 vide Ext.M1 to Ext.M5. The

document under Ext.M8 shows payment made by the Contractor to the Petitioners. The Contractor, M/s T.N.R.

Enterprises signed on it which is countersigned by the Respondent official. Similarly, Ext.M9 reveals that an amount

of Rs. 1,31,500/-, being the estimated dues paid to the Contractor, M/s T.N.R. Enterprises by the Respondent (Page

No. 351). On perusal of these two documents it reveals the named Contractors were engaged by the MES to carry out

the works by engaging labours / employee and the Petitioner is one of such employee under the Contractor. It is well

convinced that the Petitioner and Others have never been engaged by the Respondent but directly engaged by the

Contractors, M/s T.N.R. Enterprises for the period from 1995-1997. It is also well evident from Ext.M12 that the

Respondent engaged M/s R.D. Enterprises to carry out the maintenance work through its employees for the period

1999-2000. The entire document clearly disclose that the Respondents engaged the Contractors and made regular

payment with regard to the estimated expenditure borne by them to carry out the maintenance and other works, as

required by the Respondent, MES. As such, even if except Ext.W3 (the Gate Passes) the Petitioner has relied on two

more documents under Ext.W1 and Ext.W2 i.e. the Attendance Register and Muster Roll, will in no way suffice to

prove that the Petitioner and Others were ever engaged directly under the Respondent for the relevant period 1998 to

1999 and 1999-2000 but were under the Contractors. Besides, not a single document is placed by the Petitioner to

show that at any point of time that he and Others Petitioners in the Batch Case were under the direct control and

supervision of the Respondents. The contract executed in between the Respondents and the above named Contractors

defined a clear-cut clause that these labours / employees are to be supervised by the Supervisors of the named

Contractors. Some relevant documents regarding work-order and Payment of estimated amount to Respondent are

also signed by the Supervisors. Thus, it is well presumed that the Contractor engaged the Supervisors to supervise the

Petitioner and other employees. In that case, if there exists any grievance for redressal, the Petitioner and his Co-

Workers could have approached the respective Contractors. It is also well evident from Ext.M13 that the Petitioner

alongwith Other Petitioners in batch case have made a letter to the Respondent to intervene as their request to hike the

wages at par with the regular employees was turned down. Thus, the documents as discussed clearly discloses that

they were not directly employed by the Respondents but they are at liberty to approach only their respective

Contractors.

Accordingly, it is held that there exists no Employer-Employee relationship in between the Respondents and

the Petitioner. Further, from the discussion held in preceding paragraphs, this Tribunal holds that the Petitioner was

never employed by any of the Respondents. Thus, no question arises on his part to claim that he was terminated by

Respondents on 02.02.2000. His claim that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in a Calender Year prior to

his termination on 02.02 2000 is no way acceptable as do not attract the Section 25(f) and (n) of the ID Act.

2896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the result Issue No. (i) and (ii) are answered against the Petitioner

Issue No. (iii)

Consequent to the decision arrived at on Issue No. (i) and (ii), the IssueNo. (iii) needs no discussion.

The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for.

This Issue No. (iii) is answered against the Petitioner.

The ID case stands dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and

corrected and pronounced in the open

court on this day the 24.07.2023)

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri P. Rajasekaran

For the Respondents

: MW1, Sri S. Jagannathan A.G.E.(E/M) Manager

(HR)

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side.

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

June 1998-Sept. 1998

Two Gate Passes

Nov. 1999-Feb.2000

On the Respondent’s side:

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.M1

19.04.1995

Contract Agreement C.A. No. CWE(P)/NAS/ARK/02

of 1995-1996 Operation and Maintenance of

Generating sets at NAS

Arakkonam

Ext.M2

17.06.1996

Contract Agreement C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/07 of

1996-1997 Operation and Maintenance of Diesel

Generating sets at NAS Arakkonam

Ext.M3

20.07.1998

Contract Agreement C.A. No. CW!/NAS/ARK/14 of

1998-1999 Operation and Maintenance of Diesel

Generating sets at NAS Arakkonam

Ext.M4

20.06.1997

Acceptance letter

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/06 of 1997-1998 O&M of Diesel

Generating sets at NAS Arakkonam

Ext.M5

07.07.1997

Work Order No. 01

C.A. No. CWE/NAS/ARK/14 of 1998-1999 O&M

of Diesel Generating sets at NAS Arakkonam

Ext.M6

15.07.1997

Declaration of the Contractor for appointment of

labour for the subject on S.No. 4 alongwith

educational qualification of the individuals for

approval of the department

Ext.M7

15.07.1997

Must role of labour duly approved by the department

14.08.1997

Ext.M8

15.07.1997

Payment made by the Contractor to employees

(Petitioner) Countersigned by Department

14.08.1997

Ext.M9

16.08.1997

Copy of payment made to the Contractor by the

Department (1^st RAR)

Ext.M10

16.08.1997

Intimation of Contractor to the Department regarding

hike in Minimum fair wages letter

Ext.M11

01.09.1999

Declaration of the contractor for appointment of

labour for the subject work. C.A. No.

CWE/NAS/ARK/08 of 1999 to 2000 alongwith

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 9, 2023/भाद्र 18, 1945

2897

educational qualification of the individuals for

approval of the department

Ext.M12

01.08.1999

Payment made by the Contractor to his employees

(Petitioner) Countersigned by Department

14.09.1999

Ext.M13

31.01.2000

Complaint made by the Contractor‘s Labour

(Petitioner) on the Contractor requesting department

to intervene for the payment

नई दिल् ली, 31 अगस्ट् त, 2023

का.आ.1361.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरर् में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

राजली, अराकोर्म, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री के.आर. सर बाबू, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर् सि श्रम न्यायालय -चेन्नई ृंचाट(संिभा सं्‍या 98/2002) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक

में दिखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 16.08.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-14012/35/2000-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2023

S.O. 1361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 98/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The Commanding Officer, Rajali, Naval Air Station, Arakkonam, The Garrison Engineer Military

Engineering Services, INS Rajali, Arakkonam, and Shri K.R. Sarath Babu, Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-14012/35/2000-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI

ID 98/2002

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 27.07.2023

Sri K.R. Sarath Babu

C/o T. Fennwalter

161, Thambuchetty Street, 2^nd Floor

Chennai-600001

Address as per Additional Claim

Statement

Sri K.R. Sarath Babu

No. 5/1, ABM Church

1^st Street, Palanipet

Arakkonam-631002

1^st Party/Petitioner

2898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 9, 2023/BHADRA 18, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Vs.

1. The Commanding Officer

Rajali, Naval Air Station

Camp Post

Arakkonam-631006

2. The Management

Represented by its Garrison Engineer

Military Engineering Services

INS Rajali

Arakkonam-631006

2^nd Party/Respondents

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s Balan & Haridas

For the 2^nd Party/Respondents

Advocate, Sri R. Kumar

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-14012/35/2000/IR(DU)

dtd 21.10.2002 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali, Arakkonam in

terminating the services of Sh. K.R. Sarath Babu who has been engaged through TNR Enterprises for operation and

maintenance of DG Sets w.e.f. 02.08.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”