912 GI/2024
(727)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजिक
WEEKLY
सं. 7]
नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 18—फरवरी 24, 2024, िजनवार/माघ 29—फाल् गुन 5, 1945
No. 7]
NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 18—FEBRUARY 24, 2024, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 29–PHALGUNA 5, 1945
इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by thpe Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
वाजिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय
(वाजिज्य जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 344.—केन्रीय सरकार, जनयाात (गुिवत्ता जनयंत्रि एंव जनरीक्षि) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की
िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ पठठत जनयाात (गुिवत्ता जनयंत्रि एंव जनरीक्षि) जनयम, 1964 के जनयम 12, के
उप जनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैससा जमत्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, फ्लैट नंबर टी1,
एच नंबर 14/264/ए(14), तीसरी मंजिल, वास्ट्को जसटीसेंटर, स्ट्वतंत्र पथ, वास्ट्को-ड-गामा, गोवा-403802, (जिसे
एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरि किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन वर्ा के जलए,
वाजिज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची में जनर्िाष् ट दिनांक
20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ. 3975 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-08032024-252625
CG-DL-W-08032024-252625
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-08032024-252625
CG-DL-W-08032024-252625
728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I, अथाात लौि अयस्ट्क के जनयाात से पूवा जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन मोरमुगाओ पत्तन, गोवा में
उि खजनि और अयस्ट्क के जनरीक्षि करने के जलए एक अजभकरि के रुप में मान्यता िेती िै, अथाात :
(i) यि अजभकरि, खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I का जनयाात (जनरीक्षि) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षि की
पद्धजत की िााँच करने के जलये जनयाात जनरीक्षि पठरर्ि द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाठरयों को पयााप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान
करेगी;
(ii) यि अजभकरि, इस अजिसूचना में यथा जवजनर्िाष्ट अपने कायो का जनष् पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षि और
गुिवत्ता जनयंत्रि) जनयाात जनरीक्षि पठरर्ि द्वारा समय-समय पर, जलजखत रूप में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।
[फा. सं. के-16014/2/2024 - जनयाात जनरीक्षि]
जवपुल बंसल, संयुक् त सजचव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the, 19th February, 2024
S.O. 344.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and
Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s. Mitra S. K. Private Limited, Flat No. T1, H.
No. 14/264/A(14), 3rd Floor, Vasco Citicentre, Swatantra Path, Vasco-da-Gama,Goa-403802, (hereinafter referred to
as the said agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the
Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely Iron Ore , as specified in the Schedule
annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official
Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20th December, 1965 respectively, before export of the said Minerals and Ores at
Mormugao Port, Goa, subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores
– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;
(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such
directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing from
time to time.
[F. No. K-16014/2/2024 - Export Inspection]
VIPUL BANSAL, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 345.—केन्रीय सरकार, जनयाात (गुिवत्ता जनयंत्रि एंव जनरीक्षि) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की
िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ पठठत जनयाात (गुिवत्ता जनयंत्रि एंव जनरीक्षि) जनयम, 1964 के जनयम 12, के उपजनयम
(2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैससा एसिीएस इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, प्लॉट नंबर 64, िीआईडीसी मेन
रोड, िरमपुर, पोरबंिर - 360577, गुिरात, (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरि किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के
रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन वर्ा के जलए, वाजिज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की
अजिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची में जनर्िाष् ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं. का.आ. 3975,के तित
प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-।, अथाात लौि अयस्ट्क और बॉक्साइट, के
जनयाात से पूवा जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन पोरबंिर पत्तन, बेिी पत्तन, ओखा पत्तन, कांडला पत्तन और मुंरा पत्तन में उि
खजनि और अयस्ट्क के जनरीक्षि करने के जलए एक अजभकरि के रुप में मान्यता िेती िै, अथाात :
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
729
(i) यि अजभकरि, खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-। का जनयाात (जनरीक्षि) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षि की
पद्धजत की िााँच करने के जलये जनयाात जनरीक्षि पठरर्ि द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाठरयों को पयााप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान
करेगी;
(ii) यि अजभकरि, इस अजिसूचना में यथा जवजनर्िाष्ट अपने कायो का जनष्पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षि और
गुिवत्ता जनयंत्रि) जनयाात जनरीक्षि पठरर्ि द्वारा समय-समय पर, जलजखत रूप में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।
[फा. सं. के-16014/1/2024 - जनयाात जनरीक्षि]
जवपुल बंसल, संयुक् त सजचव
New Delhi, the, 19th February, 2024
S.O. 345.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and
Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s. SGS India Private Limited, Plot No. 64,
GIDC Main Road, Dharampur, Porbandar – 360577, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an
agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the
inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely Iron Ore and Bauxite, as specified in the Schedule annexed to the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official Gazette vide number
S.O.3975 dated 20th December, 1965, respectively, before export of the said Minerals and Ores at Porbandar Port,
Bedi Port, Okha Port, Kandla Port and Mundra Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores
– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;
(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such
directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing from time
to time.
[F. No. K-16014/1/2024 - Export Inspection]
VIPUL BANSAL, Jt. Secy.
सिकाठरता मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 346.—बहु-राज्यीय सिकारी सजमजत अजिजनयम, 2002 (2002 का 39) के खंड 4 के उपखंड (1) द्वारा
प्रित् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एवं भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एवं एम दिनांक
21 दिसंबर, 2021 के अजिक्रमि में, केन्र सरकार एततद्वारा, श्री पंकि कुमार बंसल, आई.ए.एस. (टीएन:1997),
अजतठरि सजचव (सिकाठरता) को सिकाठरता मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार में तत् काल प्रभाव से एवं अगले आिेिों तक सिकारी
सजमजतयों के केन्रीय पंिीयक के रूप में जनयुक् त करती िै।
[फा. सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एवं एम)]
मोिम्मि नसीम, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF COOPERATION
New Delhi, the, 16th February, 2024
S.O. 346.—In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Multi-State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and in supersession of the Government of India Notification No. L-
11012/2/2003-L&M dated 21.12.2021, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Pankaj Kumar Bansal, IAS
(TN:1997), Additional Secretary (Cooperation) in the Ministry of Cooperation, Government of India as the Central
Registrar of Cooperative Societies with immediate effect and until further orders.
[F. No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M]
MOHAMMAD NASEEM, Under Secy.
730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 30 िनवरी, 2024
का.आ. 347.—िबदक भारत सरकार को लोकजित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक पजश्चम बंगाल राज्य में
नाथा - इस्ट्ट नेचुरल गैस पाइपलाइन जिड पठरयोिना के जसलीगुड़ी – गंगटोक खंड के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस के पठरविन
के जलए मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन जबछाई िानी चाजिए;
और भारत सरकार को उि पाइप लाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िे दक उस भूजम
में, जिसमे उि पाइप लाइन जबछाए िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िै और िो इस अजिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्िात िै, उपयोग के
अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
अतः अब, भारत सरकार, पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइप लाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)
अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) दक िारा 3 दक उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूजम मे
उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोर्िा करती िे;
कोई व्यजि, िो उकत अनुसूची मे वर्िात भूजम में जितबिि िै, उस ताठरख से जिसको उि अजिजनयम की िारा 3
की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के रािपत्र मे यथा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूचना की प्रजतयों सािारि िनता को उपलब्ि कर
िी िाती िै, 21 दिन के भीतर, भूजम के नीचे पाइप लाइन जबछाए िाने की संबंि मे, सक्षम प्राजिकारी, मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस
जिड जलजमटेड, ७ मा माला, एन.आर.एल. सेन्टर, िी.एस. रास्ट्ता, क्रीिचीयन बस्ट्ती, असाम- 781005, को जलजखत रूप
में आक्षेप भेि सकेगा |
जसलीगुड़ी – गंगटोक पाइपलाइन पठरयोिना
अनुसूची
जिला : िलपाईगुरी
राज्य : पजश्चम बंगाल
सकाल
तिसील
गााँव//मौज़ा
थाना
नं.
िाग नं
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगा
मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
िलपाईगुरी
मालबिार
बार घठरया
57
1821
00
05
20
1822
00
07
92
1823
00
00
52
1825
00
00
94
1826
00
04
54
1833
00
21
32
1834
00
00
26
1835
00
03
60
1836
00
06
01
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
731
1848
00
03
36
1845
00
13
45
1846
00
04
05
1847
00
03
51
1867
00
00
66
1865
00
01
32
1866
00
01
81
1864
00
00
16
1852
00
10
45
1819
00
01
86
िलपाईगुरी
मयनागुजड़
िजक्षि खागरबडी
52
4648
00
01
60
4647
00
00
32
4646
00
03
74
4643
00
03
24
4638
00
00
31
4637
00
06
47
4636
00
02
98
4635
00
00
77
4578
00
04
40
4579
00
00
97
4580
00
03
71
4573
00
03
23
4572
00
01
65
4574
00
00
28
4571
00
05
41
4569
00
05
37
4568
00
03
26
4594
00
00
13
4567
00
00
51
4566
00
00
04
732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4597
00
03
93
4598
00
00
53
4382
00
02
39
4352
00
04
53
4353
00
00
43
4354
00
00
02
4355
00
04
56
4359
00
03
61
4356
00
00
32
4357
00
00
47
4358
00
01
63
4368
00
04
46
4367
00
04
42
4366
00
00
04
4372
00
00
71
4371
00
02
39
4370
00
03
46
4369
00
01
98
4302
00
04
30
4305
00
01
16
4304
00
03
00
4308
00
04
54
4307
00
00
52
4289
00
01
60
4290
00
02
25
4291
00
00
25
4286
00
03
09
4285
00
03
71
4284
00
01
57
4274
00
02
42
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
733
4257
00
04
39
4258
00
02
26
4256
00
04
84
4255
00
03
09
4267
00
00
12
4259
00
00
51
4253
00
03
11
4239
00
01
54
4252
00
01
41
4240
00
01
34
4249
00
01
92
4241
00
10
92
4248
00
00
73
4247
00
01
71
4235
00
02
71
4234
00
01
89
4233
00
00
48
4231
00
02
13
4232
00
03
32
4220
00
00
13
4217
00
13
92
4216
00
07
73
4218
00
00
58
3025
00
07
44
2618
00
00
11
िलपाईगुरी
मयनागुजड़
उत्तर मािब िंगा
53
4301
00
31
55
4300
00
03
04
4299
00
07
14
4298
00
01
02
4286
00
01
18
734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4108
00
00
64
4107
00
01
39
4106
00
00
33
4105
00
02
27
4104
00
16
21
4103
00
10
73
4081
00
11
26
4080
00
04
30
4079
00
00
22
4067
00
00
34
4060
00
11
96
4053
00
01
14
4059
00
05
46
4054
00
05
60
4051
00
08
42
4049
00
07
24
4048
00
00
09
4043
00
10
93
4042
00
05
50
2872
00
01
08
2871
00
00
08
2883
00
08
96
2878
00
00
57
2885
00
06
45
2886
00
02
76
2887
00
00
33
2884
00
01
56
2883
00
00
13
2895
00
00
81
2896
00
02
73
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
735
2882
00
02
86
2881
00
00
49
2897
00
00
88
4010
00
02
40
2898
00
04
10
2899
00
00
81
3991
00
01
77
3993
00
04
93
3994
00
04
60
3990
00
00
76
3998
00
06
61
4000
00
05
35
4003
00
06
65
3928
00
01
58
3914
00
09
60
3915
00
04
97
3916
00
04
63
3917
00
11
61
3836
00
00
03
3615
00
04
93
3616
00
00
88
3617
00
03
25
3629
00
04
59
3829
00
02
37
3630
00
06
73
3631
00
02
41
3632
00
01
80
3637
00
04
31
3638
00
06
13
3815
00
05
57
736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3642
00
03
10
3639
00
00
02
3641
00
08
11
3640
00
00
81
3651
00
00
91
3652
00
05
26
3653
00
01
06
3654
00
05
06
3655
00
00
28
3355
00
00
32
3357
00
07
69
3556
00
03
79
3555
00
04
14
3554
00
04
18
3553
00
04
10
3552
00
03
23
3548
00
03
23
3547
00
03
32
3539
00
02
64
3535
00
01
16
3536
00
10
49
3537
00
01
32
3531
00
01
99
3517
00
02
08
3516
00
04
27
3519
00
00
43
3515
00
04
13
3514
00
03
93
3512
00
00
48
3513
00
05
74
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
737
3438
00
05
28
3437
00
04
30
3436
00
04
66
3435
00
04
48
3433
00
04
35
3432
00
04
38
3430
00
05
14
3429
00
08
54
3426
00
06
55
3425
00
08
11
3424
00
03
58
3422
00
00
86
3421
00
02
42
3183
00
05
28
3189
00
00
92
3184
00
08
28
3179
00
02
33
3185
00
02
97
3165
00
06
80
3166
00
22
61
3167
00
06
10
3159
00
00
44
3163
00
02
54
3162
00
04
72
2611
00
01
25
2603
00
06
49
2602
00
06
26
2601
00
03
23
2600
00
03
57
2599
00
07
13
738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2598
00
01
12
िलपाईगुरी
मयनागुजड़
मािब िंगा
54
1719
00
05
98
1718
00
09
86
1494
00
04
20
1493
00
21
44
1492
00
05
30
1490
00
00
02
1463
00
05
19
1462
00
04
91
1461
00
00
09
1466
00
05
69
1464
00
04
23
1465
00
07
14
1467
00
00
73
1108
00
04
47
1104
00
06
32
1105
00
04
15
1103
00
02
40
1102
00
03
09
1083
00
00
41
1084
00
07
22
1085
00
01
77
1082
00
01
60
1028
00
08
35
1027
00
08
28
1026
00
04
22
1029
00
01
19
1030
00
04
12
1031
00
01
77
1032
00
00
30
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
739
1011
00
05
16
1012
00
10
92
1009
00
13
60
1007
00
00
04
1006
00
01
46
1005
00
03
28
1004
00
00
98
1003
00
06
67
770
00
00
30
1002
00
03
62
1001
00
01
55
1000
00
00
78
773
00
11
55
774
00
12
56
775
00
01
30
777
00
06
86
946
00
00
53
778
00
10
43
4
00
01
29
2
00
00
40
3
00
00
04
943
00
03
54
798
00
00
44
942
00
01
53
799
00
05
52
800
00
04
14
801
00
02
47
802
00
01
96
803
00
00
03
806
00
06
35
740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
809
00
03
76
810
00
02
15
811
00
02
01
513
00
02
06
812
00
00
16
511
00
01
34
509
00
05
39
508
00
01
00
506
00
01
59
505
00
04
62
504
00
00
20
502
00
05
58
503
00
08
35
513
00
01
10
857
00
00
33
453
00
02
88
452
00
02
54
451
00
02
94
255
00
06
33
256
00
07
03
254
00
02
22
253
00
00
09
258
00
03
24
257
00
01
11
259
00
03
57
264
00
02
34
444
00
03
52
443
00
00
99
441
00
03
84
440
00
01
95
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
741
428
00
04
71
427
00
06
44
426
00
03
53
424
00
01
79
423
00
02
24
421
00
02
91
413
00
00
68
420
00
01
42
419
00
00
19
418
00
01
67
275
00
02
07
276
00
02
10
60
00
03
13
55
00
03
80
52
00
05
04
53
00
00
08
1783
00
01
74
44
00
00
85
46
00
01
80
36
00
04
50
27
00
05
80
47
00
00
19
26
00
04
77
25
00
02
69
23
00
00
76
20
00
02
64
22
00
00
10
18
00
03
23
17
00
04
01
1788
00
01
54
742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15
00
01
86
14
00
03
84
12
00
03
23
10
00
03
72
21
00
05
32
8
00
04
04
िलपाईगुरी
मयनागुजड़
िजक्षि मौंमारी
36
846
00
03
66
845
00
01
07
847
00
03
48
848
00
01
32
844
00
06
38
843
00
00
06
856
00
00
41
840
00
04
14
857
00
03
99
861
00
03
56
862
00
02
71
836
00
05
22
835
00
01
23
866
00
00
05
834
00
01
63
833
00
04
25
832
00
02
08
831
00
02
59
751
00
02
55
752
00
09
53
750
00
04
13
737
00
02
88
753
00
00
05
709
00
04
45
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
743
708
00
08
00
1121
00
05
40
770
00
31
11
771
00
05
23
774
00
06
39
423
00
01
30
445
00
02
88
453
00
05
14
448
00
06
56
449
00
06
36
442
00
08
07
452
00
02
24
438
00
02
08
437
00
03
73
436
00
03
93
435
00
00
24
431
00
09
76
430
00
11
59
429
00
03
35
569
00
12
41
427
00
06
90
426
00
03
29
1107
00
02
52
410
00
05
42
425
00
00
19
411
00
06
56
412
00
06
45
413
00
09
54
414
00
01
46
841
00
00
88
744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
840
00
05
14
406
00
22
09
398
00
01
76
399
00
04
34
396
00
06
11
395
00
03
57
394
00
04
61
397
00
00
19
380
00
03
80
371
00
07
66
370
00
08
39
366
00
04
10
362
00
11
30
346
00
05
08
347
00
04
39
339
00
05
86
337
00
04
16
336
00
09
25
331
00
05
51
332
00
03
37
320
00
01
36
331
00
00
06
321
00
08
89
322
00
05
27
323
00
00
07
324
00
12
35
296
00
15
72
395
00
00
55
िलपाईगुरी
मयनागुजड़
उत्तर मौंमारी
40
3540
00
05
74
3530
00
07
43
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
745
3539
00
03
18
3531
00
17
52
3528
00
00
44
[फा. सं. एल-14014/2/2023-िीपी-II(ई-45875)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024
S.O. 347.—Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for
transportation of natural gas through Siliguri-Gangtok Section of North - East Natural Gas Pipeline Grid Project in
the State of West Bengal, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited;
And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is
necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is
described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby
declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date
of which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the
Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of User
therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited,
Jalpaiguri District, State of West Bengal.
SILIGURI – GANGTOK PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE
District:- Jalpaiguri
State : West Bengal
Circle
Tahsil
Name of the Village/
Mouza
JL No.
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jalpaiguri
Malbazar
Bara Gharia
57
1821
00
05
20
1822
00
07
92
1823
00
00
52
1825
00
00
94
1826
00
04
54
1833
00
21
32
1834
00
00
26
1835
00
03
60
1836
00
06
01
1848
00
03
36
1845
00
13
45
1846
00
04
05
1847
00
03
51
1867
00
00
66
1865
00
01
32
1866
00
01
81
1864
00
00
16
1852
00
10
45
1819
00
01
86
Jalpaiguri
Moynaguri
Dakshin Khagrabari
52
4648
00
01
60
4647
00
00
32
4646
00
03
74
4643
00
03
24
4638
00
00
31
4637
00
06
47
746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4636
00
02
98
4635
00
00
77
4578
00
04
40
4579
00
00
97
4580
00
03
71
4573
00
03
23
4572
00
01
65
4574
00
00
28
4571
00
05
41
4569
00
05
37
4568
00
03
26
4594
00
00
13
4567
00
00
51
4566
00
00
04
4597
00
03
93
4598
00
00
53
4382
00
02
39
4352
00
04
53
4353
00
00
43
4354
00
00
02
4355
00
04
56
4359
00
03
61
4356
00
00
32
4357
00
00
47
4358
00
01
63
4368
00
04
46
4367
00
04
42
4366
00
00
04
4372
00
00
71
4371
00
02
39
4370
00
03
46
4369
00
01
98
4302
00
04
30
4305
00
01
16
4304
00
03
00
4308
00
04
54
4307
00
00
52
4289
00
01
60
4290
00
02
25
4291
00
00
25
4286
00
03
09
4285
00
03
71
4284
00
01
57
4274
00
02
42
4257
00
04
39
4258
00
02
26
4256
00
04
84
4255
00
03
09
4267
00
00
12
4259
00
00
51
4253
00
03
11
4239
00
01
54
4252
00
01
41
4240
00
01
34
4249
00
01
92
4241
00
10
92
4248
00
00
73
4247
00
01
71
4235
00
02
71
4234
00
01
89
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
747
4233
00
00
48
4231
00
02
13
4232
00
03
32
4220
00
00
13
4217
00
13
92
4216
00
07
73
4218
00
00
58
3025
00
07
44
2618
00
00
11
Jalpaiguri
Moynaguri
Uttar Madhab Danga
53
4301
00
31
55
4300
00
03
04
4299
00
07
14
4298
00
01
02
4286
00
01
18
4108
00
00
64
4107
00
01
39
4106
00
00
33
4105
00
02
27
4104
00
16
21
4103
00
10
73
4081
00
11
26
4080
00
04
30
4079
00
00
22
4067
00
00
34
4060
00
11
96
4053
00
01
14
4059
00
05
46
4054
00
05
60
4051
00
08
42
4049
00
07
24
4048
00
00
09
4043
00
10
93
4042
00
05
50
2872
00
01
08
2871
00
00
08
2883
00
08
96
2878
00
00
57
2885
00
06
45
2886
00
02
76
2887
00
00
33
2884
00
01
56
2883
00
00
13
2895
00
00
81
2896
00
02
73
2882
00
02
86
2881
00
00
49
2897
00
00
88
4010
00
02
40
2898
00
04
10
2899
00
00
81
3991
00
01
77
3993
00
04
93
3994
00
04
60
3990
00
00
76
3998
00
06
61
4000
00
05
35
4003
00
06
65
3928
00
01
58
3914
00
09
60
748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3915
00
04
97
3916
00
04
63
3917
00
11
61
3836
00
00
03
3615
00
04
93
3616
00
00
88
3617
00
03
25
3629
00
04
59
3829
00
02
37
3630
00
06
73
3631
00
02
41
3632
00
01
80
3637
00
04
31
3638
00
06
13
3815
00
05
57
3642
00
03
10
3639
00
00
02
3641
00
08
11
3640
00
00
81
3651
00
00
91
3652
00
05
26
3653
00
01
06
3654
00
05
06
3655
00
00
28
3355
00
00
32
3357
00
07
69
3556
00
03
79
3555
00
04
14
3554
00
04
18
3553
00
04
10
3552
00
03
23
3548
00
03
23
3547
00
03
32
3539
00
02
64
3535
00
01
16
3536
00
10
49
3537
00
01
32
3531
00
01
99
3517
00
02
08
3516
00
04
27
3519
00
00
43
3515
00
04
13
3514
00
03
93
3512
00
00
48
3513
00
05
74
3438
00
05
28
3437
00
04
30
3436
00
04
66
3435
00
04
48
3433
00
04
35
3432
00
04
38
3430
00
05
14
3429
00
08
54
3426
00
06
55
3425
00
08
11
3424
00
03
58
3422
00
00
86
3421
00
02
42
3183
00
05
28
3189
00
00
92
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
749
3184
00
08
28
3179
00
02
33
3185
00
02
97
3165
00
06
80
3166
00
22
61
3167
00
06
10
3159
00
00
44
3163
00
02
54
3162
00
04
72
2611
00
01
25
2603
00
06
49
2602
00
06
26
2601
00
03
23
2600
00
03
57
2599
00
07
13
2598
00
01
12
Jalpaiguri
Moynaguri
Madhab Daga
54
1719
00
05
98
1718
00
09
86
1494
00
04
20
1493
00
21
44
1492
00
05
30
1490
00
00
02
1463
00
05
19
1462
00
04
91
1461
00
00
09
1466
00
05
69
1464
00
04
23
1465
00
07
14
1467
00
00
73
1108
00
04
47
1104
00
06
32
1105
00
04
15
1103
00
02
40
1102
00
03
09
1083
00
00
41
1084
00
07
22
1085
00
01
77
1082
00
01
60
1028
00
08
35
1027
00
08
28
1026
00
04
22
1029
00
01
19
1030
00
04
12
1031
00
01
77
1032
00
00
30
1011
00
05
16
1012
00
10
92
1009
00
13
60
1007
00
00
04
1006
00
01
46
1005
00
03
28
1004
00
00
98
1003
00
06
67
770
00
00
30
1002
00
03
62
1001
00
01
55
1000
00
00
78
773
00
11
55
774
00
12
56
750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
775
00
01
30
777
00
06
86
946
00
00
53
778
00
10
43
4
00
01
29
2
00
00
40
3
00
00
04
943
00
03
54
798
00
00
44
942
00
01
53
799
00
05
52
800
00
04
14
801
00
02
47
802
00
01
96
803
00
00
03
806
00
06
35
809
00
03
76
810
00
02
15
811
00
02
01
513
00
02
06
812
00
00
16
511
00
01
34
509
00
05
39
508
00
01
00
506
00
01
59
505
00
04
62
504
00
00
20
502
00
05
58
503
00
08
35
513
00
01
10
857
00
00
33
453
00
02
88
452
00
02
54
451
00
02
94
255
00
06
33
256
00
07
03
254
00
02
22
253
00
00
09
258
00
03
24
257
00
01
11
259
00
03
57
264
00
02
34
444
00
03
52
443
00
00
99
441
00
03
84
440
00
01
95
428
00
04
71
427
00
06
44
426
00
03
53
424
00
01
79
423
00
02
24
421
00
02
91
413
00
00
68
420
00
01
42
419
00
00
19
418
00
01
67
275
00
02
07
276
00
02
10
60
00
03
13
55
00
03
80
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
751
52
00
05
04
53
00
00
08
1783
00
01
74
44
00
00
85
46
00
01
80
36
00
04
50
27
00
05
80
47
00
00
19
26
00
04
77
25
00
02
69
23
00
00
76
20
00
02
64
22
00
00
10
18
00
03
23
17
00
04
01
1788
00
01
54
15
00
01
86
14
00
03
84
12
00
03
23
10
00
03
72
21
00
05
32
8
00
04
04
Jalpaiguri
Moynaguri
Dakshin Mouamari
36
846
00
03
66
845
00
01
07
847
00
03
48
848
00
01
32
844
00
06
38
843
00
00
06
856
00
00
41
840
00
04
14
857
00
03
99
861
00
03
56
862
00
02
71
836
00
05
22
835
00
01
23
866
00
00
05
834
00
01
63
833
00
04
25
832
00
02
08
831
00
02
59
751
00
02
55
752
00
09
53
750
00
04
13
737
00
02
88
753
00
00
05
709
00
04
45
708
00
08
00
1121
00
05
40
770
00
31
11
771
00
05
23
774
00
06
39
423
00
01
30
445
00
02
88
453
00
05
14
448
00
06
56
449
00
06
36
442
00
08
07
452
00
02
24
438
00
02
08
752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
437
00
03
73
436
00
03
93
435
00
00
24
431
00
09
76
430
00
11
59
429
00
03
35
569
00
12
41
427
00
06
90
426
00
03
29
1107
00
02
52
410
00
05
42
425
00
00
19
411
00
06
56
412
00
06
45
413
00
09
54
414
00
01
46
841
00
00
88
840
00
05
14
406
00
22
09
398
00
01
76
399
00
04
34
396
00
06
11
395
00
03
57
394
00
04
61
397
00
00
19
380
00
03
80
371
00
07
66
370
00
08
39
366
00
04
10
362
00
11
30
346
00
05
08
347
00
04
39
339
00
05
86
337
00
04
16
336
00
09
25
331
00
05
51
332
00
03
37
320
00
01
36
331
00
00
06
321
00
08
89
322
00
05
27
323
00
00
07
324
00
12
35
296
00
15
72
395
00
00
55
Jalpaiguri
Moynaguri
Uttar Mouamari
40
3540
00
05
74
3530
00
07
43
3539
00
03
18
3531
00
17
52
3528
00
00
44
[F. No. L-14014/2/2023-GP-II (E-45875)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
753
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 348.—िबदक भारत सरकार को लोकजित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक पजश्चम बंगाल राज्य में
नाथा - इस्ट्ट नेचुरल गैस पाइपलाइन जिड पठरयोिना के जसलीगुड़ी – गंगटोक खंड के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस के पठरविन
के जलए मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन जबछाई िानी चाजिए;
और भारत सरकार को उि पाइप लाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िे दक उस भूजम
में, जिसमे उि पाइप लाइन जबछाए िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िै और िो इस अजिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्िात िै, उपयोग के
अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
अतः अब, भारत सरकार, पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइप लाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)
अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) दक िारा 3 दक उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूजम मे
उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोर्िा करती िे;
कोई व्यजि, िो उक् त अनुसूची मे वर्िात भूजम में जितबिि िै, उस ताठरख से जिसको उि अजिजनयम की िारा 3
की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के रािपत्र मे यथा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूचना की प्रजतयों सािारि िनता को उपलब्ि कर
िी िाती िै, 21 दिन के भीतर, भूजम के नीचे पाइप लाइन जबछाए िाने की संबंि मे, सक्षम प्राजिकारी, मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस
जिड जलजमटेड, ७ मा माला, एन.आर.एल. सेन्टर, िी.एस. रास्ट्ता, क्रीिचीयन बस्ट्ती, असाम- 781005, को जलजखत रूप
में आक्षेप भेि सकेगा |
जसलीगुड़ी – गंगटोक पाइपलाइन पठरयोिना
अनुसूची
जिला : िलपाईगुरी
राज्य : पजश्चम बंगाल
सकाल
तिसील
गााँव//मौज़ा
थाना नं.
िाग नं
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगा मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
िलपाईगुरी
मालबिार
जबिुरेरडांगा
106
480
00
03
86
479
00
11
66
236
00
01
24
235
00
04
36
234
00
11
67
161
00
00
04
162
00
12
47
163
00
03
35
165
00
00
14
174
00
02
78
175
00
01
31
172
00
00
31
180
00
01
22
178
00
00
37
181
00
04
98
185
00
00
75
184
00
08
44
199
00
05
55
200
00
02
04
471
00
02
52
470
00
00
28
474
00
15
58
[फा. सं. एल – 14014-2-2023-िीपी-II (ई–45875)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the, 2nd February, 2024
S.O. 348.—Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for
transportation of natural gas through Siliguri-Gangtok Section of North - East Natural Gas Pipeline Grid Project in
the State of West Bengal, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited;
And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is
necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is
described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby
declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date
of which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the
Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of User
therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited,
Jalpaiguri District, State of West Bengal.
SILIGURI – GANGTOK PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE
District:- Jalpaiguri
State : West Bengal
Circle
Tahsil
Name of the
Village/ Mouza
JL No.
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jalpaiguri
Malbazar
Bidurerdanga
106
480
00
03
86
479
00
11
66
236
00
01
24
235
00
04
36
234
00
11
67
161
00
00
04
162
00
12
47
163
00
03
35
165
00
00
14
174
00
02
78
175
00
01
31
172
00
00
31
180
00
01
22
178
00
00
37
181
00
04
98
185
00
00
75
184
00
08
44
199
00
05
55
200
00
02
04
471
00
02
52
470
00
00
28
474
00
15
58
[F No. L-14014-2-2023-GP-II(E-45875)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
755
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 349.—भारत सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)
अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) जिसे इसमे इसके पश्चात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 दक उपिारा (1) के
अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2676(ई) तारीख
15.06.2023 िो भारत के असािारि रािपत्र तारीख 16.06.2023 मे प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से
संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा असम राज्य में गुवािाटी - जिलांग - जसलचर -
पानीसागर प्रकृजतक गैस पाइपलाइन के मिायम से प्रकृजतक गैस के पठरविन के जलए पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के
जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोर्िा की थी;
और उि रािपजत्रत अजिसूचना की प्रजतयााँ िनता को उपलब्ि करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने िनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों को परीक्षि के उपरांत जनपटान कर दिया िै;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उप - िारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार को अपनी
ठरपोटा िे िी िै;
और भारत सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पश्चात और यि संतुष्ट िो िाने पर दक उि भूजम
पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िै;
अतः अब, भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 दक उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुये,
यि घोर्िा करती िै दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए उपयोग के
अजिकार का अिान दकया िाता िै;
और भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम दक िारा 6 दक उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुये, यि जनिेि िेती
िै दक पाइपलाइने जबछाने के जलए भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार, इस घोर्िा के प्रकािन की तारीख को, भारत सरकार में
जनजित िोने के बिाय, पाइपलाइन जबछाने का प्रस्ट्ताव करने वाली मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा और
तिुपठर, भूजम में ऐसे उपयोग का अजिकार, इस प्रकार अजिरोजपत जनबंिनों और ितों के अिीन रिते हुये, सभी जवलंगमों
से मुि, मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।
अनुसूची
जिला : कछार
राज्य : असम
सकाल
तिसील
गााँव//मौज़ा
िाग नं.
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगा मीटर.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
काजतगोराि
काजतगोराि
तेली टीकर भाग -1
21
00
01
08
काजतगोराि
काजतगोराि
िगिीिपुर भाग 2
183
00
06
16
115
00
03
91
काजतगोराि
काजतगोराि
िगिीिपुर भाग 3
189
00
01
07
195
00
01
74
काजतगोराि
काजतगोराि
िगिीिपुर भाग 5
121
00
03
11
124
00
02
80
117
00
08
97
काजतगोराि
काजतगोराि
चांिपुर-3
238
00
13
81
काजतगोराि
काजतगोराि
रंगर भाग -3
116
00
04
90
756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
118
00
01
04
जसलचर
जसलचर
िुगाापुर
150
00
07
68
169
00
01
89
237
00
01
00
170
00
03
75
जसलचर
जसलचर
उिान िाम
74
00
01
10
जसलचर
जसलचर
चेसरी
499
00
10
73
497
00
00
94
268
00
00
93
498
00
08
69
223
00
01
07
जसलचर
जसलचर
कालीनगर भाग 1
32
00
01
62
35
00
00
66
जसलचर
जसलचर
कालीनगर भाग 2
217
00
02
18
जसलचर
जसलचर
खाठरल बागीचा
36
00
01
00
उिरबॉन्ड
उिरबॉन्ड
िुगाानगर भाग 2
204
00
06
03
230
00
06
85
229
00
03
45
उिरबॉन्ड
उिरबॉन्ड
डोयापोर भाग - 4
91
00
41
16
52
00
61
31
उिरबॉन्ड
उिरबॉन्ड
इस्ट्तमपुर
44
00
00
70
45
00
04
90
लखीपुर
लखीपुर
जनि-बांसकांडी भाग -4
229
00
00
57
सोनाई
सोनाई
गोबबंिपुर भाग -3
15
00
00
82
20
00
00
88
30
00
01
10
सोनाई
सोनाई
िनेिरी भाग -1
586
00
05
32
288
00
02
25
कैठटगोराि
कैठटगोराि
सैिपुर III
24
00
16
70
25
01
04
30
32
00
67
58
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
757
कैठटगोराि
कैठटगोराि
खेलमा भाग II
186
00
02
69
कैठटगोराि
कैठटगोराि
नाटनपुर
209
00
10
76
210
00
13
62
212
00
16
02
215
00
07
14
216
00
02
28
219
00
04
08
220
00
02
47
222
00
03
29
223
00
05
68
227
00
09
18
228
00
08
02
ROAD
00
02
15
229
00
02
46
NALA
00
01
50
[फा. सं. एल – 14014/14/2023-िीपी-II (ई–46938)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 2nd February, 2024
S.O. 349.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas S.O.No.2676(E) dated the 15.06.2023 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),
published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated the 16.06.2023, the Government of India declared its intention
to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of
laying pipeline for transportation of Natural Gas through Guwahati - Shillong - Silchar - Panisagar Section of North -
East Natural Gas Pipeline in the state of Assam by Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (IGGL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public.
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and
disposed by the Competent Authority.
And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted its
report to the Government of India.
And whereas the Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said
land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the section 6 of the said Act, the
Government of India hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this
notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the
Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting
in Government of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited
(IGGL), free from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
District:- Cachar
State :- Assam
Circle
Tahsil
Name of the Village/
Mouza
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Katigorah
Katigorah
Teli Tikar Pt-1
21
00
01
08
758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Katigorah
Katigorah
Jagdispur pt 2
183
00
06
16
115
00
03
91
Katigorah
Katigorah
Jagdispur Pt 3
189
00
01
07
195
00
01
74
Katigorah
Katigorah
Jagdispur Pt 5
121
00
03
11
124
00
02
80
117
00
08
97
Katigorah
Katigorah
Chandpur-3
238
00
13
81
Katigorah
Katigorah
Rangar pt-3
116
00
04
90
118
00
01
04
Silchar
Silchar
Durgapur
150
00
07
68
169
00
01
89
237
00
01
00
170
00
03
75
Silchar
Silchar
Ujan Gram
74
00
01
10
Silchar
Silchar
Chesri
499
00
10
73
497
00
00
94
268
00
00
93
498
00
08
69
223
00
01
07
Silchar
Silchar
Kalinagar Pt 1
32
00
01
62
35
00
00
66
Silchar
Silchar
Kalinagar Pt 2
217
00
02
18
Silchar
Silchar
Kharil Bagicha
36
00
01
00
Udharbond
Udharbond
Durganagar Pt 2
204
00
06
03
230
00
06
85
229
00
03
45
Udharbond
Udharbond
Doyapore Pt 4
91
00
41
16
52
00
61
31
Udharbond
Udharbond
Istampur
44
00
00
70
45
00
04
90
Lakhipur
Lakhipur
Niz-Banskandi Pt-4
229
00
00
57
Sonai
Sonai
Gobindpur pt-3
15
00
00
82
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
759
20
00
00
88
30
00
01
10
Sonai
Sonai
Dhanehari Pt-1
586
00
05
32
288
00
02
25
Katigorah
Katigorah
SAIDPUR III
24
00
16
70
25
01
04
30
32
00
67
58
Katigorah
Katigorah
Khelma part II
186
00
02
69
Katigorah
Katigorah
Natanpur
209
00
10
76
210
00
13
62
212
00
16
02
215
00
07
14
216
00
02
28
219
00
04
08
220
00
02
47
222
00
03
29
223
00
05
68
227
00
09
18
228
00
08
02
ROAD
00
02
15
229
00
02
46
NALA
00
01
50
[F No. L-14014/14/2023-GP-II (E-46938)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 350.— भारत सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)
अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) जिसे इसमे इसके पश्चात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 दक उपिारा (1) के
अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 4964(अ) तारीख
26.10.2023 िो भारत के असािारि रािपत्र तारीख 17.11.2023, मे प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से
संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा असम राज्य में नाथा-इस्ट्ट नेचुरल गैस
पाइपलाइन जिड पठरयोिना के GNPL खंड के मिायम से प्रकृजतक गैस के पठरविन के जलए पाइपलाइन जबछाने के
प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोर्िा की थी;
और उि रािपजत्रत अजिसूचना की प्रजतयााँ िनता को उपलब्ि करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने िनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों को परीक्षि के उपरांत जनपटान कर दिया िै;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उप - िारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार को अपनी
ठरपोटा िे िी िै;
और भारत सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पश्चात और यि संतुष्ट िो िाने पर दक उि भूजम
पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िै;
760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अतः अब, भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 दक उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुये,
यि घोर्िा करती िै दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए उपयोग के
अजिकार का अिान दकया िाता िै;
और भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम दक िारा 6 दक उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुये, यि
जनिेि िेती िै दक पाइपलाइने जबछाने के जलए भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार, इस घोर्िा के प्रकािन की तारीख को, भारत
सरकार में जनजित िोने के बिाय, पाइपलाइन जबछाने का प्रस्ट्ताव करने वाली मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित
िोगा और तिुपठर, भूजम में ऐसे उपयोग का अजिकार, इस प्रकार अजिरोजपत जनबंिनों और ितों के अिीन रिते हुये, सभी
जवलंगमों से मुि, मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।
अनुसूची
जिला : िरांग राज्य : असम
सकाल
मौज़ा
गााँव
िाग नं
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगा मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
मंगलिै
चौपाई
अिाका चुबुरी
616
00
02
95
जिला : सोजनतपुर
राज्य : असम
सकाल
मौज़ा
गााँव
िाग नं
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगा मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
ढेदकयािूली
बोरसोला
1न. नतुन जचराझुली
441
00
04
45
[फा. सं. एल – 14014/24/2023-िीपी-II (ई–47286)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 2nd February, 2024
S.O. 350.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas S.O.No.4964(E) dated the 26.10.2023 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),
published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated the 17.11.2023 the Government of India declared its intention
to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of
laying pipeline for transportation of Natural Gas through GNPL section of North – East Natural Gas Pipeline Grid
Project in the state of Assam, by Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (IGGL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public.
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and
disposed by the Competent Authority.
And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted its
report to the Government of India.
And whereas the Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said
land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the section 6 of the said Act, the
Government of India hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this
notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the
Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
761
in Government of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited
(IGGL), free from all encumbrances.
District :Darrang
State: Assam
Circle
Mauza
Village
Dag No.
Area
Hec.
Arc
Sq.Mtr.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Mangaldai
Chapai
Ahaka Chuburi
616
00
02
95
District :Sonitpur
State: Assam
Circle
Mauza
Village
Dag
No.
Area
Hec.
Arc
Sq.Mtr.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Dhekiajuli
Borsola
1No. Natun Chirajhuli
441
00
04
45
[F No. L-14014/24/2023-GP-II (E-47286)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 351.—िब दक भारत सरकार को लोकजित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक असम राज्य में नाथा –
इस्ट्ट नेचुरल गैस पाइप लाइन जिड पठरयोिना के गुवािाटी–नुमालीगढ़ खंड के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस के पठरविन के
जलए मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन जबछाई िानी चाजिए;
और भारत सरकार को उि पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िे दक उस भूजम में,
जिस मे उि पाइपलाइन जबछाए िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िै और िो इस अजिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्िात िै, उपयोग के
अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
अतः अब, भारत सरकार, पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)
अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) दक िारा 3 दक उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्तिजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूजम मे
उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोर्िा करती िे;
कोई व्यजि, िो उक् त अनुसूची मे वर्िात भूजम में जितबिि िै, उस ताठरख से जिसको उि अजिजनयम की िारा 3
की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के रािपत्र मे यथा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूचना की प्रजतयों सािारि िनता को उपलब्ि कर
िी िाती िै, 21 दिन के भीतर, भूजम के नीचे पाइपलाइन जबछाए िाने की संबंि मे, सक्षम प्राजिकारी, मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस
जिड जलजमटेड, असम राज्य, को जलजखत रूप में आक्षेप भेि सकेगा |
अनुसूची
जिला : जबस्ट्वानाथ
राज्य : असम
सकाल
मौज़ा
गााँव
िाग नं
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगामीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
जबस्ट्वानाथ
बाघमारा
मोनाबारी चाि बजगचा जबिपुखुरी एन एल
आर िान्ट नं 317/516 जचट नं 2
715
00
07
12
694
00
07
82
695
00
03
69
701
00
08
95
मोनाबारी चाि बजगचा जबिपुखुरी एन एल
43
00
06
33
762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
आर िान्ट नं 317/516 जचट नं 1
२ नं दिजचठर पथार
452
00
21
20
जिला : सोजनतपुर
राज्य : असम
सकाल
मौज़ा
गााँव
िाग नं
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगामीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
चारीिुवार
गोरमारी
१ नं माजलिान बजगचा
175
00
06
94
कचमारी िान्ट
177
00
01
64
176
00
06
05
175
00
01
71
[फा. सं. –एल-14014/1/2024-िीपी-II (ई-48822)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 2nd February, 2024
S.O. 351.—Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for
transportation of natural gas through Guwahati – Numaligarh – GNPL Section of North - East Natural Gas Pipeline
Grid Project in the State of Assam, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited;
And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is
necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is
described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby
declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date
of which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the
Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of User
therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited, State
of Assam.
SCHEDULE
District : Biswanath
State: Assam
Circle
Mouza
Name of Village
Dag No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BISWANATH
BAGHMARA
MONABARI CHAH BAGICHA
BIHPUKHURI NLR GRANT NO
317/516 SH.NO. 2
715
00
07
12
694
00
07
82
695
00
03
69
701
00
08
95
MONABARI CHAH BAGICHA
BIHPUKHURI NLR GRANT NO
317/516 SH.NO. 1
43
00
06
33
2 NO DICHIRI PATHAR
452
00
21
20
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
763
District : Sonitpur
State: Assam
Circle
Mouza
Name of Village
Dag No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
CHARIDUAR
GOURMARI
1 NO MALIJAN BAGICHA
175
00
06
94
KAHAMARI GRANT
177
00
01
64
176
00
06
05
175
00
01
71
[F No. L-14014-1-2024-GP-II (E-48822)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 352.—भारत सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)
अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) जिसे इसमे इसके पश्चात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 दक उपिारा (1) के
अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 4986(अ) तारीख
26.10.2023 िो भारत के असािारि रािपत्र तारीख 20.11.2023 मे प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से
संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा असम राज्य में िेरगााँव – िीमापुर प्रकृजतक गैस
पाइपलाइन के मिायम से प्रकृजतक गैस के पठरविन के जलए पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार
का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोर्िा की थी;
और उि रािपजत्रत अजिसूचना की प्रजतयााँ िनता को उपलब्ि करा िी गई थी;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने िनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों को परीक्षि के उपरांत जनपटान कर दिया िै;
और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उप - िारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार को अपनी
ठरपोटा िे िी िै;
और भारत सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पश्चात और यि संतुष्ट िो िाने पर दक उि भूजम
पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िै;
अतः अब, भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 दक उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुये,
यि घोर्िा करती िै दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए उपयोग के
अजिकार का अिान दकया िाता िै;
और भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम दक िारा 6 दक उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुये, यि
जनिेि िेती िै दक पाइपलाइने जबछाने के जलए भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार, इस घोर्िा के प्रकािन की तारीख को, भारत
सरकार में जनजित िोने के बिाय, पाइपलाइन जबछाने का प्रस्ट्ताव करने वाली मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित
िोगा और तिुपठर, भूजम में ऐसे उपयोग का अजिकार, इस प्रकार अजिरोजपत जनबंिनों और ितों के अिीन रिते हुये, सभी
जवलंगमों से मुि, मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।
अनुसूची
जिला : िोरिाट
राज्य : असम
सकाल
मौज़ा
गााँव
िाग नं
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगा मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
जतताबर
जतताबर
एलेंगी
596
00
03
81
[फा. सं. एल-14014-246-2022-िीपी-II(E-45384)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the, 8th February, 2024
S.O. 352.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas S.O. No. 4986(E) dated 26.10.2023, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),
published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated the 20.11.2023, the Government of India declared its intention
to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of
laying pipeline for transportation of Natural Gas through Dergaon-Dimapur Gas Pipeline in the state of Assam by
Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (IGGL).
And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public.
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and
disposed by the Competent Authority.
And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted its
report to the Government of India.
And whereas the Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said
land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the section 6 of the said Act, the
Government of India hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this
notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the
Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting
in Government of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited
(IGGL), free from all encumbrances.
Schedule
District : Jorhat
State : Assam
Circle
Mouza
Gaon
Dag No
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Titabar
Titabar
Elengi
596
00
03
81
[F No. L-14014-246-2022-GP-II(E-45384)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 353.—िबदक भारत सरकार को लोकजित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक असम राज्य में नाथा - ईस्ट्ट
नेचुरल गैस पाइपलाइन जिड पठरयोिना के गुवािाटी – नुमालीगढ़ - िीमापुर खंड के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस के पठरविन
के जलए मैससा इंरिनुर् गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन जबछाई िानी चाजिए;
और भारत सरकार को उि पाइप लाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक उस भूजम
में, जिसमे उक् त पाइप लाइन जबछाए िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िै और िो इस अजिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्िात िै, उपयोग के
अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;
अतः अब, भारत सरकार, पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइप लाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)
अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) दक िारा 3 दक उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूजम मे
उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोर्िा करती िै;
कोई व्यजि, िो उक् त अनुसूची मे वर्िात भूजम में जितबिि िै, उस ताठरख से जिसको उि अजिजनयम की िारा
3 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के रािपत्र मे यथा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूचना की प्रजतयों सािारि िनता को उपलब्ि
कर िी िाती िै, 21 दिन के भीतर, भूजम के नीचे पाइप लाइन जबछाए िाने की संबंि मे, सक्षम प्राजिकारी, मैससा इंरिनुर्
गैस जिड जलजमटेड, असम राज्य, को जलजखत रूप में आक्षेप भेि सकेगा |
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
765
अनुसूची
जिला : गोलाघाट
राज्य : असम
सकाल
मौज़ा
गााँव
िाग नं
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेअर
आर
वगा मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
सरूपथार
सरूपथार
बेबेजिया
196
00
14
54
191
00
05
81
334
00
11
73
177
00
04
40
176
00
04
00
175
00
05
61
174
00
04
67
168
00
20
08
169
00
11
45
312
00
11
79
319
00
08
75
339
00
26
34
145
00
10
78
129
00
11
47
131
00
01
28
118
00
12
09
109
00
17
26
110
00
05
58
99
00
06
22
100
00
05
38
90
00
14
76
83
00
15
01
72
00
06
97
73
00
06
59
62
00
13
60
63
00
09
02
53
00
09
31
54
00
07
88
42
00
22
07
25
00
11
80
26
00
08
74
27
00
10
85
8
00
07
85
सरूपथार
सरूपथार
बोरबली
128
00
21
59
766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11
00
15
68
10
00
07
31
330
00
10
94
22
00
17
34
36
00
39
57
35
00
08
81
53
00
09
86
54
00
03
58
55
00
11
15
56
00
17
17
57
00
24
24
58
00
04
44
59
00
03
81
60
00
14
94
97
00
07
57
98
00
04
25
99
00
17
59
100
00
05
31
122
00
05
09
123
00
05
24
124
00
05
13
125
00
03
57
126
00
04
39
सरूपथार
बारपथार
बोडुाबी
33
00
24
44
39
00
02
51
38
00
01
03
50
00
06
26
158
00
10
92
51
00
10
76
52
00
14
93
54
00
17
45
55
00
19
90
34
00
13
09
46
00
18
31
45
00
13
79
43
00
07
09
181
00
30
67
182
00
00
91
170
00
06
88
108
00
14
16
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
767
सरूपथार
बारपथार
रेंगमा िांट
107
00
12
40
106
00
12
53
105
00
15
26
104
00
13
21
103
00
16
41
102
00
18
10
101
00
16
97
100
00
17
06
99
00
18
21
98
00
11
41
97
00
05
65
91
00
09
21
92
00
14
88
93
00
13
66
94
00
16
27
95
00
18
74
96
00
15
40
167
00
08
53
111
00
05
03
112
00
07
14
87
00
01
03
89
00
00
34
90
00
04
61
136
00
01
39
[फा. सं. एल -14014-251-2022-िीपी-II (ई - 45398)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 8th February, 2024
S.O. 353.—Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for
transportation of natural gas through Guwahati – Numaligarh – Dimapur Section of North - East Natural Gas Pipeline
Grid Project in the State of Assam, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited;
And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is
necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is
described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby
declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date
of which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the
Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of User
therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited, State
of Assam.
768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
District: Golaghat
State: Assam
Circle
Mouza
Name of Village
Dag
No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Sarupathar
Sarupathar
Bebejia
196
00
14
54
191
00
05
81
334
00
11
73
177
00
04
40
176
00
04
00
175
00
05
61
174
00
04
67
168
00
20
08
169
00
11
45
312
00
11
79
319
00
08
75
339
00
26
34
145
00
10
78
129
00
11
47
131
00
01
28
118
00
12
09
109
00
17
26
110
00
05
58
99
00
06
22
100
00
05
38
90
00
14
76
83
00
15
01
72
00
06
97
73
00
06
59
62
00
13
60
63
00
09
02
53
00
09
31
54
00
07
88
42
00
22
07
25
00
11
80
26
00
08
74
27
00
10
85
8
00
07
85
Sarupathar
Sarupathar
Borbali
128
00
21
59
11
00
15
68
10
00
07
31
330
00
10
94
22
00
17
34
36
00
39
57
35
00
08
81
53
00
09
86
54
00
03
58
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
769
55
00
11
15
56
00
17
17
57
00
24
24
58
00
04
44
59
00
03
81
60
00
14
94
97
00
07
57
98
00
04
25
99
00
17
59
100
00
05
31
122
00
05
09
123
00
05
24
124
00
05
13
125
00
03
57
126
00
04
39
Sarupathar
Barpathar
Bordubi
33
00
24
44
39
00
02
51
38
00
01
03
50
00
06
26
158
00
10
92
51
00
10
76
52
00
14
93
54
00
17
45
55
00
19
90
34
00
13
09
46
00
18
31
45
00
13
79
43
00
07
09
181
00
30
67
182
00
00
91
170
00
06
88
Sarupathar
Barpathar
Rengma Grant
108
00
14
16
107
00
12
40
106
00
12
53
105
00
15
26
104
00
13
21
103
00
16
41
102
00
18
10
101
00
16
97
100
00
17
06
99
00
18
21
98
00
11
41
97
00
05
65
91
00
09
21
92
00
14
88
93
00
13
66
94
00
16
27
95
00
18
74
770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
96
00
15
40
167
00
08
53
111
00
05
03
112
00
07
14
87
00
01
03
89
00
00
34
90
00
04
61
136
00
01
39
[F No. L-14014-251-2022-GP-II (E-45398)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 354.—Hkkjr ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe eas mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'kpkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk
¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3031¼v½
rkjh[k 28-06-2023 tks Hkkjr ds vlk/kkj.k jkti= rkjh[k 07-07-2023] esa izdkf'kr dh x;h Fkh] n~okjk ml
vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ’V Hkwfe esa xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM n~okjk egkjk’Vª jkT; esa eqacbZ & ukxiwj
& >kjlqxqMk izkd`frd xSl ikbiykbu ds [kaM ukxiwj & tcyiqj ikbiykbu ds ek/;e ls izkd`frd xSl ds
ifjogu ds fy, ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh
?kks’k.kk dh Fkh(
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh(
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us turk ls izkIr vk{ksiksa dks ijh{k.k ds mijkar fuiVku dj fn;k gS(
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj dks
viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS(
vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj us] mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'kpkr~ vkSj ;g larq’V gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] ml esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu”p; fd;k gS(
vr% vc] Hkkjr ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks’k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ’V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus
ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tkrk gS(
vkSj] Hkkjr ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ n~okjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] funs'k nsrh gS fd ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj] bl ?kks’k.kk ds izdk'ku dh
rkjh[k ls] Hkkjr ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM esa fufgr
gksxkA
अनुसूची
िबलपुर
ukxiwj
dGach
72
00
11
78
71
00
16
05
74
00
02
73
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
771
77
00
27
75
110
00
30
88
112
00
25
25
129
00
26
81
131
00
16
96
132
00
24
06
137
00
01
93
136
00
13
98
133
00
14
57
134
00
12
66
107
00
19
41
108
00
21
10
112
00
34
79
111
00
00
11
114
00
51
89
101
00
01
73
100
00
26
25
95
00
11
42
97
00
22
02
91
00
03
96
98
00
05
53
[फा. सं. एल – 14014/226/2021-िीपी-II (ई–41026)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 8th February, 2024
S.O. 354.—Whereas by Notification of Government of India, in Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide
S.O.No 3031(E) dated 28.06.2023; issued under sub - section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of right of users in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the
Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 07.07.2023, the Government of India declared its intention to acquire the right
of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Pipeline for
transportation of natural gas through Mumbai – Nagpur – Jharsuguda (Section:- Nagpur - Jabalpur) pipeline in the
State of Maharashtra by GAIL (India) Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public;
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered of by
the Competent Authority;
And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section (6) of the said Act, submitted its
report to Government of India;
And whereas Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section (6) of the said Act, the
Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to
this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (4) of the Section (6) of the said Act,
Government of India hereby directs the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in
Government of India, vest, on the this date of the publication of the declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, free
from all encumbrances.
772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
[F No. L-14014/226/2021-GP-II (E-41026)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
Mumbai-Nagpur-Jharsuguda Natural Gas Pipeline
Section - Nagpur - Jabalpur
State : Maharashtra
District
Taluka
Village
Survey No.
Area
Hect.
Are
Sq. mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
Nagpur
Kalmeshwar
Kalambi
72
00
11
78
71
00
16
05
74
00
02
73
77
00
27
75
110
00
30
88
112
00
25
25
129
00
26
81
131
00
16
96
132
00
24
06
137
00
01
93
136
00
13
98
133
00
14
57
134
00
12
66
Nagpur
Kalmeshwar
Shahajapur (Rithi)
107
00
19
41
108
00
21
10
112
00
34
79
111
00
00
11
114
00
51
89
101
00
01
73
100
00
26
25
95
00
11
42
97
00
22
02
91
00
03
96
98
00
05
53
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
773
नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 355.—िबदक भारत ljdkj dks yksdghr esa ;g vko';d प्रतीत िोता gS fd
jkT; esa
मुंबई-नागपुर&झारसुगुड़ा नेचरल गैस पाइपलाइन खंड नागपुर& झारसुगुड़ा ikbiykbu खंड के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस
के पठरविन के जलए मेससा गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड }kjk एक पाइपलाइन fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,A
vkSj भारत ljdkj dks उि ikbi ykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, यि vko';d प्रतीत िोता िे दक ml
Hkwfe ftlesa mDr ikbi ykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS] bl vf/klwpuk ls सलग्ग्ग्न vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ds
mi;ksx vf/kdkj dk vtZu दकया िाए;
vr% vc भारत ljdkj isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbi ykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 का 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, उस भूजम मेsa
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gSA
कोई व्यजि, िो mDr vuqlwph मे of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) िै ,उस तारीख से जिसको उि अजिजनयम की िारा 3
की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf’kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfrयो lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k
dj िी िाती िै, 21 fnu ds Hkhrj ml Hkwfe के नीचे ikbiykbu जबछाए िानेs की lEca/k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh
Hkqlaiknu ¼,e-,u-ts-ih-,y- izdYi½ xsy ¼bafM;k½ fyfeVsM] 100] jk.kk gkÅl] 2 jk ekGk] bZLV gk;dksVZ jksM]
jkenklisB] ukxiwj & 440010 को जलजखत रूप मे vk{ksi भेि ldsxkA
अनुसूची
[फा. सं. एल – 14014/82/2022-िीपी-II (ई–42552)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 8th February, 2024
S.O. 355.—Whereas it appears to Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for
transportation of Natural Gas through Mumbai – Nagpur – Jharsuguda Natural Gas Pipeline Section of Nagpur –
Jharsuguda in the state of Maharashtra, a pipeline should be laid by M/s. GAIL (India) Limited.
Ashphalted Road
Drain
774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
And whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is
necessary to acquire the Right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is
described in the Schedule annexed to this notification
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), Government of India hereby declares
its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule, may within twenty-one days from the date
on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the
Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of used
therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority Land Acquisition, (M.N.J.P.L. Project)
GAIL (India) Limited, 100, Rana House, 2nd Floor, East High Court Road, Ramdas Peth, Nagpur 440010.
SCHEDULE
[F No. L-14014/82/2022-GP-II (E-42552)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 356.—िबदक भारत
प्रतीत िोता
मुंबई-नागपुर
झारसुगुड़ा नेचरल गैस पाइपलाइन खंड नागपुर&िबलपुर
खंड के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस
के पठरविन के जलए मेससा गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड
एक पाइपलाइन
भारत
उि
यि
प्रतीत िोता िे दक
सलग्ग्ग्न
दकया िाए
भारत
1962
1962 का 50
उस भूजम मेsa
कोई व्यजि, िो
मे of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) िै, उस तारीख से जिसको उि अजिजनयम की िारा 3
की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के
यो
िी िाती िै
के नीचे
जबछाए िानेs की
Mumbai-Nagpur-Jharsuguda Natural Gas Pipeline
Section - Nagpur – Jharsuguda
State: Maharashtra
District
Taluka
Village
Survey No.
Area
Hect.
Are
Sq. mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
Bhandara
Tumsar
Koshti
27
00
14
74
16
00
14
91
15
00
28
31
13
00
29
19
Ashphalted Road
00
01
98
314
00
10
50
313
00
14
84
312
00
02
64
315
00
31
82
Drain
00
11
34
318
00
15
78
317
00
03
40
319
00
03
20
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
775
को जलजखत रूप मे
भेि
अनुसूची
[फा. सं. एल – 14014/34/2023-िीपी-II (ई–48282)]
रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 8th February, 2024
S.O. 356.—Whereas it appears to Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for
transportation of Natural Gas through Mumbai–Nagpur–Jharsuguda Natural Gas Pipeline Section of Nagpur–
Jabalpur in the state of Maharashtra, a pipeline should be laid by M/s. GAIL (India) Limited.
And whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is
necessary to acquire the Right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is
described in the Schedule annexed to this notification
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), Government of India hereby declares
its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule, may within twenty-one days from the date
on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the
Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of used
therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority Land Acquisition, (M.N.J.P.L. Project)
GAIL (India) Limited, 100, Rana House, 2nd Floor, East High Court Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440010.
SCHEDULE
4
195
196
Cart Track
191/1
190
189
NALA
Mumbai-Nagpur-Jharsuguda Natural Gas Pipeline
Section - Nagpur - Jabalpur
State : Maharashtra
District
Taluka
Village
Survey No.
Area
Hect.
Are
Sq. mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
Nagpur
Hingna
Panjari
195
00
37
41
196
00
14
84
776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[F No. L-14014/34/2023-GP-II (E-48282)]
RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 357.—केंर सरकार तेल उद्योग (जवकास) अजिजनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) की िारा 3 की उप-िारा
(3) (ख) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सुश्री पल्लवी िैन गोजव मिाजनिेिक, िाइड्रोकाबान मिाजनिेिालय
(डीिीएच) और श्री अलोक िमाा, जनिेिक (अनु.एवं जव.), इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड (आईओसीएल) को
दिनांक 13.02.2024 से 12.02.2026 तक या अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, तेल उद्योग जवकास बोडा के सिस्ट्य के
रूप में एततद्वारा जनयुि करती िै।
[फा. सं. िी-38011/41/2016-जवत्त.I/ओएनिी-I]
अजमत बंसल, उप सजचव
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 357.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(b) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry
(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Pallavi Jain Govil, Director
General, Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) and Shri Alok Sharma, Director (R&D), Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (IOCL) as a Member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 13.02.2024 to 12.02.2026 or
until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-F.I/ONG.I]
AMIT BANSAL, Dy. Secy.
श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 358.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ds प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटार, सैन्य क्षेत्र, पठटयाला; श्री पवन कुमार बिाि ठेकेिार जनवासी
एल.आई.िी. 175, अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, पठटयाला,
गुरजमत कौर, कामगार,
. 1
(
116/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[फा. सं. ,y -12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-60]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
New Delhi, the, 2nd February, 2024
S.O. 358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,
Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate,
Phase-I, Patiala, and Gurmit Kaur.Worker.
[F No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-60]
SALONI, Dy. Director
Cart Track
00
07
30
191/1
00
04
16
190
00
07
48
189
00
23
68
NALA
00
04
97
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
777
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.116/2016
Registered On:-11/11/2016
Gurmit Kaur W/o Dhian Singh R/o V.P.O. Passiana Tehsil & Distt. Patiala. C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-cum-Office
of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).
...........Workman
Versus
1.
The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.
2.
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.
........Respondents
Award
Passed On:-19.12.2023
1.
The workman Smt. Gurmit Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but
none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no
use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause
against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,
no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in
the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID
Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 359.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार
जनिेिक, उष्िकठटबंिीय वन अनुसंिान संस्ट्थान, पी.ओ.आर.एफ.आर.सी., मंडला रोड, िबलपुर- (मध्य प्रिेि); मेससा
आयान जसक्योठरटी सर्वास, कोलार रोड, भोपाल- (मध्य प्रिेि), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और
श्री सुरेंर जवश्वकमाा,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
िबलपुर पंचाट (संिभा संख्या CGIT/LC/R/76/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै
िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 07.02.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[फा. सं. एल- 42025-07-2024-29- आईआर-(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/76/2021) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Director, Tropical Forest Research Institute, P.O.R.F.R.C., Mandla Road,
Jabalpur- (Madhya Pradesh); M/s Aryan Security Service, Kolar Road, Bhopal- (Madhya Pradesh), and
Shri Surendra Vishwakarma, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 07.02.2024.
[F No. L- 42025-07-2024-29- IR (DU]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/76/2021
Present: P. K. Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Surendra Vishwakarma,
R/o. Village – Silua,
Jabalpur ( Madhya Pradesh ) – 482 021.
Workman
Versus
The Director,
Tropical Forest Research Institute.
PO – R.F.R.C., Mandla Road,
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)- 482 021.
M/s.Aryan Security Service,
Rep. by Smt. Manorma Singh, Proprietor,
SO-02, 2nd Floor, Windsor Plaza, Plot No.-47,
Sector-A, Banjari Housing Co-op-society,
In front of Bank of Baroda, Kolar Road,
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)- 462 042.
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 03rd day of January-2024)
As per letter dated 29/10/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number
J-1(4-5)/2021 –IR dt. 29/10/2021. The dispute under reference related to:-
"Whether the action of the management of T.F.R.I., Jabalpur of terminating the services of
Shri Surendra Vishwakarma, who was engaged through M/s.Aryan Security Service, is legal and justified? If
not, what relief Shri Surendra Vishwakarma is entitled to?"
After registering the case on reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. In Spite of service of notices, the workman was never appeared nor did he file any statement of claim,
management also did not file any written statement of defense. Although management was present several time.
Since None of the parties filed any pleading nor did file any evidence, holding the claim of workman not
proved the reference deserves to be answered against workman and is answered accordingly.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 360.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार
जनिेिक, उष्िकठटबंिीय वन अनुसंिान संस्ट्थान, पी.ओ.आर.एफ.आर.सी., मंडला रोड, िबलपुर- (मध्य प्रिेि); मेससा
आयान जसक्योठरटी सर्वास, कोलार रोड, भोपाल- (मध्य प्रिेि), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री कुंिी लाल,
कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
िबलपुर पंचाट(संिभा
संख्या CGIT/LC/R/75/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 07.02.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-28-आईआर-(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/75/2021) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director, Tropical Forest Research Institute, P.O.R.F.R.C., Mandla Road, Jabalpur- (Madhya
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
779
Pradesh); M/s Aryan Security Service, Kolar Road, Bhopal- (Madhya Pradesh), and Shri Kunji Lal, Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.02.2024.
[No. L-42025/07/2024-28 IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/75/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Kunji Lal,
R/o.Gauraiya Ghat, Gaur,
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)-482 021.
Workman
Versus
The Director,
Tropical Forest Research Institute.
POR.F.R.C., Mandla Road,
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)-482 021.
M/s.Aryan Security Service,
Rep. by Smt. Manorma Singh, Proprietor,
SO-02, 2nd Floor, Windsor Plaza, Plot No.-47,
Sector-A, Banjari Housing Co-op-society,
In front of Bank of Baroda, Kolar Road,
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)-462 042.
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 03Th day of January-2024.)
As per letter dated 29/10/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number J-1(4-
4)/2021-IR dt. 29/10/2021. The dispute under reference related to :-
"Whether the action of the management of T.F.R.I., Jabalpur of terminating the services of Shri Kunji
Lal, who was engaged through M/s.Aryan Security Service, is legal and justified? If not, what relief
Shri Kunji Lal is entitled to?"
After registering the case on reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. In
Spite of service of notices, the workman was never appeared nor did he file any statement of claim, management also
did not file any written statement of defense. Although management was present several time.
Since None of the parties filed any pleading nor did file any evidence, holding the claim of workman not proved the
reference deserves to be answered against workman and is answered accordingly.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 361.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj िम्मू और कश्मीर बैंक जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] चंडीगढ़-I ds iapkV (
84/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं.
-12012/33/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Jammu
and Kasmir Bank Limited and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/33/2019-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. Tripathi, Presiding Officer.
ID No.84/2019
Registered On:-13.01.2020
Shri Balbir Krishan S/o Shri Pishori Lal, House No.108, Sector-1, Sharika Vihar, Lower Roop Nagar-180013.
….…..Workmen
Versus
The Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, Corporate Head Quarters, M.A. Road, Srinagar(J&K)-190008.
…..Management
AWARD
Passed on:-15.09.2023
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/33/2019-IR(B-I) Dated 30.12.2019, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act),
has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of The Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited,
Corporate Headquarters, M.A. Road, Srinagar(J&K) in not regularizing the services of workman
w.e.f. the date of their joining (As per annexure enclosed) is just, fair and legal? If not to what relief
the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal on 15.09.2023, the case is fixed for filing claim
statement by the workman. One of the workmen Sh. Balbir Krishan S/o Sh. Pishori Lal, R/o H.No.108, Sector 1,
Sharika Vihar, Near Airtel Tower, Lower Roop Nagar, Jammu Tawi, Jammu and Kashmir-180013 has filed an
application for withdrawal of the case and he has also made a statement for withdrawal of the case which is recorded
separately. Hence, there is no need to proceed with the matter further.
2.
In view of the application moved by Sh. Balbir Krishan, one of workmen, the present reference made by the
Ministry is dismissed as withdrawn. The application moved by Sh. Balbir Krishan, one of workmen as well as the
statement made by him before the Tribunal shall remain the integral part of the Award.
3.
Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication of the same as required under
Section 17(2) of the Act.
J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 362.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
नंबर 2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22011/32/2010-आई. आर.(सीएम-II)]
मजिकंिन, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
781
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.112/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/02/2024.
[No. L-22011/32/2010-IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No.112/2011
Registered on:-21.02.2011
Sh. Som Nath, S/o Sh. Pangu Ram, R/o Chowki Chowra, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu.
….…..Workman
Versus
1.
Food Corporation of India through its Senior Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jammu.
2.
Food Corporation of India, through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jammu.
.....…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-15.11.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-22011/32/2010-IR(CM-II), Dated 27.01.2011, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of
Shri Om Prakash S/o Sh. Ram Saran R/o Ward No.9, House No.36, Bishnah, Distt. Jammu(J&K) w.e.f.
01.10.2002 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
1.
The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition as per the claim of workman are that the workman was
appointed as Security Guard in the year 1996 initially on contractual basis in the Food Corporation of India at its
Regional and District Office, Jammu. The workman continued without any break till his termination in the month of
September 2002 by the respondents illegally and wrongfully. In terms of the 2001(7) SCC pg 1, the workman is
required to be regularized as the contract governing the service of the workman was found to be in genuine. The
workman is well within its rights to seek absorption in the corporation in view of the fact that even after coming to
know about the contractor not holding a valid license, the corporation continued with the services of the workman till
his illegal termination in the year 2002. The mandatory provisions of labour laws which the respondent-corporation
was under an obligation to observe have not been complied with. The services of the workman have been terminated
on the pretext of his being the contract labour whereas the corporation had been paying salary directly in favour of the
workman which is evident from the cheques issued by the corporation in favour of the workman on account of the
salary payable to the workman. The workman was working for the respondent-management directly under its
supervision and control which is evident from the fact that the management was directly making payment to the
workman and was also operating and maintaining an attendance register for this purpose. The respondent-management
have acted illegally on their self-contrived ideas in treating the workman as a contractual employee. The respondent-
management was under a statutory obligation to put the workman herein to a prior notice and afford them with a
reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any harsh order against the workman. It is therefore most
respectfully prayed that the order dated 27.09.2002 passed by the respondent-management in terminating the services
of the workman without adopting due course of law be quashed.
2.
The management has filed written statement, alleging therein that the workman was not appointed by the
respondent-management as alleged by him but the fact is that the workman came to be engaged through H. Rehman
Security Service of India a contractor for his service as security guard in Food Corporation of India and his status
remained as a contractual labourer employed by the contractor and not by respondents in any case. The amount of Rs.
1500/- is the amount to be paid to the workman by the contractor and not by Food Corporation of India in terms of the
written contract entered into between the contractor and the Food Corporation of India and this payment made to the
782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman was not the salary paid to the workman by the respondent-management. If there is some sort of violation of
the licensing provisions it does not confer any right upon the workman to claim himself as an employee of the
respondents. The workman was the employee of the contractor from whom respondents hired his services in FCI and
he was never appointed in any capacity by the respondents. There was no relationship of employee and employer
between the workman and respondent-management at any time so question of his claim as alleged in this petition does
not arise at all and relief as prayed for or of like nature or otherwise cannot be granted to the workman by this Hon'ble
Court. It is therefore, prayed that petition of the workman may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3.
On 15.11.2023 the case was fixed for evidence of management. Learned counsel for management has
submitted that no evidence of management is required as the workman has not lead any evidence and the opportunity
of the workman for evidence was closed by the Predecessor of this Tribunal on 09.03.2020. On perusal of the file, it is
found that the submissions made by the learned counsel for management are true. Today also none has to come to
prosecute the case on behalf of the workman which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
matter on merit.
4.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has filed any evidence to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
5.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 363.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
नंबर 2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[फा. एल-22011/33/2010-आई. आर.(सीएम-II)]
मजिकंिन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 363.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.115/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/02/2024
[No. L-22011/33/2010-IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 115/2011
Registered on:-21.02.2011
Sh. Sat Pal, S/o Sh. Manga Ram, R/o Dablehar, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.
….…..Workman
Versus
1. Food Corporation of India through its Senior Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jammu.
2. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Jammu.
.....…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-15.11.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-22011/33/2010-IR(CM-II), Dated 27.01.2011, under clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
783
“Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of
Shri Sat Pal S/o Sh. Manga Ram R/o Dablehar, Tehsil R.S. Pura, Distt. Jammu(J&K) w.e.f. 01.10.2002
is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
1.
The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition as per the claim of workman are that the workman
was appointed as Security Guard in the year 1996 initially on contractual basis in the Food Corporation of India at
District Office and Godown at Nagrota, State of J&K. The workman continued without any break till his termination
in the month of September 2002 by the respondents illegally and wrongfully. In terms of the 2001(7) SCC pg 1, the
workman is required to be regularized as the contract governing the service of the workman was found to be in
genuine. The workman is well within its rights to seek absorption in the corporation in view of the fact that even after
coming to know about the contractor not holding a valid license, the corporation continued with the services of the
workman till his illegal termination in the year 2002. The mandatory provisions of labour laws which the respondent-
corporation was under an obligation to observe have not been complied with. The services of the workman have been
terminated on the pretext of his being the contract labour whereas the corporation had been paying salary directly in
favour of the workman which is evident from the cheques issued by the corporation in favour of the workman on
account of the salary payable to the workman. The workman was working for the respondent-management directly
under its supervision and control which is evident from the fact that the management was directly making payment to
the workman and was also operating and maintaining an attendance register for this purpose. The respondent-
management have acted illegally on their self-contrived ideas in treating the workman as a contractual employee. The
respondent-management was under a statutory obligation to put the workman herein to a prior notice and afford them
with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any harsh order against the workman. It is therefore most
respectfully prayed that the order dated 27.09.2002 passed by the respondent-management in terminating the services
of the workman without adopting due course of law be quashed.
2.
The management has filed written statement, alleging therein that the workman was not appointed by the
respondent-management as alleged by him but the fact is that the workman came to be engaged through H. Rehman
Security Service of India a contractor for his service as security guard in Food Corporation of India and his status
remained as a contractual labourer employed by the contractor and not by respondents in any case. The amount of Rs.
1500/- is the amount to be paid to the workman by the contractor and not by Food Corporation of India in terms of the
written contract entered into between the contractor and the Food Corporation of India and this payment made to the
workman was not the salary paid to the workman by the respondent-management. If there is some sort of violation of
the licensing provisions it does not confer any right upon the workman to claim himself as an employee of the
respondents. The workman was the employee of the contractor from whom respondents hired his services in FCI and
he was never appointed in any capacity by the respondents. There was no relationship of employee and employer
between the workman and respondent-management at any time so question of his claim as alleged in this petition does
not arise at all and relief as prayed for or of like nature or otherwise cannot be granted to the workman by this Hon'ble
Court. It is therefore, prayed that petition of the workman may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3.
On 15.11.2023 the case was fixed for evidence of management. Learned counsel for management has
submitted that no evidence of management is required as the workman has not lead any evidence and the opportunity
of the workman for evidence was closed by the Predecessor of this Tribunal on 09.03.2020. On perusal of the file, it is
found that the submissions made by the learned counsel for management are true. Today also none has to come to
prosecute the case on behalf of the workman which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
matter on merit.
4.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has filed any evidence to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.
Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
5.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 364.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
नंबर 2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22011/28/2010-आई. आर.(सीएम-II)]
मजिकंिन, उप जनिेिक
784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 364.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.111/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/02/2024.
[No. L-22011/28/2010-IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-
II, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No.111/2011
Registered on:-21.02.2011
Sh. Govind Ram, S/o Sh. Chettu Ram, R/o Kotli Chatakan, P.O. Bishanh, Tehsil & District Jammu.
….…..Workman
Versus
1.
Food Corporation of India through its Senior Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jammu.
2.
Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Jammu.
.....…Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed on:-15.11.2023
Central
Government
vide
Notification
No.L-22011/28/2010-IR(CM-II),
Dated
27.01.2011, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this
Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the
services of Shri Govind Ram S/o Shri Chettu Ram R/o Kotli Chowk, Tehsil & Distt. Jammu
(J&K) w.e.f. 01.10.2002 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?
1.
The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition as per the claim of workman are that the workman
was appointed as Security Guard in the year 1996 initially on contractual basis in the Food Corporation of India at
District Office and Godown at Nagrota, State of J & K. The workman continued without any break till his termination
in the month of September 2002 by the respondents illegally and wrongfully. In terms of the 2001(7) SCC pg 1, the
workman is required to be regularized as the contract governing the service of the workman was found to be in
genuine. The workman is well within its rights to seek absorption in the corporation in view of the fact that even after
coming to know about the contractor not holding a valid license, the corporation continued with the services of the
workman till his illegal termination in the year 2002. The mandatory provisions of labour laws which the respondent-
corporation was under an obligation to observe have not been complied with. The services of the workman have been
terminated on the pretext of his being the contract labour whereas the corporation had been paying salary directly in
favour of the workman which is evident from the cheques issued by the corporation in favour of the workman on
account of the salary payable to the workman. The workman was working for the respondent-management directly
under its supervision and control which is evident from the fact that the management was directly making payment to
the workman and was also operating and maintaining an attendance register for this purpose. The respondent-
management have acted illegally on their self-contrived ideas in treating the workman as a contractual employee. The
respondent-management was under a statutory obligation to put the workman herein to a prior notice and afford them
with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any harsh order against the workman. It is therefore most
respectfully prayed that the order dated 27.09.2002 passed by the respondent-management in terminating the services
of the workman without adopting due course of law be quashed.
2.
The management has filed written statement, alleging therein that the workman was not appointed by the
respondent-management as alleged by him but the fact is that the workman came to be engaged through H. Rehman
Security Service of India a contractor for his service as security guard in Food Corporation of India and his status
remained as a contractual labourer employed by the contractor and not by respondents in any case. The amount of Rs.
1500/- is the amount to be paid to the workman by the contractor and not by Food Corporation of India in terms of the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
785
written contract entered into between the contractor and the Food Corporation of India and this payment made to the
workman was not the salary paid to the workman by the respondent-management. If there is some sort of violation of
the licensing provisions it does not confer any right upon the workman to claim himself as an employee of the
respondents. The workman was the employee of the contractor from whom respondents hired his services in FCI and
he was never appointed in any capacity by the respondents. There was no relationship of employee and employer
between the workman and respondent-management at any time so question of his claim as alleged in this petition does
not arise at all and relief as prayed for or of like nature or otherwise cannot be granted to the workman by this Hon'ble
Court. It is therefore, prayed that petition of the workman may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3.
On 15.11.2023 the case was fixed for evidence of management. Learned counsel for management has
submitted that no evidence of management is required as the workman has not lead any evidence and the opportunity
of the workman for evidence was closed by the Predecessor of this Tribunal on 09.03.2020. On perusal of the file, it is
found that the submissions made by the learned counsel for management are true. Today also none has to come to
prosecute the case on behalf of the workman which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
matter on merit.
4.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has filed any evidence to prove his cause
against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim
Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.
5.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 365.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
नंo 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/48/99-आई. आर.(सीएम-I)]
मजिकंिन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 365.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 246/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/02/2024.
[No. L-20012/48/99-IR(CM-I)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.
PRESENT
D.S.K.Thakur
Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947
REFERENCE NO.246 OF 1999.
PARTIES:
:
The Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,,
At :Hirapur ,Dhanbad
Vs.
The General Manager,
Govindpur Area No. III of M/s BCCL,
786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
PO:Sonardih Distt: Dhanbad ,
Order No.L-20012/48/99-IR (C-I) dt. 04.06.1999
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the workman /Union :
Mr.D.Mukherjee , Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate
State
Jharkhand Industry
Coal
:
Dated 3rd October,2023
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No.L-20012/48/99-IR (C-I) dt. 04.06.1999.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Bishunpat
Singh with effect from 20.04.98 was legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to
?”
2. The Government of India of Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between employer,i.e the Management of Govindpur Area No. III of M/s BCCL and its workman/claimant herein,
under clause (d) of Sub Sec. (1) and Sub Sec. (2A) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-
20012/49/99-IR(C-I) dt.04.06.1999 to this Tribunal for adjudication on the terms of Reference mentioned herein
above.
3. (i) The sponsoring Union namely Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad filed written statement stating that
the workman- Bishnupat Singh had been working as a permanent S.B. Attendant at Dharmabandh Colliery with
unblemished service track record .The workman being a forefront member of the Union was very active for the cause
of the other co-workers . The OP/Management was very biased and on the lookout to victimize him so as to other
follow it as as deterrent .Previously also the OP/Management by implicating in a false case dismissed the workman
from service. Upon challenging to it the Management reinstated him with consequential benefits. .Ironically the
workman concerned was again implicated falsely in a criminal offence and was put in detention in jail custody from
18.05.93 to 27.07.94.
(ii) Upon released from detention of jail custody the workman immediately reported for duty on 01.09.94 but OP/
Management did not allow him to resume duty. Here again it is pertinent to mention that the nearby sources of the
workman informed the Management of his whereabouts to the Management narrating his helplessness to inform
individually as reason behind his alleged absence, with prayer to sanction him leave till he is released from jail.
OP/Management came out with a charge sheet on the ground of alleged absentism .The workman replied the said
charge sheet but the OP/Management went ahead to constitute domestic enquiry and on completing due procedures
he was dismissed and workman’s appeal was also turned down by the Appellate Authority . Under the said
circumstances the workman referred the matter before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad But despite sincere
efforts to settle the dispute the same ended in failure and birth of this Reference.
(iii) Further it has been alleged that the OP/management has acted in highly illegal, unjustified and arbitrary manner
to dismiss him from service for non-observance of any of the provisions as laid down in the Industrial Law and in
accordance with the Certified Standing Orders of the OP/Management seeking to answer the reference in favour of
the workman by reinstating him with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
4. On the other hand raising maintainability of the matter either in law or on facts the OP/Management
contended that the workman started absenting from his duty since 18.06.1993 without permission and information
from the Management. The said act of the workman constituted a misconduct and accordingly the Management
issued a charge sheet to the workman on 22.12.1994 to which the workman submitted reply .The reply not being
found satisfactory the Management decided to hold a domestic enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer to go to
the bottom of the fact of all the issues. The workman participated in the said enquiry along with his co-workers. The
charges levelled against the workman has been fully established in course of enquiry .Thereafter the Disciplinary
Authority issued a Second charge sheet providing thereof a spare copy on enquiry report to him.Finally on 20.0.98 the
Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman .So the dismissal of the workman concerned is legal and justified as
the enquiry conducted against him was absolutely fair and proper.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
787
5. The workman concerned examined himself as WW-I and proved the documents relied by him as Ext.W-5 in
course of hearing .On the other hand the O.P./Management examined one witness namely Shri V.N.Prasad as O.P.
MW-I and proved the documents as M-1 to M-9 in a series to said enquiry .The issue with regard to dismissal of
the workman Bishnu Pat Singh by the Management the Tribunal has gone through the materials on record
including the pleadings of the parties and the Exhibited documents itself.
6. Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP/Management has tried to justify the action against the workman and
dealt with the issue of the misconduct it constitutes a serious misconduct for being absent from 18.06.93 .Further
there is no infirmity in holding the domestic enquiry which was already declared fair and proper by the Tribunal
vide order dt 28.09.2011.
7, Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP./Management takes the issue while arguing final argument that the
person in jail custody and acquittal thereof by Addl. Sessions Judge was Sri Balram Singh and not Sri Vishnu Pat
Singh .As such the claim and statement of the workman that he was in jail during his absence for which he has
dismissed is not true. His this claim is not corroborated with any evidence .The workman side did not confront on
the issue and was not able to justify. The workman during adducing evidence produced the Acquittal Order issued
by the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad absolving him of the charges leveled against him in C.R. Case No. 2752 of
1980 on 06,09.83 U/S 3/3 of the Explosive Sub. Act. has not brought this fact before the concerned Court that he is
known as Sri Vishnu Pat Singh in his official record .
Here the case that the person in jail custody and acquitted thereof by Addl. Sessions Judge was Sri
Balram Singh and not Sri Vishnu Pat Singh As such the claim and statement of the workman that he was in jail
during his absence for which he has dismissed is not true. His claim is not corroborated with any evidence.
8. The workman has not been able to produce in support of his point that BALARAM SINGH and
BISHNUPAT SINGH is the same person since in the official record workman’s name had been all along as
BISHNUPAT SINGH .So Workman’s narrative stating that Balram Singh and Bishnupat Singh is the same person
does not appears authenticate in itself until and unless it is corroborated with authenticate documents and matching
with that of official record of the OP./Management under whom workman had been in employment. It does not
make any sense that workman random’s statement that Balram Singh and Bishnu Pat Singh should be known with
one and same person also without following prior due procedure and matching available record to justify claim.
9.In view of above factual situation as emerged and materials on record and keeping in mind the decision of the
Addl.Distt. & Session Judge of absolving the person namely of Sri Balram Singh of the charges and not the person
named as Sri Bishnu Pat Singh the workman’s claim has left a great deal of suspicion and did not stand with legal
force to be acceptable .So all the exercise put in by the workman has turned of no consequence as the claim appears
of dubious nature and does not stand to prove the point of holding dual names on the issue of sensitive matter
and so is devoid of merit.
10. Therefore, the action of the O.P./Management in dismissing the workman from service is hereby found
legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Thus, all the issues in the instant
proceedings were answered in the aforesaid terms. The aforesaid shall constitute the Award and shall stand disposed
of, on contest as “No Relief”. .
Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 366.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa
] हैदराबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-
- (सी.एम-II)]
मजिकंिन एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 366.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/02/2024.
[No L-22012/405/2004 – IR (CM-II)
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 17th day of May, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 22/2006
Between:
The Central Vice President (Sri B. Gangaram),
Singareni Collieries Workers Union (AITUC),
12-10-196, Sithafalmandi,
Secunderabad.
….. Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Division,
Sreerampur,
Andhra Pradesh – 504303.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. A. sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/405/2004-IR(CM-II) dated
3.2.2006 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal
between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Secunderabad in reducing
the two annual increments in respect of Shri V. Koteshwar, Head Overman, S/Sh Lingam Odelu and Sriram,
Mining Sardars was legal and justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 22/2006 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. The averments made by the Petitioner in the claim statement are as follows:
The Petitioner in his claim statement has submitted that due to the reasons mentioned in the claim statement the
action of Disciplinary Authority in reducing two annual increments from the wages of three mining staff personnel
i.e., Shri V. Koteshwar, Head Overman, S/Sh Lingam Odelu and Sriram, Mining Sardars should be cancelled and the
deducted wages be paid back. It is also submitted that the legal aspects mentioned in the first part are quite enough
to cancel the disciplinary action and secondly the irregularity committed by mining officials due to bogus enquiry
and no fault in three mining persons was proved. Hence, on this basis also the disciplinary action of two increments
be treated as cancelled and deducted amount so far be paid to the above three personnel of mining staff.
3. It is submitted by the Petitioner in the claim statement that in the light of the case law of Baldev Singh Vs.
Secretary 1969 SLR 23 Allahabad High Court, "A person who should act as an enquiry officer should be appointed by
an authority, who is competent to take disciplinary action against the workman Concerned .” Hence it is clear that
General Manager, Sreerampur area who is not competent authority to appoint the enquiry officer and the presenting
officer, since he is not the appointing authority or disciplinary authority for the Mining Sardar and Overmen in this
dispute. Further it is submitted that Mining Sardars and Overmen are qualified persons under the provisions of coal
mines regulations 1957 and having valid certificates to perform their statutory jobs. Hence the General Manager,
Sreerampur is not competent authority for the 3 personnel of mining staff in the dispute and the Director (PAW)
Kothagudem is only competent authority for these mining staff in this dispute. It is further submitted that Director
(PAW), Kothagudem is only competent for appointment of mining staff personnel in this dispute and competent to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
789
take disciplinary action for them. Thus, the general Manager, Sreerampur is not competent to appoint the enquiry
officer and the presenting officer, thus the domestic enquiry conducted against the Petitioners is illegal and
unjustified. Further it is submitted that the Safety officer who is the main culprit for the fatal accident occurred on
17.8.2002 in 3rd shift, has been appointed as the presenting officer who has acted as a prosecutor. He has acted like
a dictator and refused to give any answer to the questions put by the charge sheeted workmen Sri. V. Kóteshwar
Head Overman and 2 others. The enquiry officer kept quiet during the whole enquiry whet the presenting officer was
bluntly refusing to give replies to the questions put by Sri. V. Kóteshwar and others and stated that it is irrelevant and
thus the enquiry officer not only fully supported the presenting officer through out the enquiry and also acted as
puppet of Presenting Officer. Further, the Enquiry Officer failed to give full and fair opportunity to the charge
sheeted employees and thus the enquiry officer has violated the principles of natural justice and domestic enquiry is
invalid and unjustified.
4. Further it is submitted that on the night of 17.8.2002 Sri. V. Koteshwar, HOM was in night shift but he was
detained on the surface for distribution of work among the coal fillers and other workers, since there were no
working places. On 17.8.2002 in II shift Mining sardar Sri Lingam Odelu took charge on surface, from II shift
Mining sardar Sri Sree Ram and due to late distribution of work Sri Lingam Odelu, Mining sardar was in
underground at 11.45 night and the fillers also went undergrounds at the same time and the fatal accident occurred at
1.15 a.m. in 2 seam depilaring area. After doing late distribution of work Sri V. Koteshwar, HOM went
underground at 1.30 A.M. i.e., immediately after the fatal accident occurred. Sri Lingam Odelu, Mining sardar
stated in the domestic enquiry that due to late distribution of work, the fillers reached the working place between
12.30 - 12.45 night and at 1.15 am fatal accident took place. It is state d that on 17.8.2002 in 2nd shift Sri Sree
Ram, Mining Sardar and one overman trainee worked in the depillaring area. On Sree Ram Management took action
by reducing two increments but on the overman of 2nd shift no action was taken since he was a trainee. As per the
coal mines regulations trainee overman should not be posted in the depillaring area. To hide this mistake and illegal
action, management did not take any action on trainee overman. The Management took action on Sri Lingam
Odelu, Mining Sardar of III shift and also on Sri V. Koteshwar, H.O.M., of III shift. It is further submitted that on
17.8.2002, the first and second shift overmen wrote in report book and charge book that dangerous sounds are
coming in the roof. Inspite of this, second shift under manager asked Sri V. Koteshwar, H.O.M. to continue work in
the same work place. 29 ½ south inspite of report of 1st and 2nd shift Overmen that dangerous sounds are coming.
This is recorded in the Overmans charge book.
5. It is also submitted that as per Director, Mines Safety Letter No.DIR/H11/345, dated 21.7.02 as per safety rules
least delay be made. But in this case it worked for 39 shifts i.e., 13 days inspite of sounds in that depillaring area. In
depillaring area exposure shall not be made more than 75 Sq. mtrs. But it was 110 Sq. meters in this area. The pillar
should not be reduced or extended within 5 meters but in this case it is reduced from 29 level to 30 level and work
carried on under faulty and risky area in 29 ½ level 22 dip to 23 dip. It is submitted that as per the faulty area,
instructions of Director General Mines Safety regarding faulty area, the colliery manager, under-manager and safety
officer of the mine should inspect and take immediate decision to close the faulty working place. But these officers
did not take any action to stop work in the faulty area which lead to fatal accident. It is clear that due to negligent
attitude of the 3 mine officers this fatal accident occurred and one coal filler lost his precious life. It is further
submitted that as per Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, these 3 mines officers should visit such faulty working places
regularly and take immediate action to close the working place. Not only these officers have not done their duty but
due to lack of the working places, the workers were sent very late in the night shifts of 17th August 2002 to work in
the same area where dangerous sounds were coming and thus these 3 mine officers, Manager, Under Manger, Safety
Officer are mainly responsible for this fatal accident. It is submitted that instead of forcing the workers to work in
faulty area in night shift, they should have been shown some alternative jobs or they should have been laid off. In
this case the disciplinary action was taken against Il shift Mining sardar Sri. Sree Ram and ll shift mining sardar Sri.
Lingam Odelu and Sri. V. Koteshwar HOM and their 2 annual increments are reduced. The overman trainee was
posted in 2nd shift, since it is illegal to post an overman trainee in depillaring area, hence no action was taken against
him, to hush up the illegal action of the mine officers and not because of any mercy on the trainee workman. It is
further submitted that the copy of records on which the Management has relied and framed the charge sheets were
not supplied to the three charge sheeted workmen. As per case law of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kashinath Dikshath
Vs. Union of India and ors, 69 FJR SC page 339, wherein it was held, “the copies of documents or statements relied
upon by prosecution should be provided to accused employees. Failure to accede demand of an employee for copies
of documents and statements, amounts to failure to give reasonable opportunity to employee to exonerate himself in
such circumstances, disciplinary action based on such enquiry is also null and void.” Also Hon’ble Delhi high court I
in Moti ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1975 SLR 369), of the opinion that the list of witnesses should be
supplied to the charge sheeted employee, otherwise the enquiry cannot be admitted as fair and liable to be set aside.
It is submitted that as per the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, No.41, 41A and 42, the duties of Managers, Safety
officers and under managers are given below for ready reference in this case:
790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A) In every mine, daily personal supervision shall be exercised by the Manager. In case of below ground he shall
visit and examine the workings below ground level at least 4 days in every week to see that safety aspects in ensured.
B) The manager, under manager and Asst. manager if any, shall each maintain in a bound paged book kept for the
purpose, a dairy and shall record these in the result of each of his inspection and also the action taken by him to
rectify the defects noticed if any.
C) As per regulation 41A the safety officer has to visit to surface and underground parts of the mine with a view to
meeting the workers on this spot to talk them on matters of safety inviting suggestions thereon and he has to report
the manager as a result of his visits to the various parts of the mine, as to whether provisions of mines act, regulations
and rules are being complied with the mine. The safety officer shall maintain in bound paged book, a detailed record
of the work performed by him every day.
D) The under manager, or assistant manages subject to the orders of the manager, visit and examine the working s
under his charge, on every working day.
E) In the above paras, only a few details of the duties of managers, under Managers and safety officers have been
given. If these 3 mines officers have performed their duties properly and implemented the directions of the Director
General Mines Safety, regarding precautions to be taken in the depillaring area, the fatal accident occurred on
17.8.2002, in II shift could have been averted and precious life of Coal filler could have been saved.
The enquiry officer in his findings submitted that Sri. V. Koteshwar did not give any explanation to charge sheet. The
detailed reply of Sri V. Koteshwar to the General Manager, through the Colliery Manager, MK$ was submitted but in
the enquiry findings it is mentioned that he did not submit any explanation, is quite wrongful and misleading. The
copy of his detailed reply in four pages, typed in Telugu is full of details. The copy has been attached by the
management along with their views submitted to the ALR (C), Godavarikhani on 27.9.2004. It is submitted that it
is clearly understood that to create a wrong impression to the Director PWA regarding Sri V. Koteshwar, HOM the
enquiry officer wrote such a false thing and the Director PWA believed this wrong report and he also mentioned the
same, in his office order and basing on this wrong report of the Enquiry Officer, the Director PWA put his stamp on
the disciplinary action against Sri. V. Koteshwar, HOM. Moreover, the enquiry officer did not allow Sri. V.
Koteshwar, HOM to produce his witnesses in the domestic enquiry and abruptly closed the domestic enquiry. It is
submitted that on 17.8.2002 from 1st shift Gope sounds, roof movements were there but no body took any safety
measures. Since long time , all the mine officers know that from 28 level to 30 level there is fault. On 13th and 16th
August, 2002 roof checking's were done but it was kept secret. In such dangerous working place, deliberately work
was carried on and during three shifts no under manager was posted there and due to this accident took place. It is
further submitted that on 17.8.2002 Sri V. Koteshwar, HOM was assigned job of work distribution in night shift. If
he was not given the job of work distribution and sent underground earlier, he could have averted the accident by
adopting safety measures. Further, if under manager was sent underground earlier, the fatal accident could not have
occurred. It is clear that earlier the management came to a decision to save the mine officers and involve the mining
staff personnel and punish them only. It is further submitted that the second shift under manager was not present in
domestic enquiry also, since he is responsible for negligence. It is submitted that as per regulations the area of
working place should not exceed 75 Sq. meters but it has reached 110 Sq. meters inspite of this the mine officers
asked to carry on work there only and due to utter negligence of 3 mine officers, fatal accident occurred. It is
submitted that for saving the 3 mine officers who have violated all the safety rules as per the Coal Mines Regulations,
1957 and whose criminal negligence is fully responsible for the fatal accident and a bogus domestic enquiry was
conducted and on the basis of that enquiry, wrong disciplinary action was taken by reducing 2 annual increments in
respect of S/Sri. V. Koteshwar H.O.M. and 2 mining sardars 2nd and 3rd shifts Sri Sriram and Lingam Odelu and as
such the same should be cancelled and the deducted wages be paid back.
6. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:
Respondent herein has refuted the allegations and averments made by the Petitioners in the claim statement. He has
submitted that the Petitioner Union alleging that the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer could have been
appointed by the disciplinary authority. There is no such condition for appointment of Enquiry Officer and
Presenting Officers. It is submitted that Heads of the Mine are competent authority to issue charge sheet and
Director (Personnel, Welfare & Administration) is the competent authority to impose penalty. Accordingly, the
Respondent Management initiated disciplinary against the proceedings charge sheeted employees. It is submitted that
the Respondent Management issued charge sheet under Company's Standing Order Nos.25(5) and 25(16) which reads
as follows:
25(5): Neglect of work.
25(16): Any breach of the Mines Act, 1952 or any other act or rules or regulations of bylaws there under.
The Coal Mines Regulations, 1957:
Reg. No.43(1)(a): Subject to the orders of superior officials, he shall have responsible charge and control of such part
of the mine and shall carryout such duties, as may be assigned to him by the Manager.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
791
Reg. No.43(1 )e): He shall, to the best of his power, enforce in his district the provisions of the Act, of these
regulations and orders made thereunder, and shall, subject to the control of the manager, and the under manager or
asst. manager, if any, give such directions as may be necessary to ensure compliance with those provisions and to
secure the safety of the district and the safety and proper discipline of the persons employed therein.
Reg. No.43(6): He shall give prompt attention to the removal of any danger observed or reported to him, and shall
see that dangerous places arc adequately fenced off.
Reg. No. 190 : No person shall negligently or willfully do anything likely to endanger life or limp in the mine, or
negligently or willfully omit to do anything necessary for the safety of the mine or persons employed therein.
It is submitted that the charge sheeted employees received charge sheets, but, they did not submit any explanation to
the charge sheets. As such, enquiry was ordered by appointing enquiry officer. The charge sheeted employees were
given fair opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to defend their case by following the principles of natural justice. It is
further submitted that the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report and as per the findings of
the Enquiry Officer, the charges of neglect of work and violation of CMR, 1957 by the said employees were
established. It is submitted that though the charges levelled and proved against the charge sheeted employees were
grave and serious in nature and the warranted punishment is that of a dismissal from service, but a lenient view was
taken and lesser punishment was awarded in accordance with Clause 26 of Company Standing Order to rectify their
mistakes and avoid such repetitions in future.
Regulation Nos. 43 and 44 of the Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 are extracted as under:
43. Duties and responsibilities of overman: The overman shall strictly observe the following provisions, namely,
(1) (a)Subject to the orders of superior officials, he shall have responsible charge and control of such part of the mine,
and shall carry out such duties, as may be assigned to him by the manager.
(b) He shall, while on duty, carry a workings of tracing of the such district and shall keep the tracing up-to-date.
(c) He shall, in his district, make the inspections and reports required by these regulations.
(d) He shall be responsible to see that the officials subordinate and competent persons in his district carry out their
respective duties in a proper manner.
(e)
He shall, to the best of his power, enforce in his district the provisions of the Act, of these made regulations
and orders thereunder, and shall, subject to the control of the manager and the under manager, assistant manager, if
any, give such directions as may be necessary to ensure compliance with those provisions, and to secure the safety of
the district and the safety and proper discipline of the persons employed therein.
(2) He shall see that sufficient supplies of timber brattice and other necessaries required for the safe working of his
district are kept in convenient places therein.
(3) (a) He shall see that every air-crossing, stopping, door, brattice and other ventilation device is maintained in good
order.
(b) He shall, in his district, see that the ventilation is effective; and when brattices or air pipes are required to be used
for the ventilation of the working places, he shall see that they are kept sufficiently advance to ensure that an
adequate amount of air reaches every such working place. (c) He shall have power to send out of the mine any person
under his charge infringing or attempting to infringe any provision of the Act or of the regulations or orders made
thereunder, or failing to carry out any direction given with regard to safety; and shall report in writing any such
infringement or attempted infringement or failure to the manager.
(4)(a) He shall sec that all tracks and tramlines arc properly laid, graded, ballasted or otherwise packed.
(b) He shall see that the manholes on the haulage roadways are kept safe, clear of any obstruction, and properly white-
washed.
(c) He shall see that the stop-blocks, runway switches and other safety devices are fixed and used as required under
the regulations, that drag or back-stays are provided and regularly used behind tubs ascending declines and that a
sufficient supply of suitable sprags is provided where tubs loaded on a gradient or lowered down a gradient by hand.
(d) He shall, if he finds any of the ropes, chains, signals, brakes, jig wheels and post or other apparatus in use in his
district to be in an unsafe condition, stop the use of the same forthwith.
(5) He shall be responsible to see that except for the purpose of inspection, examination and repairs every person
other than an official or a haulage attendant travels by the travelling roadway.
(6) He shall give prompt attention to the removal of any danger observed or reported to him, and shall see that
dangerous places are adequately fenced off.
792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(7) He shall, under the direction of the manager, sec that wherever approved safety and lamps are used and naked
lights excluded whenever danger from apprehended.
(8)(a) He shall devote the whole of his time to his duties and shall visit each working place in his district as often as
may be necessary or possible. (b) He shall not, except for district justifiable cause, leave the district in his charge until
he had finished the inspections required under these regulations and any other duties that he is required to perform, or
until relieved by a duly appointed substitute.
(c) He shall, if the mine is working in a succession continuous of shifts, confer with the official succeeding him and
give him such information as may be necessary for the safety of his district and of persons employed therein.
(9) He shall, at the end of his shift, record in a bound book kept for the purpose a general report on the performance
of all his duties during the shift, including anything concerning the proper working of the mine and the safety and
discipline of persons employed in his district.
44. Duties and responsibilities of Sirdars - The Sirdar or other competent person appointed under regulation 113
shall strictly observe the following provisions, namely
(1)a) Subject to orders of superior officials, he shall have responsible charge and control of the district of the mine
assigned to him by the manager or the under-manager or assistant manager.
(b) He shall take reasonable means to ensure the proper observance of the requirements of the Act and of the
regulations, and orders made thereunder by persons under his charge and shall, as soon as practicable, report any
contravention thereof to his superior official.
(2)(a) He shall make such inspection and reports as are required by these regulations, and in making such
examination, he shall pay particular attention to edges of the goaf, if any, for checking supports and for presence of
gas.
(b) Except in the case of a mine working in a continuous succession of shifts, he shall, on completion of the first
inspection of the district, proceed to the station appointed under regulation 113 and instruct all persons as to their
places of work and as to any special precautions necessary to be observed by them.
(c) If he finds any person in a place other than the one assigned to him, he may order such person out of the mine,
and shall forthwith report the matter to his superior official.
(d) He shall ensure that no inexperienced person is employed on any work except under the supervision of an
experienced person.
(3)(a) He shall see that the roof and sides of all travelling roadways to, and working places in, his district are made
and kept secure.
(b) Where the height of any working place in the district in his charge measures from floor to roof exceeds three
metres, he shall see that they are kept at convenient places in the district --
(i) a suitable wooden bunton or pole by which all parts of the roof may be effectively tested by a person standing on
the floor. Except in a district to which regulation 144 applies, the bunton shall be shod with iron at one end; and
(ii) a ladder of suitable length.
(c) He shall report to his superior official any deficiency in timber, appliances and other necessaries required for the
safe working of the district.
(4) Where cither of the two ways affording means of egress from the district to the surface is not ordinarily used for
travelling, he shall travel, once at least in every seven days, the whole of such way in order to make himself
thoroughly acquainted with the same.
(5) He shall see that no timber support is withdrawn except by means of a safety prop withdrawer.
(6)(a) If he observes any dangerous place during the course of his inspections or if any danger at a place where work
persons are employed is reported to him, he shall, if the danger cannot be removed forthwith withdraw all persons
from such place and shall not leave the place until the danger has been removed in his presence or all approaches to
the place have been fenced off so as to prevent persons from inadvertently entering such place.
(b) He shall take care that any dangerous operation is carried out with due precaution, and in such cases shall be
present throughout whenever any work of clearing falls of ground and setting of supports therein is being carried out.
(c) He shall cause the entrance to every place which is not in actual use or in course of working or extension, to be
fenced across the whole width, so as to prevent persons from inadvertently entering such place.
(d) If he finds any accumulation of inflammable or noxious gases, he shall carry out the provisions of regulations 142
and shall not remove such accumulation until he has received instructions in that behalf from his superior official.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
793
(7) He shall, on receipt of information of an accident to any person in his district, proceed at once to the place of
accident, inspect the place and, if required, supervise the rescue operations, and shall report or send notice of the
accident to the manager or under manager or assistant manager.
(8)\(a) He shall devote the whole of his time to his duties, and shall not leave the mine until the end of the shift or
until relieved by a duly appointed substitute.
(b) If the mine is worked by a continuous succession of shifts, he shall, before leaving his district, confer with the
sirdar or competent person succeeding him, and shall acquaint him with all matters requiring his personal attention
and give him such other information as may be necessary for the safety of his district and of the persons employed
therein.
It is submitted that if all the precautions as per Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 have been taken by the charge sheeted
employee, the fatal accident could not take place. Hence, the punishment imposed to the charge sheeted employees is
lighter than that of dismissal. It is submitted that the charge sheeted employees are supposed to get down at mine
immediately after distribution of workmen. But the charge sheeted employees (Sri Koteswar, Head Overman)
complete his distribution by 11.30 PM ie., on 17.08.2002 and he went down the mine by 1.30 AM on 18.08.2002.
By the time the charge sheeted employee reached the spot, Sri Gunda Rayalingu, Coal Filler received fatal injuries at
01.15 AM on 18.08.2002. The findings of the enquiry conducted by the Safety Officer into the said accident revealed
that the charge sheeted employees have failed to discharge their duties resulting into the fatal accident. The functions
of Mining Officers are supervisory in nature. In technicality regarding roof and other works in the mine, the charge
sheeted employees shall take advice from the Mining Officers since they are overall in charges of the mine. In fact
Deputy Director of Mines Safety, Hyderabad Region II, Ministry of Labour, Government of India who is holding
statutory authority under the Mines Act 1952 and Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 has inspected and enquiry conducted
into the accident from 18.08.2002 to 22.08.2002 and issued notices to responsible charge sheeted employees Sri
V.Koteswar and Lingam Odelu, Sr. Mining Sirdar for failure to their ensure that the supports including the supports
were goaf edge kept tight against the roof as Regulation required under 109(3)(a) read with Regulation 43(6) of Mines
the Coal Regulations, 1957. A copy of the notice Deputy issued from Director of Mines Safety is placed herewith as
a material paper. It is submitted that the report of the Enquiry Officer, the charges leveled against them under
Company's Standing Orders 25(5) and 25(16) were proved. One set of copies of Enquiry Proceedings and Enquiry
Report were supplied to the charge sheeted employees to make representation if any within 7 days of receipt of the
same. The charge sheeted employees received the same and submitted their representations which were examined
and considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer holding them guilty of misconduct under Company Standing Orders 25(5) and 25(16). The charges
levelled against them were grave and serious in nature and the punishment warranted was that of dismissal from
service. However, the Disciplinary Authority to give an opportunity to the charge sheeted employees to improve
themselves and taking a lenient view for that time, it was decided to impose the penalty of stoppage of 2 increments
with cumulative effect. Accordingly, two increments have been ordered to be stopped. It is submitted that
provisions of the Company Standing Orders, charge sheet was framed, issued to the employees and domestic enquiry
was conducted. While conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer followed principles of natural justice and fair
opportunity was given to the charge sheeted employees to defend their case. As per the findings of the Enquiry
Officer, the charges of neglect of work, and violation of Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 by the said employees
established beyond doubt. It is further submitted that though charges levelled against them were grave and serious in
nature and punishment of dismissal was warranted, a lenient view was taken and lesser punishment was awarded in
accordance with Clause 26 of company Standing Order by giving an opportunity to improve themselves.
7. The Petitioner in his claim statement has submitted that due to the reasons mentioned in the claim statement the
action of Disciplinary Authority reducing two annual increments from the wages of three mining staff personnel Sri
V. Koteshwar, HOM, S/Sri Lingam Odelu and Sriram, Mining Sirdars should be cancelled and the deducted wages
to be paid back. It is also submitted that the legal aspects mentioned in the first part are quite informed to cancel the
disciplinary action and secondly irregularity committed by mine officers and due to bogus enquiry no fault in three
mining persons has proved. Hence, on this basis also the disciplinary action of two increments be treated as cancelled
and deducted amount so far be paid to the above three personnel of mining staff.
8. Respondent has submitted written submissions. Despite sufficient opportunity provided to the Petitioner he did
not adduce any oral or written submissions.
9. Perused the pleadings of both the parties and submissions made by the Respondent.
10. Following points emerge for determination:-
I.
Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,, Secunderabad in reducing
two annual increments in respect of Sri V. Koteshwar, Head Overman, S/Sh. Lingam Odelu and Sriram,
Mining Sardars was legal and justified?
794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
II. Whether domestic enquiry conducted against the Petitioners Sri V. Koteshwar, Head Overman, S/Sh. Lingam
Odelu and Sriram, Mining Sardars, conductd by Respondent authority is legal and justified?
III. To what relief if any the Petitioners are entitled?
Findings:
11.
Point No.II: Point No.II pertains to the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by
Respondent against the Sri V. Koteshwar, Head Overman, S/Sh. Lingam Odelu and Sriram, Mining Sardars, that is to
be decided as a preliminary issue. The perusal of the record goes to reveal that the validity of the domestic enquiry
has been held legal and valid by this court vide order dated 1.8.2017. That has not been questioned by the Petitioners
before any higher forum. Hence, that has become final.
Thus, Point No.II decided accordingly.
12.
Points No. I & III:-Although the Petitioner in his claim statement has taken the plea that the safety officer
who was also culprit for fatal accident has been appointed as a presenting officer who has acted as a prosecutor, the
Management witness and Judge. It is also submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not discharge his duty impartially
and Enquiry Officer failed to give full and fair opportunity to the charge sheeted employees. Thus, the Enquiry
Officer has violated the principles of natural justice and domestic enquiry is not valid and justified. All the said pleas
have been considered, decided by the court vide order dated 1.8.2017 and the domestic enquiry has been held legal
and valid. Thus, there is no force in the plea taken by the Petitioners.
13. Further, it is contended by the Petitioners that General manager, Sreerampur area is not competent authority to
appoint the enquiry officer and the presenting officer, since he is not the appointing authority or disciplinary authority
for the Mining Sardar and Overmen in the present matter. It is also contended that Mining Sardars and Overmen are
qualified persons under the provisions of coal mines regulations 1957 and having valid certificates to perform their
statutory jobs. The Director (PAW) Kothagudem is only competent authority for these mining staff in this dispute.
Thus, only Director (PAW), Kothagudem is only competent authority for appointing mining staff personnel in this
dispute and he is also competent to under take disciplinary action for them.
14. On the other hand, Respondent has refuted the allegations and contended that Head of the mines are competent
authority to issue the charge sheet and Director (PAW) is the competent authority to impose the punishment.
Accordingly, Respondent Management initiated disciplinary proceedings against the charge sheeted employees. The
service conditions of the Petitioner are governed by Standing Orders in respect of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company
Ltd., as under:
“Para 27.1. Where a workman is charged with a misconduct he shall be informed in writing of the allegations against
him by the competent authority and shall be given an opportunity to submit his explanation in writing within a period
of not less than three days. On receipt of a workman's explanation when allegations are denied by him, an enquiry
shall be held normally by an Officer or officers of the Company appointed by the management. At the enquiry, the
workman concerned shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of defending himself. The workman concerned shall be
entitled to be represented assisted by a co-worker or office bearer of a trade union of which he is a member if so
requested by him.”
Whereas Section 2.3 of the Standing Orders No.25.25 defines competent authority as below:
“2.3
Competent Authority' means an officer specially nominated by the Chairman / Managing Director concerned
by an order in writing for the purpose of these Standing Orders. Such orders shall be put on Notice Board and copies
sent to the concerned registered trade Unions.”
15. Whereas in the present matter the enquiry has been conducted by Sri M. Siva Rami Reddy, PM, who was
nominated by Chairman cum Managing Director as defined under the provisions of para 2.3 of Company’s Standing
Orders. Thus, in view of para 2.3 and para 27.1 of the Standing Orders, the Enquiry Officer is competent to conduct
the enquiry against the delinquent employee. Therefore, plea taken by Petitioner regarding competency of the
Enquiry Officer is not acceptable.
16. The Petitioners have been charge sheeted under Company’s Standing Orders No.25.1 and 25.16 i.e., Neglect of
work and Breach of Mines Act, 1952 and the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. All the charges held proved during the
enquiry against the Petitioners. Admittedly, the Petitioners were present on duty on 17.8.2002, but they committed
neglect of their duty in breach of Mines Act, 1952 and Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 and Company’s Standing
Orders and due to their conduct of neglect of work, fatal accident occurred in which one workman lost his precious
life. As far as the question of delinquency of the Petitioner, in discharging duties is concerned, the perusal of the
enquiry proceedings goes to reveal that during the enquiry Petitioner Sri V Koteshwar examined himself as a defence
witness and in cross examination the question was put to him that the accident occurred at what time, how did he got
the information, the accused witness replied that, “as per my enquiry, the accident occurred at 1.15 am in third shift,
(as per the sirdar’s version) I have received the accident information, through one general mazdoor working on bank
head.” Further, he was asked the question, “When he received the accident message from the bank head mazdoor
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
795
and where he was at that point of time.” Accused witness replied, “while I was proceeding to go to underground
nearly bitty room, I have received the message from the general mazdoor. I have received the message that there was
a roof fall in RS-3 district.” Further, he was asked that, “At what time he received the message?” whether the
message was received before the accident or after the accident?” The witness replied, “The information was about
the roof fall. I don’t know the time.” Further he was asked, “As per investigation it was revealed that while ÿou
were in O.M Room, the bank head mazdoor came to him as reported to him about the accident.” Accused witness
replied, “ Information was reached to me when I was on the way to proceed, not while I was in O M room.” Further
he was asked as per statement recorded during the investigation he had stated that he left OM Room by 12.55, and
reached 2/L junction, while going district, he has received the message that roof occurred at 29 ½ L.” He replied,
“On that day the distribution got delayed. I have received the roof fall message through the bank head mazdoor
while I was proceeding towards 6A Bank head near Bits room as I told earlier. While proceeding to the district in
underground at 21 Endleum I have received clear information of roof fall and accident to the worker. Hence, both
my statements are correct.” Then the statement of Petitioners during enquiry in cross examination is contradictory
about the fact of leaving O.M. Room timing. It goes to show that he was not present on duty at the time of fatal
accident.
17.
Further, he was asked the question, that the accident of roof fall occurred at 1.15 am whereas he has
received the message at 1.30 am. That means he was on surface till 1.30 am, he replied. Then witness replied, “Yes
I admit that I was there on surface at that point of time at about 1.30 am. The reason was that I have distributed the
workmen as per the prevailing practice and as per the order of the superiors. Due to non-availability of working in
sufficient no. since workers were sent for miscellaneous jobs, another district also started 2 seam south. As per the
instruction of the Management I have introduced another machine. Hence, the distribution got delayed.” Further,
when he was put the question, “He was not given any instruction or order in writing by any competent authority to
distribute whole man power or part of the man power and further when there was a clear change of roof sounds in
R/S- 3 panel, you have neither gone down early to the district not bothered to the safety of the persons working in
R/S-3 panel, which was under your charge?” he replied, “as per the instructions of my superior officer, and as per the
practice in vogue, the distribution was done. Management also aware of the same. For staying on surface or for not
going to underground in time, it was due to the delayed distribution. I have already explained in my statement.”
18.
Thus, from the above statement of the delinquent given during the cross examination, it is quite clear that
though he was posted as Overman on 17.8.2002, and he was In-charge of the place of occurrence and he was duty
bound to be present at the place of duty where occurrence took place and to take all measures of safety and security
of the workmen who were carrying the work there, but he was absent from duty place in the duty hours. Admittedly
he was present during duty hours from 10.30 pm to 1.30 am on the surface without any justification. He could not
show any written instruction or order of competent superior authority for not attending the duty place, as he claimed
that as per order of superiors he was busy on surface for doing work of distribution during his own duty hour. Thus,
the delinquent employee could not produce any plausible explanation regarding his absence from the place of duty
during the duty hours when the fatal accident occurred. Therefore, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the
Petitioner delinquent was found guilty of charges of negligent of work and violation of Mines Act and Company’s
Standing Orders, 1994, he was rightly held guilty in the enquiry. Therefore, the submission of the Petitioner that the
fatal accident was not occurred due to his negligence is not tenable.
19.
Further, as the Petitioner has taken the plea that inspite of report of first, second shift overmen, why under
manager asked to continue work there, and instruction of Director of Mines Safety was violated and the safety officer
failed to inspect the unsafe area. All these pleas taken by the Petitioner cannot mitigate or eliminate his own
culpability and negligence in discharging of his duties, since he himself was absent from duty in duty hour without
any justification, when the fatal accident took place, in the area of which he was in charge at that time. Thus, I find
no force in the submission made by the Petitioner.
20.
In the case of M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank, Civil Appeal No.1841 decided on 20.9.2010
Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“once it is held that domestic inquiry is legal and proper the next question which arises for consideration is as to
whether the punishment imposed on petitioner is just and legal or it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.”
21.
The charges against the Petitioners were of, neglect of work and breach of Mines Act, 1952 and rules,
regulations, by-laws there underlie The Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. All the charges held proved in the domestic
enquiry against the Petitioners and they were found guilty of the charges. Due to Petitioners delinquency and
negligence in the discharge of duty, the fatal accident occurred and one workman lost his life. Since all the charges
were held proved in domestic enquiry, one can not possibly argue that charges were simple in nature. In other
words, both the charges were of serious nature. Therefore, keeping in view the serious nature and gravity of the
charges held proved against the Petitioners Sri V. Koteshwar, Head Overman, S/Sh. Lingam Odelu and Sriram,
Mining Sardars, the punishment of deduction of the two increments, imposed upon Petitioners by Disciplinary
Authority can not be faulted with nor it can be said that it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.
Although keeping in view of the gravity and seriousness of the charges held proved against the Petitioners, they
796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
deserve more richly punishment but, the Disciplinary Authority has awarded comparatively mild punishment by
taking lenient view.
22.
As far as interference in the order of the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority is concerned,
Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar vs.Rural Regional Bank and another reported in Air
2005 SC 584, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“ the Court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral
standards. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the
conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference.” “In the instant case, services of the bank
employee of Regional Rural Bank were terminated on ground that he had unauthorisedly withdrawn amount from
bank.”
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and the law laid down by Apex Court this court find the petition
devoid of any merit and it fails and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. As such, the Petitioners are not entitled to
any relief.
Thus, Points No.I & III are decided accordingly.
Result:
In the result, it is held that the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Secunderabad in reducing two annual increments in respect of Sri V. Koteshwar, Head Overman, S/Sh. Lingam Odelu
and Sriram, Mining Sardars is held legal and justified. The Petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Hence, Petition is dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictate to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the
17th day of May, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 367.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ओटो बैक िेल्थ केयर इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
नं. 1] नई दिल्ली
ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-20013/01/2024-
(सी एम-II)]
मजिकंिन .एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 14th February, 2024
S.O. 367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 267/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court N0. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of Otto Back Health Care India Pvt. Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 113/02/2024.
[No. L-20013/01/2024 – IR (CM-I1)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Deputy Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
797
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVENRMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT DELHI-1, ROOM NO. 207, ROUSE
AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Present:
Justice Sh.Vikash Kunvar Shrivastava,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 267/2017
Date of Passing Award- 21th August, 2023
Between:
Shri Ajay Kumar & Others,
S/o Late Sh. Raju, R/o 6/368,
Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi.
Workman
Versus
1. The Manager,
Otto Bock Health Care India Pvt. Ltd.,
19 South Patel Nagar,
Opp. Pillar No. 194,
New Delhi-110008
2. The Director,
Otto Bock Health Care Pvt. Ltd.,
20th floor Express Towers,
Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021
Managements
Appearances: -
None for the Claimant
None for the Management
AWARD
This is an application u/s 2-A of the ID. Act, 1947 filed by the claimant against the management alleging
illegal termination of his service.
Notice served on the claimant and the managements.
The claimant filed the claim statement praying a direction to the management to reinstate the services of the
workman with continuity of services and with full back wages.
The management did not appear nor filed written statement and thus issues were not framed.
On 20.09.2022 last opportunity was given to the management to file the written statement. But management
did not file the written statement. And the matter was adjourned on 21.12.2023.
On 21.12.2023 due to administrative case was again adjourned for filing of written statement.
On 13.04.2023 perusal of record shows that the claimant is not turning up since long. Hence, the matter was
reserved for passing no dispute award.
The stand taken in the claim petition is not proved and substantiated for want of oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the claimant. Hence this no dispute award is passed.
Order
The claim be and the same is dismissed as not proved and accordingly answered against the claimant. This
no dispute award is passed and forwarded to the parties.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the
ID act 1947.
798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The application u/s 2-A of the ID. Act, 1947 is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
22nd August, 2023.
नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 368.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj यूको बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] चंडीगढ़-I ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23/2017) izdkf”kr djrh
gSA
[सं. ,y - 39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-44]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 15th February, 2024
S.O. 368.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.23/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and
their workmen.
[No L-39025/01/2023- IR (B-II)-44]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. Tripathi, Presiding Officer.
ID No.23/2017
Registered on:-23.08.2017
Smt. Sharanjit Kaur Wd/of late Sh. Parmjit Singh, R/o Village & PO Kalra, Tehsil & Distt. Jalandhar.
…………Workman
Versus
1.
General Manager, UCO Bank, Head Office, 10-BTM Barsani, Calcutta-700001.
2.
Assistant General manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank, BMC Jalandhar.
3.
General Manager, UCO Bank, V & PO Kalra Branch 0562, Distt. Jalandhar.
…………Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:-03.07.2023
1.
The workman Smt. Sharanjit Kaur has directly filed the present claim petition under Section under Section
2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate her in service with full
back wages and other benefits.
2.
The brief facts for deciding this claim petition as per the claim of the workman is that the workman was
engaged on daily wages at Class-IV at V & PO Kalra, Bank Branch of UCO Bank, Distt. Jalandhar w.e.f. 01.05.1998.
The workman was continuously worked from 01.05.1998 till 19.06.2016 when suddenly her services were terminated
in colourable exercise of powers by the General Manager and her was told not to attend duty from tomorrow i.e.
20.06.2016. The termination of the workman is in hire and fire as she had put in 18 years of an unblemished service.
The workman had been giving representations and making verbal requests for regularization of her services to the
higher authorities but no heed in the matter was given and the juniors to the workman were regularized in service and
the management had delivered her right to others although it was her right. At the time of the termination of the
workman, no seniority was maintained and juniors to the workman had been retained in service. The name of such
persons shall be disclosed at the time of evidence to avoid tempering of record by the management. The termination
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
799
of the workman from service is an unfair labour practice in provisions of Chapter IV-A Item No.10 keeping the
workman for daily wages/temporarily for years is an unfair labour practice. The workman had put in more than 240
days of service in each year of her service. No charge sheet, enquiry or that of show cause notice was served upon the
workman which renders her termination as illegal, void and bad in law. The management had violated the provisions
of Section 25-G, 25-H and 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which renders her termination illegal, void and
bad in law and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and other attendant benefits
which he awarded to the workman in the interest of justice.
3.
The management has filed written statement to the claim statement filed by the workman, alleging therein
that the present industrial dispute as raised on behalf of Ms Sharanjit Kaur is fully misconceived being devoid of any
merit and as such, the present conciliation proceeding is fit to be dropped. The workman was never appointed by the
Bank to discharge the duty of Class-IV by Kalra Branch nor the workman discharged duty of Class-IC. The workman
was engaged by the then Branch Manager for taking work for 1-2 hours as per necessity of work as and when
required but the workman was never engaged on daily basis nor she performed the duty of peon/Claiss-IV. The
services of the workman was not terminated by the Bank. Since the workman was not an employee of the Bank the
question of termination of her services does not arise. The workman was representing to higher authorities of the
Bank for regularization of her job. Since the workman is not an employee of the Bank, hence there is no relationship
of employer and employee between Bank and workman. in regard to engagement of daily wages, the management
may inform the workman that neither there is such policy of the Bank nor any official of the Bank has been
authorized for the purpose. The engagement if any, is void ab initio having ultra vires & unauthorized acts of the
concerned officials of the bank. The respondent-bank being a PSB is “State” as per Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and all appointment/engagement in the Bank’s service is guided by an established procedure & policy of the
Bank in conformity with the Government Guidelines in the matter by giving equal opportunity to all job seekers. The
workman was never an employee of the Bank, hence the question of maintaining seniority does not arise and the
workman was never engaged for a period of 240 days continuously or otherwise in toto in a year. Since the workman
was not the employee of the Bank as such, question issuing notice of termination does not arise. There is no
employer-employee relationship between the Bank and the workman and the provisions of Section 25-G, 25-H and
25-F do not apply. It is therefore, prayed that the claim filed by the workman may kindly be dismiss in the interest of
justice and also have the management from unnecessary harassment.
4.
The workman field rejoinder to the written statement filed by the management, alleging therein that the
respondent have not disclosed any of the reasons as to why this case to be closed by the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal
when the same is required to be adjudicated by this Hon’ble Tribunal. As a matter of fact the Incharge Bank Manager
of Branch Village & P.O. Kalara, District Jalandhar has recommended the service of Smt. Sharanjit Kaur and the
workman was in continuous service w.e.f. 01.05.1998 till her termination w.e.f. 19.06.2016 and had rendered more
than 240 days in each years of service. The remaining facts alleged in the rejoinder is same as alleged in the claim
statement hence need not to be repeated again.
5.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal on 03.07.2023, the case was fixed for evidence
of the workman but none has appeared on behalf of workman. Several opportunities have already been given to the
workman for affidavit but none turned up in spite of several opportunities afforded. This shows that the workman is
not interested in adjudication of the case on merit.
6.
Since the workman has neither put her appearance for long nor she has led any evidence. Therefore, the
case of the workman is dismissed in default for the non-prosecution of the workman.
7.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 369.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ओररएंटल बैंक ऑफ कॉमसस ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] चंडीगढ़-I ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 98/2012) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12012/71/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the, 15th February, 2024
S.O. 369.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Oriental
Bank of Commerce and their workmen
[No. L-12012/71/2012- IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Jyoti Kumar Tripathi, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 98/2012
Registered on:-11.03.2013
Sh. Ramesh Kumar , S/o Sh. Ram Chander, R/o VPO Dinod, Near Radha Swami Ashram, Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani,
Haryana. Haryana
...Workman
Versus
1. The Sr. Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Clock Tower, Bhiwani, Haryana. Haryana-
......Respondent/Management
Appearance
For the Workman
None
For the Management
Sh. Hemant Parihar, Proxy
Counsel to Sh. Kumar Nikshep,
AR for Management
AWARD
Passed On:- 07.02.2023
Central Government vide Notification No.L-12012/71/2012-IR(B-II) dated 11.02.2013, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the demand of Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Chander for reinstatement and
regularization in service with the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce w.e.f. May 2000 is fair
and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
1.
The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial Dispute
for adjudication also directed the following:-
"The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of reference and also
forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of
the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957".
2. Claim statement was filedby the workman. In which the workman stated that claimant-petitionerwas
engaged/appointed as Water boy-cum-Peon in the respondent's Bank in the month May, 2000 and worked
continuously upto30.06.2011. The work and conduct of the claimant-petitioner remained highly satisfactory through
out his service tenure. On 01.07.2011, when the claimant-petitioner reported for his duty as usual, he was not allowed
to resume his duty verbally by sayingthat "your servicesare not more required". In this way, the services of the
claimant-petitioner stands terminated since then.It is also stated in the claim statement that the claimant-petitioner has
continuously worked from May, 2000 to 30-06-2011 with utmost sincerity and probity to the entire satisfaction of his
superiors, but the respondent's bank has notpaid earned wages for month of May & June, 2011 so far to the claimant-
petitioner.The respondent'sbank carries on systematic activities are organized by cooperation between employees and
employer and services are rendered satisfy the human wants and wishes, hence the respondent falls under the
determination of Industrial as per Section 2(j) of the Industrial DisputeAct, 1947. The claimant-petitioner was
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
801
engaged as Water boy-cum-Peon and used to do the manual work in the respondent's bank/organization for hire and
reward and there exist relationship of employer and employee between the respondent's bank and the claimant-
petitioner; hence the claimant-petitioner falls within the definition of workmen as per section 2(s) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947. The termination of the services of the claimant-petitioner in such a unilateral manner is quite
illegal, unjustified, capricious, null and void being not in accordance with the provision of Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 and principals of the natural justice. Neither respondent's bank has supplied the list of seniority nor affixed
the same on the notice board hence, the respondent's bank has violated the rule 76 of the ID Act. The respondent's
bank action to terminate the services of claimant-petitioner in such a unilateral manner smacks malafide, as the
respondent's bank has terminated the services of the claimant-petitioner with a view to adjust their own near and dear
in place of mind. Claimant-petitioner has filed demand notice, upon which the respondent's bank has submitted their
reply.
3. Ld. Counsel for Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, A.R. for respondent filed written statement on behalf of respondent management
of Oriental Bank of Commerce. In the written statement it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that the present
reference is not maintainable and is without jurisdiction and liable to be dismissed on the ground that the present
subject matter does not fall within the ambit of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
petitioner/workman was engaged on purely temporary, contractual and needed basis i.e. as and when any exigency
arises the petitioner was called for doing specific work. The petitioner was never engaged against any sanctioned post.
Hence, it is categorically stated that since the petitioner was engaged on purely temporary and need basis i.e. as and
when his services were required at a mutually consolidated contractual amount, he had been called for a while to
render services for cleaning and dusting of the branch and sweeping the branch premises which job was hardly for
2 to 3 hours a day and he was paid different contractual amount according to the work done by him. Photocopies of
vouchers through which the petitioner was paid the mutually agreed amount are enclosed as Annexure M-1. The
disengagement of a contractual worker does not amount to retrenchment as such the present subject matter does not
fall within the ambit of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The present reference deserves to be dismissed on
this ground alone. It is also stated in written statement that the present reference deserves to be dismissed on the
ground that the claim of the petitioner is false, frivolous, vexatious and has been filed with ulterior motive to take
undue advantage, harass and humiliate the respondent management by abusing the process of law because the
petitioner has never been in the employment of the respondent management. Moreover, there was indeed no privity of
contract whatsoever in regard to any matter between the respondent management and the petitioner. As such, the
petitioner was no a workman employed by the respondent management within the meaning of Section 2-S of the
Industrial Disputes Act. There was no administrative, economic and disciplinary control of the respondent
Management over the petitioner. The petitioner has never completed 240 days with the respondent management
continuously in any calendar year preceding the date with reference to the date of disengagement. The factual position
is that the petitioner was being engaged as a part time and casual worker purely on temporary and need basis as and
when his services were required and he worked as a cleaner and for sweeping of branch and he was paid mutually
agreed amount according to the work done by him. The petitioner was not in employment of the respondent
Management. It is settled law as held by the various Hon'ble High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
disengagement of the contractual, casual worker engaged temporarily and on need basis at mutually agreed rate
between the management and the worker, does not constitute to the retrenchment and certainly his entry is a back
door entry for filing up such vacancies which have got to be strictly avoided. It is stated that the petitioner was never
appointed in the respondent bank at any point of time nor has ever worked in the bank under any direct or indirect
authority.The reference is bad in law and deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was never
engaged after following the requisite procedure of recruitment applicable to the employees of the respondent Bank. It
is respectfully prayed that, the preliminary objection may kindly be taken up at the first instanceand the present claim
be dismissed on the preliminary objection alone.
4. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to argue however, none turned up in spite of several
opportunities. It appears that appellant has no interest to carry on the appeal, prior to this none has appeared. As such
this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a 'No Claim Award'.
Accordingly, 'No Claim Award' is passed in the instant ID No.98/2012 and this ID appeal is liable to be dismissed for
non-prosecution and hence dismissed.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
JYOTI KUMAR TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 370.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार
मैससा बिंिुस्ट्तान एयरोनॉठटक्स जलजमटेड, बैरकपुर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके संघ/कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि
802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट(संिभा संख्या 08 OF 2011) को
िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15.02.2024 को प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं. एल -42011/43/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 15th February, 2024
S.O. 370.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08 OF 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Barrackpore, and their Union/ Worker, which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.02.2024.
[No. . L-42011/43/2011-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO.8 OF 2011
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Barrackpore
AND
Their Union/ Workmen
Appearance :
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. Ranjay Dey, Advocate.
On behalf of the Workmen
: Mr. S. K. Karmakar, Advocate.
Dated: 18th January, 2024
AWARD
Both sides are present through their respective Ld. Counsels.
Sri Tapas Kumar Gope and Sri Somnath Nandi, authorised representatives of other 22 workmen have filed a
petition supported by an affidavit along with a letter of authority, copy duly served. Let those be taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for the workmen submits that workmen have voluntarily decided not to pursue with the present
reference case raised by them. Therefore, they pray that the present reference case may be disposed of for non-
prosecution.
The Ld. Counsel for the management of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Barrackpore raises no objection.
Since the workmen who have raised the present dispute are not willing to proceed with their demand for
regularisation of their service in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Barrackpore, the Tribunal has no option but to dispose
of the case for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the withdrawal application filed by the workmen is allowed.
In view of above the present Reference Case No. 8 of 2011 is disposed of for non-prosecution and
accordingly ‘no dispute’ award is passed.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 371.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ds मेससा ए.पी. जसक्यूठरटास (पी) जलजमटेड, एससीओ 23-24, लोिगढ़ रोड, कॉपोरेिन बैंक के पास, पिली
मंजिल, िीरकपुर, जिला। एसएएस नगर, मैससा जसक्यूठरटन्स इंजडया प्रा. जलजमटेड, एससीओ 19, फेज़ 9, मोिाली,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
803
मैससा एच.डी.एफ.सी. बैंक, प्लॉट नं.363, इंडजस्ट्रयल एठरया, फेज़-1, चंडीगढ़, और िनक बसंि, कामगार, ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 44/2022) dks izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-103]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 16th February, 2024
S.O. 371.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s A.P.
Securitas(P) Ltd., SCO 23-24, Lohgarh Road, Near Corporation Bank, 1st Floor, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS
Nagar,M/s Securitans India Pvt. Limited, SCO 19, Phase 9, Mohali, M/s H.D.F.C. Bank, Plot No.363,
Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, and Janak Singh.Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-103]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 44/2022
Registered On:-13.12.2021
Sh. Janak Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh R/o Village Ram Nagar, PO Jansla, Rajpura, Distt. Patiala.
...Workman
Versus
1.
M/s A.P. Securitas(P) Ltd., SCO 23-24, Lohgarh Road, Near Corporation Bank, 1st Floor, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS
Nagar-140603.
2.
M/s Securitans India Pvt. Limited, SCO 19, Phase 9, Mohali.
3.
M/s H.D.F.C. Bank, Plot No.363, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
......Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:-18.08.2023
1. The workman Janak Singh has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act
1947(hereinafter called the Act) for reinstatement in service with continuity of service with full back wages.
2. The brief facts for deciding this claim petition as per the claim of the workman is that the workman has been
working at the time of illegal termination through respondent no.1 and 2 at the premises of Principal
Employer(respondent no.3) as Security Gunman since 04.10.2011. The services of the workman were lent to
respondent no.3 by respondent no.1 and 2 at the time of illegal termination on 30.09.2017. The workman was drawing
a salary of Rs.8,200/- per month at the time of illegal termination for working on all the days in the year. No over
time, leaves, weekly off and National & Festival Holidays were ever given to the workman. The respondent no.1 and
2 entered into illegal, void and shameful agreement with respondent no.3 knowing well that the post on which the
workman is working is of perennial nature and regular one. Moreover, no permission has been obtained from the
Labour Department for engaging the respondent no.1 and 2 from the Labour Authorities under the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act. The workman was working under the direct control and supervision of the Principal
Employer i.e. respondent no.3 and respondent no.1 and 2 was only engaged to deprive the workman of statutory
benefits of leaves, bonus, gratuity and other long term benefits and equal pay being paid to regular workers etc. to
which the workman is legally entitled. None of the above respondents has issued any appointment letter, identity card,
wage slip etc. the management was not paying even the minimum wages notified for security Gunman as per Central
Govt. rates. During the tenure of the services of the workman, the work and performance of the workman was
satisfactory and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors/seniors. The deliberate refusal of the principal employer i.e.
respondent no.3 in connivance with employer i.e. respondent no.1 and 2 to the workman to perform his normal duties
804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
amounts to illegal termination and is voilative of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. No show cause notice, charge sheet or held no enquiry while terminating the services of the
workman. The act and conduct of the principal employer illegally and arbitrarily terminating the services of the
workman are in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is therefore, prayed that the
directions may please be given to the respondents to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages along with
all consequential benefits on the same post and on same terms and conditions with seniority.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings on 18.08.2023 the learned AR of the workman Sh. Tarun Malhotra filed
an application for withdrawal of the present claim petition as with the averments that the matter has been settled
between the workman and management further he has not to proceed the case. The statement of the learned AR of the
workman Sh. Tarun Malhotra is recorded separately in the open Court.
4. In view of the statement made by the learned AR of the workman, the present claim petition deserves to be
dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the instant claim petition registered as ID No.44/2022 stands withdrawn and
dismissed. File after completion be consigned in the record room.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act,
1947.
J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 372.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ds eSससा ए.पी. जसक्यूठरटास (पी) जलजमटेड, एससीओ 23-24, लोिगढ़ रोड, कॉपोरेिन बैंक के पास, पिली
मंजिल, िीरकपुर, जिला। एसएएस नगर, मैससा जसक्यूठरटन्स इंजडया प्रा. जलजमटेड, एससीओ 19, फेज़ 9, मोिाली, मैससा
एच.डी.एफ.सी. बैंक, प्लॉट नं.363, इंडजस्ट्रयल एठरया, फेज़-1, चंडीगढ़, और सुखबवंिर बसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 45/2022) dks izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-104]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 16th February, 2024
S.O. 372.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s A.P.
Securitas(P) Ltd., SCO 23-24, Lohgarh Road, Near Corporation Bank, 1st Floor, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS
Nagar,M/s Securitans India Pvt. Limited, SCO 19, Phase 9, Mohali, M/s H.D.F.C. Bank, Plot No.363,
Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, and . Sukhvir Singh.Worker.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-104]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: SH. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 45/2022
Registered On:-13.12.2021
Sh. Sukhvir Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh R/o Village Ram Nagar, PO Jansla, Rajpura, Distt. Patiala.
...Workman
Versus
1. M/s A.P. Securitas(P) Ltd., SCO 23-24, Lohgarh Road, Near Corporation Bank, 1st Floor, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS
Nagar-140603.
2. M/s Securitans India Pvt. Limited, SCO 19, Phase 9, Mohali.
3. M/s H.D.F.C. Bank, Plot No.363, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
...Respondents/Managements
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
805
AWARD
Passed On:-18.08.2023
1. The workman Sukhvir Singh has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute
Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) for reinstatement in service with continuity of service with full back wages.
2. The brief facts for deciding this claim petition as per the claim of the workman is that the workman has been
working at the time of illegal termination through respondent no.1 and 2 at the premises of Principal
Employer(respondent no.3) as Security Gunman since 04.10.2012. The services of the workman were lent to
respondent no.3 by respondent no.1 and 2 at the time of illegal termination on 30.09.2017. The workman was drawing
a salary of Rs.8,200/- per month at the time of illegal termination for working on all the days in the year. No over
time, leaves, weekly off and National & Festival Holidays were ever given to the workman. The respondent no.1 and
2 entered into illegal, void and shameful agreement with respondent no.3 knowing well that the post on which the
workman is working is of perennial nature and regular one. Moreover, no permission has been obtained from the
Labour Department for engaging the respondent no.1 and 2 from the Labour Authorities under the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act. The workman was working under the direct control and supervision of the Principal
Employer i.e. respondent no.3 and respondent no.1 and 2 was only engaged to deprive the workman of statutory
benefits of leaves, bonus, gratuity and other long term benefits and equal pay being paid to regular workers etc. to
which the workman is legally entitled. None of the above respondents has issued any appointment letter, identity card,
wage slip etc. the management was not paying even the minimum wages notified for security Gunman as per Central
Govt. rates. During the tenure of the services of the workman, the work and performance of the workman was
satisfactory and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors/seniors. The deliberate refusal of the principal employer i.e.
respondent no.3 in connivance with employer i.e. respondent no.1 and 2 to the workman to perform his normal duties
amounts to illegal termination and is voilative of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. No show cause notice, charge sheet or held no enquiry while terminating the services of the
workman. The act and conduct of the principal employer illegally and arbitrarily terminating the services of the
workman are in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is therefore, prayed that the
directions may please be given to the respondents to reinstate the workman in service with full back wages along with
all consequential benefits on the same post and on same terms and conditions with seniority.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings on 18.08.2023 the learned AR of the workman Sh. Tarun Malhotra filed
an application for withdrawal of the present claim petition as with the averments that the matter has been settled
between the workman and management further he has not to proceed the case. The statement of the learned AR of the
workman Sh. Tarun Malhotra is recorded separately in the open Court.
4. In view of the statement made by the learned AR of the workman, the present claim petition deserves to be
dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the instant claim petition registered as ID No.45/2022 stands withdrawn and
dismissed. File after completion be consigned in the record room.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act,
1947.
J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 373.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार मुख्य पोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर िनरल,डाक सेवाएाँ,चंडीगढ़; वठरष्ठ डाक अिीक्षक, िोजियारपुर मंडल, िोजियारपुर, पंिाब;
उप मंडल जनरीक्षक, डाक जवभाग, पजश्चम उप मंडल, िोजियारपुर, पंिाब, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
िोबगंिर बसंि, कामगार, द्वारा - मंडल सजचव, अजखल भारतीय डाक सेवक संघ, िोजियारपुर मंडल, िोजियारपुर, पंिाब,
के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 चंडीगढ़
पंचाट (संिभा संख्या 77/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉपी के साथ 17/02/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40011/12/2019-आईआर-(डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the, 17th February, 2024
S.O. 373.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court –2,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Chief Post Master General, Postal Services, Chandigarh; The Sr. Superintendent of Posts, Hoshiarpur
Division, Hoshiarpur, Punjab ;The Sub Divisional Inspector, Department of Posts, West Sub Division,
Hoshiarpur, Punjab, and Shri Joginder Singh, Worker, through-Divisional Secretary, All India Dak Sewak
Union, Hosiarpur Division, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 17/02/2024.
[No. L-40011/12/2019-IR(DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.
Present: SH. KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 77/2019
Registered on:-20.08.2019
Joginder Singh through the Divisional Secretary, All India Dak Sewak Union, Hoshiarpur Division, V&PO Patti, SO
Bihala, District Hoshiarpur.
...Workman
Versus
1.
Chief Post Master General, Postal Services, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017.
2.
Sr. Superintendent of Posts, Hoshiarpur Division, Hoshiarpur, Punjab-146021.
3.
Sub-Divisional Inspector, Department of Posts, West Sub Division, Hoshiarpur, Punjab-146021.
... Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:-24.01.2024
Central Government vide Notification No.L-40011/12/2019-IR(DU), Dated 24.07.2019, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of Management of Posts for non-releasing full back wages to Sh. Joginder Singh
GD/SMD is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from which date? 2.
Whether the action of management of Posts for debarring three years for recruitment to the MTS
group-c to Sh. Joginder Singh is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?
1.
Today i.e. 24.01.2024 the case was fixed for ex parte evidence of workman as the management was
proceeded ex parte on 16.05.2023 and no written statement had been filed by the management.
2.
The workman is given sufficient opportunities for ex parte evidence but workman has not turned up since
24.08.2023 many opportunities given, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter
on merit.
3.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has filed any evidence to prove his cause
against the management and the workman has left the case unattended for a long time without any intimation, as
such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is
passed in the present reference for the non-prosecution of workman.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
807
नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 374.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] बैंगलोर ds iapkV (24/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024-आईआर-(बी-I)-105]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 19th February, 2024
S.O. 374.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 24/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR(B-I)-105]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD
“Shram Sadan”,
G G Palya, Tumkur Road,
Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022
DATED
: 3RD NOVEMBER 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
I D No. 24/2015
I Party
II Party
Sri Thimmaraju E,
S/o Eranna,
Resident of Chikkadasarahalli,
Chiddanahalli Post,
Sira Taluk, TUMKUR
1. The Chief Manager, State Bnak of India, L C P
Center, Pragathi Mahalakshmi, No. 62 12st main,
3rd Cross, Yeswnahtpur, Bangalore – 22.
2. The Manager, State Bank of India, Focal Point
Link Branch, Bangalore.
Appearance
Advocate for I Party : Mr. Ranganath Prasad B S
Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya
AWARD
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity
‘the Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the State Bank of India who was refused for work.
2.
Petitioner is absent since last many dates of hearing. Perused the record. Petitioner has filed Petition
under Section 2A (2) of ID Act to direct Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner to Employment. But the
Petitioner has not substantiated his claim by any cogent and reliable evidence. Hence, Petition is unfounded
without any ground dismissed. No claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 03.11.2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 375.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
उत्तरबंगा क्षेत्रीय िामीि बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (05/2007) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/238/2005-आईआर-(बी-I)]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 19th February, 2024
S.O. 375.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 05/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Uttarbanga Kshetriya
Gramin Bank and their workmen.
[F No. L-12012/238/2005-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 05 OF 2007
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank
AND
Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Khudra Sanchayak Collectors’ Association.
Appearance :
On behalf of Bank : Ms. Tutul Das, Advocate
On behalf of the Association: Mr. Aritra Roychowdhury, Advocate.
Dated: 9th October, 2023
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour By Order No L-12012/238/2005 IR (B-I) dated 02-03-2007, in
excise of the power conferred under sub section 10 (1) (d) and (2A) of section of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has
referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal: –
“Whether the action of the Management of Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank by not extending the benefit
to the mini deposit collectors of their bank, as it is being given to the other 11 Nationalised Bank, as per order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, only on the ground that they were not party to the dispute, is justified? If not, what relief the
workmen concerned are entitled?”
The facts in a nutshell is that the claimant is the association of Authorised Collection Agents of Uttarbanga
Kshetriya Gramin Bank appointed for collection under the scheme “Khudra Sanchay Prakalpa”. It is their case that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association –vs- Workmen of Syndicate Bank & Ors. reported in (2001) 3
SCC 36, has been pleased to declare collection agents of the banks as workmen and existence of relationship of
master and servant in between the Bank and the Collection Agents, thereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been
pleased to pay full back wages of Rs.750/- per month linked with minimum deposit of Rs.7,500/- per month, incentive
remuneration @2% for collection above Rs.7500, conveyance allowance @ Rs.50/- and Rs100 /-respectively for
deposit of less than Rs.10,000/- and more than that per month and gratuity of 15 days’ commission for each year of
service rendered by those collection agents. Thus, it is alleged the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
being a judgment in rem and as such all the collection agents working either for nationalised banks or for regional
banks are bound by such judgment and entitled to get the financial benefits.
That in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such judgment on 13-02-2001 Gour
Gramin Bank vide circular No.2174 dated 27-02-2004 extended all the benefits granted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to its agents. Similarly, Koshi Khetriya Gramin Bank who by issuing circular no.76/06-07 dated 08-03-2007
extended all the benefits that has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment to its own
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
809
collection agents. Such directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was duly complied by the Central Bank of
India, the patron of the Khetriya Gramin Bank.
Therefore, the claimant requested the management of the bank for extending all the benefits given by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court to the collection agents in the Indian Bank Association case (supra), but the bank refused to
grant any benefits. Hence, this reference.
The management of the bank in its written reply has alleged the claimant association is not recognised by the
bank and such association has no power to negotiate with the bank. That Khetriya Gramin Bank was not a party to the
judgment that has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such it is not bound to comply the direction
given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment.
It is also alleged Khudra Sanchay Collectors are not working in the bank and they have no fixed working
hours. The bank has no control over them. They do their collection work as per their own convenience. There exists
no relationship of employee and employer in between the Bank and the Deposit Collectors.
That Central Bank of India though a sponsored bank of the Uttarbanga Khetriya Gramin Bank, but Gramin
bank has its own independent rules and regulation to carry on banking business. Thus, it has prayed for dismissal of
the reference.
The claimant in support of their claim has examined Sri Jiban Talukdar it’s the General Secretary as
W.W. No.1 and who has produced and exhibited 13 documents which have been marked as Exhibit-1 to 13.
The claimant has also examined Sri Tarun Kumar Sarkar, its Vice President as W.W. No.2. and who have
produced certain documents which have been inadvertently marked as Exhibit-W-1 to W-17 instead of Exhibit-W-14
to W-30.
On the other hand the management has examined Sri Prasenjit Mondal, Sr. Manager, Pradhan Nagar Branch,
Siliguri as M.W. No.1 and exhibited certain documents which have been marked as Exhibit M-1 to M-7.
After considering the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels for both sides and the pleadings of the bank
including the documentary evidence filed by them, the only issue that requires determination in the present reference
is whether Uttarbanga Khetriya Gramin Bank is bound by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in
Indian Bank Association –vs- Workmen of Syndicate Bank & Ors. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 36 ?
It is the undisputed fact that claimants are the authorised collection agents under Khudra Sanchay Prakalpa,
appointed by the management of Uttarbanga Khetriya Gramin Bank. It is the contention of the claimant that the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case is the judgment in rem and all the banks
which engage collections agents are bound to comply and follow the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the said judgment.
On the other hand it is the case of the management of the bank that the bank not being party to the said
judgment and as such direction given in the said judgment is not binding upon it.
Article 141 of the Constitution of India stipulates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on
all Courts within the territory of India. Thus, the general principles laid down, by the Supreme Court are binding on
each individual including those who are not a party to an order. In a number of judgements the Supreme Court has
emphasized the importance and validity of Article 141 of the Constitution within the ambit of following certain
general rules, i.e. Obiter-Dictum', Ratio-Decidendi', Stare decisis', Per incuriam' provisions etc.
So, let me discuss the meaning of those four legal terms for the determination of the above issue.
1.
Obiter-Dictum
The phrase Obiter dictum' has been derived from Latin words obiter' and dictum'. Obiter means in passing' and
Dictum denotes something that is said'. Thus, in the legal parlance the obiter-dictum' connotes a judge's expression of
opinion uttered in court or giving judgement, but not essential to the decision and therefore without binding authority.
Therefore, the obiter dictum may be termed as a casual remark of the court while deciding the actual issues, which is
considered as beyond the ambit of the operative part of the judgement. Such statement lack the force of precedent but
may nevertheless be significant.
2. Ratio Decidendi
Ratio Decidendi' is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision". Ratio-Decidendi' is the
determining point which becomes the base for a judgement or a legal rulederived from and consistent with those parts
of legal reasoning within a judgement on which the ourtcome of case depends. Thus, Ratio-Decidendi is an essential
precedent requires to be followed by subordinate courts in similar type of cases.
810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.Stare-decisis
Stare Decisis is a Latin term which signifies to stand by decided cases or to uphold precedents or to maintain former
adjudications. In India, the doctrine of stare decisis has been adopted through Article 141 of the Constitution, which
declares that decisions of higher court are binding on subordinate courts. The doctrine of Stare decisis; is not
applicable in the Supreme Court, thus, the Supreme Court is not bound by its own decisions, hence, it may depart
from its own previous rulings in extra ordinary or special cases or in larger public interest. Stare decisis ensures that
cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. It binds courts to follow legal precedents set
by previous decisions.
4. Per incuriam:
Per incuriam is a Latin terms which means "through lack of care". A court decision made per incuriam is one which
ignores a contradictory statute or binding authority, and is therefore wrongly decided and of no force. A decision
rendered in ignorance of a previous binding decision of its own or of a court of higher jurisdiction or ignorance of the
terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of law locks precedent value, is one such exception and is described as
per incurium judgement and therefore has no binding force.
Gone through the judgment that has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association-
vs- Workmen of Syndicate Bank & Ors., reported in 2001(3) SCC 36 where an award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Hyderabad was under challenge. In the said reference case, the issue as to whether the commission agents or
deposit collectors employed in the specified banks were entitled to pay scale, allowances and other service conditions
available to regular clerical employees of those banks and further question as to what relief they were otherwise
entitled were referred by the Central Govt. to the Industrial Tribunal.
The Industrial Tribunal was pleased to pass an award holding the deposit collectors of the bank to be
workman as defined in section 2(s) of the I.D.Act, 1947 and directed the bank to absorb deposit collectors and
commission agents below the age of 45 years as clerk and cashier and those who were above 45 years of age and who
were unwilling to be absorbed were directed to be paid full back wages of Rs.750/- per month linked with a minimum
deposit of Rs.7,500/- per month, incentive remuneration @ 2% for collection above Rs.7,500/-, conveyance charge at
the rate of Rs.50/- and Rs.100/-per month respectively for deposit of less than Rs.10,000/- and more than that and
directed to pay gratuity of 15 days commission for each years of service rendered. Such award was challenged before
the Hon’ble High Court, Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court was pleased to set aside the order regarding absorption
but upheld the remaining directions passed by the Tribunal.
Being aggrieved by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court both sides preferred two separate appeals
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The plea taken by the banks before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were exactly
similar to that have been raised in the present reference case i.e the deposit collectors cannot be treated to be workmen
as the engagement was purely contractual and for specific period, they work without any control or supervision of the
bank, there was no fixed time or period of working hours, there was no prescribed qualification or age for engaging
them, there was no disciplinary control of bank over them and thus there was no master and servant relationship
between them. That the deposit collector were paid commission and section 10(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act,
bar the banking companies from employing commission paid persons. That those collection agents were not workmen
and direction for payment of gratuity to them cannot arise. Bank has further contended the deposit collections
schemes were not remunerative.
Dismissing both the Appeals, the Hon’ble Suprmem Court has been pleased to hold “in view of Section 2(rr)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, the commission received by Deposit Collectors is nothing else but wage, which is
dependent on the productivity. This commission is paid for promoting the business of the various banks.
Undoubtedly, the Deposit Collectors are free to regulate their own hours of work, but that is because of the
nature of the work itself it would be impossible to fix working hours for such Deposit Collectors because they have to
go to various deposits. This would have to be done at the convenience of the depositors and at such times as required
by the depositors. If this is so, then no time can be fixed for such work. Definitely the banks have control over the
Deposit Collectors in as much as the Deposit Collectors have to bring the collections and deposit the same in the
banks by the very next day. They have then to fill in various forms, accounts, registers and passbooks. They also have
to do such other clerical work as the Bank may direct. They are, therefore, accountable to the Bank and under the
control of the Bank.
Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act does not prevent employment of persons on commission basis.
The proviso to section 10 makes it clear that commission can be paid to persons who are not in regular employment.
Undoubtedly the Deposit Collectors are not regular employees of the Bank. But they, nevertheless, are workers within
the meaning of the terms as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. There is clearly a relationship of master and
servant between the Deposit Collectors and the Bank concerned.
The modes of selection and qualifications of the Deposit Collectors not comparable with those of the regular
employees but even the work is not comparable. The work which the Deposit Collectors do is completely different
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
811
from the work which the regular employees do. There was thus no question of absorption and there was also no
question of the Deposit Collectors being paid the same pay scales, allowances and other service conditions as the
regular employees of the banks.
The banks have introduced the Deposit Collection Schemes because they want to encourage the common
man to make small and regular deposits. As a result of such Schemes, the number of depositors have become much
larger. There can be no doubt that such Schemes are continued because the banks find them remunerative. The banks
have large collection through such Schemes.
In the instant case, no question arose of directing absorption of the Deposit Collectors as regular workmen.
No such demand had been made and, therefore, there could have been no such direction. Such directions were beyond
the reference.”
Thus, this Tribunal finds the facts and circumstances of the case that was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal No, 3355 of 1998 along with other appeals exactly same and similar with the facts and circumstances
of the present case. Further, issue under the present Reference Case and the case which was referred before the
Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad and from which the above appeal had arisen also same. Therefore, in view of
principles of Ratio Decidendi and Stare decisis, this Tribunal is bound by the judgment that has been passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association (Supra).
Thus, the claimants who are Mini Deposit Collectors of Uttarbanga Kshetriya Bank and appointed and
authorised by the bank as their collection agents for collection under Khudra Sanchay Prakalpa are hereby declared as
workmen working under the control of the bank and there exists relationship of master and servant between the bank
and those authorised collection agents and they are entitled to get the relief which they have claimed.
In the present Reference Case also the claimant has not prayed for absorption to regular post but has only
sought pecuniary benefits awarded by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad to Deposit Collectors of Banks and affirmed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So, whether it is a Nationalised Bank or a Regional Bank it becomes immaterial as
they discharge similar functions. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to get the benefits as sought by them in view of
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association –vs- Workmen of Syndicate Bank &
Ors., reported in (2001) 3SCC 36.
Thus, authorised collection agents for collection of Khudra Sanchay Prakalpa appointed by Uttarbanga
Kshetriya Gramin Bank are entitled to get full back wages of Rs.7,500/- per month linked with a minimum deposit of
Rs.7,500/- per month. Uniform conveyance of Rs.50/- per month for deposit of less than Rs.10,000/- and Rs.100/- for
deposit of more than Rs.10,000/- upto or above. Gratuity of 15 days’ commission for each year of service rendered
from the date of this reference i.e. from the month of March, 2007.
The Bank is directed to make payment of the current wages and conveyance allowance and as well gratuity
to those who are eligible for the same within a month from the date of publication of this award. Bank is directed to
the pay the arrears in three instalments within a year from the date of publication of this award.
The Reference case no. 5 of 2007 is allowed and award is passed accordingly.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 376.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
इंजडयन बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a23/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/19/2018-आईआर-(बी-II)]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 20th February, 2024
S.O. 376.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-12012/19/2018-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 23 OF 2018
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Indian Bank
AND
Their Workmen.
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: Absent
On behalf of the Workmen :Mr. Goutam Malik, Advocate.
Dated: 06th December, 2023
AWARD
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-12012/19/2018- IR(B-II) dated 30-11-2018 in exercise
of the power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in denying absorption of Shri Rabi Shankar Das and
Shri Prasanta Debnath in the service of the Indian Bank is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
The facts necessary for determination of the above issue in gist are that the concerned workmen Sri Rabi
Shankar Das and Shri Prasanta Debnath (since deceased) now represented by his legal heirs were working as Canteen
Boys in the Indian Bank, Russel Street Branch since 18-06-1994 and 13-04-1993 respectively. That a dispute in
respect of absorption of 91 Canteen Boys including the present workmen was settled in compromise in the year 1998.
A compromise award was passed by the Tribunal on 13-07-1998 directing the bank to absorb those 91 Canteen Boys
against permanent vacancies.
Challenging the compromise award, the Bank filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No. 2101 of 1999 before the
Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. The Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta was pleased to dismiss the writ petition
upholding the award of compromise dated 13-07-1998.
The bank being aggrieved by the dismissal of its writ petition by the Hon’ble Single Bench of Calcutta High
Court filed an Appeal No. APM No.480 of 2002 before the Divison Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench modified the
compromise award dated 13-07-1998 and order of dismissal of the writ petition being No. W.P. 2101 of 1999 dated
26-02-2002 passed an order directing bank to absorb only 41 Canteen Boys named in the order of reference and not in
respect of 91 Canteen Boys. However, directed remaining 50 Canteen Boys to raise a similar dispute and to resolve
the dispute through reconciliation on the same terms and condition. The names of the present two workmen were in
the list of those excluded 50 Canteen Boys. Unfortunately, the Union refused to espouse an industrial dispute on their
behalf.
That the concerned workmen raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner on the basis of the
order passed by the Divison Bench in APM -480 of 2002, but the Regional Labour Commissioner submitted failure
report and thus Central Govt. referred the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The concerned workmen by filing present dispute have alleged since they stand on the same footings with
those 41 Canteen Boys whose services have been regularised in view of compromise award dated 13-07-1998,
necessary direction may be given to the bank for their absorption against permanent posts.
Record shows despite due service of notice upon the bank it has failed to appear and contest the present
reference case. Therefore, present case has been proceeded exparte against the bank.
The workmen in order to substantiate their claim has examined Sri Rabi Shankar Das, one of the concerned
workmen as W.W. No.1. That the workmen have produced as many as 13 documents which have been marked as
Exhibit-W/1 to W/13.
Unchallenged oral testimony of W. W. No.1 shows that he joined the bank as Canteen Boy on 18-06-1994
and deceased workman Prasanta Debnath on 13-04-1993. It has been stated that they were also parties to the reference
which culminated in an award of compromise on 13-07-1998 and where the predecessor of the Tribunal directed the
bank to absorb all 91 Canteen Boys including the present workmen.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
813
However, the concerned workman in Para-5, 6 and 7 of his evidence in chief on affidavit has stated that
compromise award dated 13-07-1998 was passed in connection of Reference Case no. 47 of 1992. So, a question
arises in the mind of this Tribunal, how the present workmen including the deceased could be parties to the Reference
Case no. 47 of 1992 when W.W. No.1, one of the workmen in paragraph 3 of his evidence in chief on affidavit
admitted that he joined as Canteen Boys in the bank on 18-06-1994 and deceased workman on 13-04-1993 i.e. much
after the initiation of the reference case. So, prima facie it is seen that they joined as Canteen Boys as alleged after the
reference of the dispute in respect of 41 Canteen Boys in the year 1992. So, it is not known how the present workmen
could claim that they were parties to the Reference Case no. 47 of 1992 when they were not even in the service of the
bank in whatever capacity as a temporary or casual.
The workmen have failed to produce a single piece of document to prove indeed they were appointed as
Canteen Boys either by the bank directly or through its contractor or by the Canteen Committee. It is interesting to
note that the workmen have failed produce the list of the workmen attached with the order of reference in Reference
Case no., 47 of 1992 or any order of the Tribunal whereby their names have been added as parties to the Reference
Case no.47 of 1992 and to show that they stand on the same footings with those 41 workmen whose services have
been directed to be regularised by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in APM No.480 of 2002.
No doubt W.W. No.1 has produced a certificate dated 16-05-2020 (Exb. W/6) issued by Sr. Manager, Indian
Bank, Zonal Office where it has been certified that he is working as a casual at Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Kolkata.
Unfortunately, the author of the certificate has not been examined to prove the content of the same. It is settled law
merely marking of a document as an Exhibit will not ipso facto prove the content of the same. The contents specially
a certificate need to be proved through its author.
This Tribunal is unable to take into consideration Exb. W/11 as it appears to be issued by Treasurer of Indian
Bank Staff Canteen to W.W. No.1 and not by the authorities of the bank.
Exb. W/13, letter dated 09-05-1998 by Chief Manager to Zonal Manager shows that Sri Rabi Shankar Das
and Sri Prasanta Debnath are Canteen Boys of Zonal Office.
Nothing has come on record to prove that canteen in question is a statutory canteen run by the management
of the bank and not by any canteen committee or by a contractor. Had the canteen been a statutory canteen run by the
management of the bank then the question of absorption may arise.
Now, it is settled law that merely because of a temporary employee or a casual wage workers is continued
for a time beyond terms of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made
permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following the
due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. A contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of
the contract. If it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis the same would come to an end
when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee cannot claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his
terms of appointment. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporary
or on contractual basis to claim they have right to be absorbed in service as they cannot be said to be holder of a post.
A regular appointment can be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirement of Article 14 and
16 of the Constitution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Secretary, Stage of Karnataka-vs- Uma Devi & Ors held Public
employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the
laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities
on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution has
provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public employment has
to be in terms of the constitutional scheme. A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the
country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on
daily wages. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in
posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a
haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule. That
regularisation cannot be mode of recruitment.
Be that as it may the concerned workman has failed to prove that there exist a vacancy in the permanent post
of Sub-staff in Indian Bank and he possesses all the qualification to be appointed as sub-staff. That apart he may be a
casual employee of the bank but in order to get a job against the permanent vacancy he is to fulfil all the criteria and
procedure established for regular recruitment as per recruitment rules applicable.
Therefore, this Tribunal holds that on the basis of an award dated 13-07-1998 passed in Reference Case no.
47 of 1992 (Exb. W-1), Order passed in W.P. No.2101 of 1999 on 26-02-2002 and which has been modified vide
Exb. No. W-4/A in APM No.480 of 2002, the workman cannot claim that they stand on the same footings with those
41 Canteen Boys whose services have been regularised by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of
814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Calcutta High Court passed in APM No.480 of 2002 and in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court being
SLA No.17079 of 2007 dated 08-05-2009 (Exb. W/5)
Accordingly, the concerned workmen Sri Rabi Shankar Das and deceased Prasanta Debnath are not entitled
to regularisation against a permanent post in the Indian Bank. Accordingly, Reference Case No,. 23 of 2018 is
dismissed and award to that effect is passed.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 377.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मध्य जबिार िामीि बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa
vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV (a02 (C) of 2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/96/2014-आईआर-(बी-I)]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 20th February, 2024
S.O. 377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02 (C) of 2015) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/96/2014-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.
Reference Case No.:-02 (C) of 2015
Between the management of Chairman, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, H.O- Meena Plaza, South of Museum,
Patna (Bihar )-1 and Their workmen Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Bijendra Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar & Sachidanand Singh
represented through the President, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association, 2nd Floor, Saboo Complex,
P.O- Hotel Republic, Exhibition Road, Patna, (Bihar)-1.
For the management:-
Sri Santosh Sharan Thakur, Asst. Manager.
For the workman:-
Sri B. Prasad, President, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association.
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dt- 28th November, 2023.
By the adjudication order no.- L-12011/96/2014-IR(B-I) New Delhi, dated- 16.12.2014 the Govt. of India
Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the
management of Chairman, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, H.O- Meena Plaza, South of Museum, Patna (Bihar )-1 and
Their workmen Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Bijendra Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar & Sachidanand Singh represented through the
President, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association, 2nd Floor, Saboo Complex, P.O- Hotel Republic,
Exhibition Road, Patna, (Bihar)-1 for adjudication to this tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, to terminate the service of workmen
Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Bijendra Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar & Sachidanand Singh was correct and valid when they
demanded for regularization of their service? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2.
According to the claim of workmen Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Bijendra Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar & Sachidanand
Singh they had worked with the then Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank and Patlipurtra Gramin Bank as Part Time Sweepers
on consolidated wages, the details of their working is given as under:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
815
Sr. No.
Name with address
Branch where worked
Period of working
1.
Sri Sanjeev Singh
Brahampur
01.08.1985 to 31.12.2011
S/O-Late Janardan Singh
Vill.- Jagir, P.O- Lohachi
Dist.- Munger.
2.
Sri Bijendra Kumar
Paliganj
01.07.2006 to 31.12.2011
S/O-Chandeshwar Singh
Vill. & P.O- Kurkuri
P.S- Paliganj, Dist.- Patna.
3.
Sri Ajay Kumar, S/O- Laxman
Gorhana
01.07.2004 to 31.12.2011
Prasad, Babu Bazar-Arrah,
P.O- Arrah, Dist.- Bhojpur
(Bihar ).
4.
Sri Sachidanand Singh
Piro
19.05.2004 to 31.12.2011
S/O- Late Satya Narain Singh
At.- Yoga Kharaicha, Dist.-
Purhara, Dist.- Bhojpur (Bihar).
It is further averred from the workmen side that workmen Sri Sanjeev Kumar had been orally appointed of
the Brahampur Branch of the bank w.e.f 01.08.2005 to discharge the duties of a part time sweeper. Initially he was
paid Rs. 500/- monthly wages and lastly he was paid of Rs. 1600/- P.M as wages. Workman Sanjeev Singh used to
discharge his duties from 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M and some times even beyond the period as per instruction of the
Branch Manager. The claim of the workman Bijendra Kumar is that he had been orally appointed to discharge the
duties of part time sweeper at Paliganj branch from 01.07.2006. Initially he was paid wages @ Rs. 750/- P.M and
lastly he was paid wages @ Rs. 1600/- P.M. He also discharged his duties from 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M. The claim of
the workman Sri Ajay Kumar is he had been orally appointed to discharge the duties of a part time sweeper at
Gorhana Branch w.e.f 01.07.2004 and he also received wages @ Rs. 500/- P.M initially and lastly he was paid wages
@ Rs. 1600/- P.M. He also discharged his duties from 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M. The claim of the workman
Sri Sachidanand Singh is that he had been orally appointed to discharge duties of a part time sweeper at Piro Branch
w.e.f 19.05.2004 and he was initially paid wages @ Rs. 500/- P.M and lastly he was paid wages @ Rs. 1600/- P.M.
The workman also used to discharged his duties from 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M. it is further averred that all the above
workmen used to sweep and clean their respective branch premises regularly and also their services were utilized for
deposit mobilization, recovery purposes etc. The above workmen used to discharged their duties as per instruction of
the branch manager’s. It is further averred that as per the provisions of R.R Bs Act 1976, Punjab National Bank
opened four Regional Rural Banks (a) Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, (b) Magadh Gramin Bank, (c) Nalanda Gramin
Bank and (d) Patliputra Gramin Bank which were amalgamated in the name of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank with
Head Office at Meena Plaza, South of Museum, Patna-800001. The bank is incorporated under R.R.B Act Act,1976
and its sponsoring bank is Punjab National Bank. It is further averred that the wages of the workmen had been
determined and revised by the Bank’s Board of Directors from time to time. The wages of above workmen were paid
to the debit of Manager’s Power account and separate signatures were used to be taken from the workmen. It is
further averred that the wages of workmen of R.R.Bs are revised on the basis of industry level settlement of banking
industry. It is further stated that trade unions had demanded fixation of salary of part time sweeper on 1/3rd pay scale
at least which was considered and a settlement to this effect was signed at industry level between the representatives
of Indian Bank’s Association and the workmen unions on 27.04.2010. Accordingly 9th Bipartite Settlement the wages
of part time sweeper working on consolidated wages was revised to 1/3rd pay scale of full time subordinate staff w.e.f
01.05.2010. It is further stated that the out come of the 9th Bipartite Settlement regarding revised of the wages of the
part time sweeper was not considered by the management bank rather issued the circular dt- 09.12.2011 directing the
branches to terminate the services of the part time sweepers in a most arbitrary manner. Accordingly the managers of
Brahampur, Paliganj, Gorhana and Piro branches terminated the services of the above workmen w.e.f 31.12.2011 and
they were stopped working thereafter. However, all the above workmen were continuously working in the respective
branches from the date of joining till date of termination. Accordingly the action of the management in not
regularizing the services of the above workmen as per Industry Level Settlement dated- 27.04.2010 is neither legal
nor justified. It is further averred that all the above workmen are poor and had become overaged while with the
working of management bank.The termination of the workmen is covered under section 2 (OO) of the Industrial
Dispute Act,1947. It is further stated that seeing no scope of redressal of grievances, all the above workmen raised an
Industrial Dispute through sponsoring union as per the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Conciliation officer
tried his level best to settle the dispute, but due to the non-compromising attitude of the management, the conciliation
proceedings ended in failure. After receiving the failure of conciliation report, the appropriate government referred the
grievances of the workmen to this tribunal for adjudication. It is further stated that the action of the management in
terminating the services of the workmen is neither correct nor valid on the following grounds:-
816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) The management violated the mandatory provisions of section-25F.
(ii)
The management did not follow the provisions of 9th Bi-partiteSettlement.
(iii) The management resorted to unfair labour practice as per section-25 (T) of the I.D.Act.
(iv) The management failed to follow the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ as per Article 39 (d) of the Indian
Constitution.
The workmen seek following reliefs:-
(a)
Reinstatement as a part time sweeper on 1/3rd wages of a full time Subordinate Staff with full back wages.
(b)
Regularization of services as a part time sweeper on 1/3rd wages as per the provisions of 9th Bipartite
Settlement.
(c)
Payment of a sum of Rs. 10000/- for contesting the dispute.
(d)
Any other relief (S) as deems fit and proper by this tribunal.
3.
On the other hand the management bank filed written statement mentioning therein the dispute raised by the
above workmen against the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank is bad in law and erroneous on facts and thus
is not maintainable. It is further stated that the workmen are not entitled for any reliefs as claimed as no cause of
action has arisen. It is further stated that as per claim of the workman Sanjeev Singh in the branch of Brahampur he
has worked from 01.08.1985 to 31.12.2011 and subsequently he claimed he has worked at Brahampur branch from
01.08.1985 to 31.12.2011. However, the facts is branch of Brahampur was opened on 25.03.2014 hence the claim of
the workman Sanjeev Singh is not correct and like wise Sri Ajay Kumar the workman as claimed for his working in
Gorahana Branch from 01.07.2004 to 31.12.2011 while the said branch is opened on 26.03.2016. Accordingly his
claim is far away from the truth. It is further stated that bank is a public sector undertaking and is governed by the
rules & regulations framed by the Govt. of India. Any appointment can be made by it in terms of guideline / rules laid
down by the Govt. of India. There is no scope of oral appointment in the bank which is evident from regulation of
Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank ( Officers & Employees ) Service regulation, 2010. It is further stated that the workmen
have been not claimed issuance of any appointment letter in their favour and thus their cases do not come within the
purview of section 2(OO) of the I.D. Act rather it come within section 2 (OO (bb) for which no industrial dispute is
permissible as the so called workmen are not retrenched workmen. It is further stated that the work of cleaning and
sweeping in branches was need base and it was to be taken by any available labour. It is further stated that there are
no record of engagement / oral appointment of the above workmen in the concerned branches. So the claim of
workmen discharging their duties as a part time sweeper is not correct. It is further stated that messenger(s) were
posted in the concerned branches and they were allotted duties of cleaning of premises, stitching and sealing of
vouchers, maintenance of records etc. It is further stated that the wages revision is available only for the permanent
and regular employees in terms of existing rules and regulations and guideline Govt. of India. Board of directors
reviewed and revised the charges for cleaning the charges for cleaning charges for the bank premises. The claim of
the workmen there separate signatures were being taken in the respective branches is totally incorrect. As branches
used to maintain the record of payment on a separate registers. It is further stated that workman unions / associations
of the Regional Rural Banks do not represent industry level settlement or wage revision settlement before the Indian
Bank’s Associations. It is further asserted that the above workmen were never appointed , hence the claim for
termination does not arise. Since the workmen were never appointed by the bank hence question of their termination
does not arise. It is further asserted that dispute raised by the applicant /workman was not justified as they were not
workmen of the bank hence the matter of conciliation does not arise. The management bank never commit any unfair
labour practice so the allegations of workmen is totally false and baseless. It is further stated that similar matter of
dispute raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner vide Ref. No.- 1/66/12/ALC-1 by Vinod Paswan, Amar
Kumar & Others and preferred writ application before the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide CWJC No.- 23216 of 2012
for similar issues and the Hon’ble Patna High Court was pleased to dismiss the writ application by order dt-
04.01.2013. Photo copy of order is annexed. It is further stated that the so called workmen have been never worked as
part time sweeper in the bank and as such the relief sought for reinstatement of their services in the bank, has no
relevance and therefore its fit to be dismissed. It is further stated that so called workmen are not employee of the bank
as they have never been appointed by the bank as part time sweeper so there was no relationship of employer and
employee between them. Accordingly the workmen are not entitled for any relief as claimed.
4.
Having considered the statement of claim filed by the workmen and written statement filed by the
management sides the following issues are recasted for the adjudication
(i) “Whether the complainants Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Sri Bijendra Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar and Sri
Sachidanand Singh have ever worked in theirrespective branches of Brahampur, Paliganj, Gorhana and
Piro as per their claim?”.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
817
(ii) “Whether action of the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank to terminate the services of
workmen Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri BijendraKumar, Sri Ajay Kumar & Sachidanand Singh is legal and
valid?”.
5.
In order to establish their claim, the workmen side examined altogether two witnesses namely Bijendra
Singh (W.W-1) and Sachidanand Singh (W.W-2). Besides, oral evidence of workmen side have filed some document
of the complainants i.e marked as Exts.:-
(i) Ext.- W- Credit vouchers from 31.01.2014 to 31.12.2011 ( Total number of pages- 22) in the Paliganj branch.
(ii) Ext.-W/1- Credit vouchers from 30.01.2010 to 31.12.2011 ( Total number of pages-21) in the Paliganj branch.
6.
On the other hand management also examined three witnesses from its side who are namely Abhinay Kumar
Singh (M.W-1), Mazhar Hussain Ansari (M.W-2) and Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Mishra (M.W-3). Besides, oral evidence
the management sides also filed some documents i.e marked as Exts.:-
(i) Ext.- A- Circular No.- 7/2001 dt- 13.03.2001 ( personal& Training Deptt.) of erstwhile Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin
Bank, H.O regarding cleaning of bank premises and office.
(ii) Ext.-B- Circular No.- 10/2005 dt- 21.07.2005 (HRDD) of erstwhile Bhojpur Rohatas Gramin Bank, H.O.
regarding cleaning of bank premises and office in the light of circular no.- 7/2001.
(iii) Ext.-C-Circular No.- 23/2008 dt- 27.09.2008 of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, H.O regarding cleaning of bank
premisesand office power invest to the scale I / II of inchargeofficer of the branches and fixed the wages.
(iv) Ext.-D-Circular No.- 01/2011 dated- 06.01.2011 (HRDD) of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, H.O. regarding
cleaning of bank premises in the light circular no.- 23 / 08 dt- 27.09.2008.
(v) Ext.-E-Circular No.- 04 / 2011 dt- 22.02.2011 in the light of circular no.- 23 /2008 dt-27.09.2008.
(vi) Ext.-F-Letter No.- 6630 to 6637 dt- 09.12.2011 direction given to the Arrah, Aurangabad, Bhabhua, Biharsharif,
Gaya, Nawada, Patna, Sasaram branches for cleaning of bank premises in the light of circular no.- 23 / 2008 dt-
27.09.2008 and circular no.- 04 / 2011 dt- 22.02.2011.
(vii) Ext.-G-Licence N0. BL (PAT) / MB-137 /2014-15 dt- 12.11.2014 & G/1. and Licence No. BL. (PAT)-66 / 2012-
13 dt- 13.06.2013 ( In exercise of the powers conferred on the Resrve Bank of India under section-23 read with
section 51of the Bank Regulation Act, 1949, the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank is authorised to open a branch at
Barahampur, Dist- Patna and Gorhana, Dist.- Bhojpur, Bihar State).
7.
First of all this tribunal takes the issue no.-1 this tribunal finds that four complainants raised this dispute
showing they have worked in different branches of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank but out of four complainants only
two complainants turned-up and they adduced evidence. First of all this tribunal securitizes the evidence of W.W-1
Bijendra Kumar who stated before this tribunal that he has worked at the Paliganj branch of Madhya Bihar Gramin
Bank from 01.07.2006 to 31.12.2011 and he was doing the job of part time sweeper as he used to open the bank
premises, cleaning the bank premises. He also served water & tea to the staffs and some time he also distributed the
deposit and withdrawal form to the customers as per instruction of the branch manager. He further stated that some
times he accompanied the branch manager when the branch manager went in field for loan recovery purposes. This
witness further stated that initially he received Rs. 500/- P.M as wages that gradually enhanced of Rs. 1600/- P.M.
This witness further stated that he has submitted the vouchers in 22 pages that shows that the amount used to
withdrawn by the manager and later on it was given to him and all the vouchers as enclosed in 22 pages as marked as
Ext.-W. This witness further stated that no notice and notice pay has been given to him by the bank before terminating
his service.
In para-8 of the cross-examination this witness categorically admitted that he did not file any documents
regarding his working in the said branch from 01.07.2006 to 31.12.2011 and he further stated in para-9 of the cross-
examination he has also not given any proof of continuous working of 240 days in the said branch before 31.12.2011
because this type of document is not provided by the branch manager. In para-12 of the cross-examination this
witness admits that the payment vouchers he has proved as Ext.-W series over which there is no signature and further
he denied that his claim is not correct.
8.
W.W-2 Sachidanand Singh who claim to work as a part time sweeper in the Piro branch of Madhya Bihar
Gramin Bank from 19.05.2004 to 31.12.2011 and he further stated that there was no other part time sweeper was
posted in the said branch during his serving tenure. This witness further stated that he used to discharged his duties
from 9.00A.M to closure of the bank and he used to discharge the duties of cleaning bank and of different work as per
the instruction of manager sahab. He has further stated that he initially got Rs. 500/- P.M waes that was enhanced
gradually to Rs. 1600/- P.M. This witness further stated that manager sahab used to withdraw money by vouchers and
the same was paid to him. This witness proved the payment vouchers bearing signature of then branch manager M.H.
Ansari i.e 21 pages marked as Ext.-W/1. This witness further state that when ever he received payment for his service,
818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
manager sahab used to obtain his signature in a separate copy. He also admitted that he has been orally appointed and
when his services was taken away by the bank. He did not get notice or notice pay and he has further stated that after
terminating his service some private agency started sweeping work in the bank. In cross-examination this witness
categorically admitted that he was orally appointed in the said branch no document was given to him and in para-11
of the cross-examination this witness admits that the vouchers he produced before this tribunal bears his no signature
and he further denied that this is not fact that he has not worked 240 days in the bank.
9.
Now this tribunal securitizes the evidence of management side M.W-1 Abhinay Kumar Sinha who is the
manager of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank of its head office. He stated before this tribunal that he is posted in the head
office of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank from 28th May 2014. This witness further stated that there is no provision of
oral appointment in the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and no Branch Manager is authorised to appoint any person. This
witness further stated that some circular issued by the head office of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank regarding
cleaning of the premises of the branches. This witness stated that the Branch Manager used to make payment to the
cleaning staff after withdrawing the money from non specified expenditure head.
In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-7 is that he has never posted in Patliputra Gramin
Bank and he never visited the branches of the complainant. In para-8 of the cross-examination this witness
categorically stated that he does not know the complainants of this case and he never saw Bijendra Kumar doing any
service in Paliganj branch. In para-11 of the cross-examination this witness admits that he does not know whether the
complainant comes under the provision of workman accordingly to the Industrial Disputes Act.
10.
M.W-2 Mazhar Hussain Ansari who deposed before this tribunal on 21.04.2016 and he claimed he is the Branch
Manager of Kayamnagar branch of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank. This witness stated that he was posted in Piro branch
from 16.07.2009 to 12.04.2010 as a branch manager. This witness also stated that there is no provision of oral
appointment in the bank and no bank manager is authorised to appoint any one. This witness further stated that there
was circular of head office any branch manager can engage any person for cleaning purposes of the branches. This
witness also stated when ever he took the service of any workmen for cleaning purposes, he used to make payment
from his pocket and the same amount he used to withdraw from the bank vouchers. This witness further stated that he
does not know the Sachidanand Singh and he never took his service for cleaning service.
In cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he payment of part time sweeper was given according
to circular of the bank and the bank has enhanced payment from Rs. 750/-P.M to Rs. 1600/- P.M in para of the cross-
examination this witness admits that there is no instruction given in the circular that Branch Manager will give the
payment to the cleaning staff from his pocket and later on he will withdraw the amount from the bank.
11.
M.W-3 Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Mishra he was examined on 19.05.2016 at that time he was branch manager of
Dulhin Bazar branch of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank. He stated before this tribunal that he was posted at Paliganj
branch from 2007 to May 2010. The cleaning staff was called for the cleaning of the premises. This witness further
stated that bank never took the service of one person for cleaning purposes and he never took the service of Bijendra
Kumar. This witness further stated as per the circular the payment of cleaning staff, the amount was withdrawn by
the bank and the same is paid to the cleaning staff once in a month. This witness further stated that no payment was
made through vouchers. This witness further stated that one Narendra Kumar was posted as messenger in Paliganj
branch during his tenure.
In cross-examination this witness admits in para-9 that Bijendra Kumar the complainant has claimed he was
worked in the bank from 2006 to 2011 and he has claimed to regularise his service. In para-11 of the cross-
examination he does not know some other person has claimed to work in Paliganj from 2006 to 2011. In para-12 of
the cross-examination he admits that he used to make payment to the cleaning staff according to the circular of the
bank and he used to pay once in the month. Initially it was Rs. 750/- P.M wages for cleaning staff that was enhanced
of Rs. 1600/- P.M through circular. In para-14 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that the union
of the bank has put the demand before the management the services of cleaning staff should be permanent at the
salary of 1/3 of permanent sub-staff but bank has terminated the working of the cleaning staff from 31.12.2011. In
para-15 of the cross-examination this witness admits that the case of Bijendra Kumar is according to the demand of
the union i.e in the 9th Bi-Partite Settlement.
12.
On scrutinizing the evidence of the both the sides this tribunal finds that the complainant Bijendra Kumar
clearly stated he was worked in Paliganj branch from 01.07.2006 to 31.12.2011 as a part time sweeper and he also
admits that he was orally appointed and his service his taken by the then Branch Manger and he was paid by the
Branch Manger after obtaining the payment amount through vouchers and respective Branch Manger never took his
signature on the vouchers. In this connection this management has filed vouchers from 30.01.2010 to 31.12.2011
which is marked Exts-W series of 22 pages that shows that Rs. 750/- P.M was withdrawn by the bank manager of
Paliganj branch bearing signature and seal from 30.01.2010 to 28.02.2011 each months and further vouchers from
31.03.2011 to 31.12.2011 show Rs. 1600/- P.M was withdrawn by the Branch Manger for the cleaning of the
purposes for the cleaning staff. This vouchers corroborated the claim of the complainant, Bijendra Kumar has worked
at Paliganj branch and he received the amount accordingly as per the circular of the bank i.e also admitted by M.W-3
Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Mishra who was also marked as a Branch Manager, in Paliganj Branch from 2007 to 2010.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
819
Moreover, M.W-3 also admits that the case of the Bijendra Kumar as per the demand of union i.e enshrined in 9th Bi-
partite Settlement and this witness also admits that the bank has terminated the services of cleaning staff from
31.12.2011. Thus this tribunal finds and hold that there is no evidence produced by the bank side that could show
Bijendra Kumar has not worked in the Paliganj Branch from 01.07.2006 to 31.12.2011.
13.
So far as case of complainant Sachidanand Singh W.W-2 is concerned he claimed he has given his service to
the Piro branch as a part time sweeper from 19.05.2004 to 31.12.2011 and also claimed there was no other part time
sweeper posted in the said branch. He also admits that he used to get monthly wages payment from manager as the
then manager used to withdraw money through vouchers and the same is paid to him. He also filed some payment
vouchers of Piro Branch of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank i.e marked as Ext.-W/1 series that also show that the Branch
Manager used to withdrawn the money through credit voucher of Rs. 750/- P.M was withdrawn from 30.01.2010 to
28.02.2011 and further the then manager of Piro Branch has withdraw Rs. 1600/- from 29.04.2011 to 28.12.2011 for
the cleaning staff that is also admitted by the management witness.
14.
This tribunal further finds that W.W-2 as clearly stated no notice or notice pay was given prior to the
termination. Virtually the evidence of this witness has not been controverted by the management side. M.W-2 who
has served from Piro Branch from 16.07.2009 to 12.04.2010 also could not controverted the version of complainant
Sachidanand Singh W.W-2 regarding his working at Piro Branch rather M.W-2 admitted this facts the payment of
part time sweeper was given according to the bank circular i.e also admitted by the workman and documents filed by
the management sides on the request of the workman also suffice this facts the manager used to withdrawn wages
payment for the cleaning staff and the same be given to the cleaning staff without obtaining his signatur,e this version
of the management witness itself shows that Sachidanand Singh workman (W.W-2) also discharged the duties of part
time sweeper at Piro Branch as per his claim. This tribunal further finds that the documents filed by the management
regarding the payment of wages for cleaning staff as per prayer of the workman sides also corroborated the workman
Sachidanand Singh has discharged his duties at Piro branch because no other complainant has ever filed such type of
dispute moreover, management side also did not produce any cogent evidence the payment of wages for clerical staff
is given to other daily wager other than Sachidanand Singh.
15.
So far as the complainant Sanjeev Singh and Ajay Kumar is concerned, this tribunals find that both the
complainant/ workman did not turn-up before this tribunal to prove his case moreover, the management side
categorically opposed their claim disclosed this facts the branch of Brahampur and branch of Gorhana are opened on
25.03.2014 and 26.03.2013 respectively. However, the claim of these two workman is otherwise so their case is not at
all considered on this score only. This tribunal further finds that both the workman namely Bijendra Kumar and
Sachidanand Singh has successfully established this fact they have worked in Paliganj and Piro branch respectfully as
per their claim accordingly the issue no.-1 is decided in their favour.
16.
So far as issue no.-2 is concerned i.e the main dispute whether termination of the workmen by the management
from 31.12.2011 is legal and justified, this tribunal finds that complainant Bijendra Kumar has worked at Paliganj
upto 31.12.2011 and he has discharged his duties of part time sweeper and other works as per oral instruction of the
Branch Manager and further complainant Sachidanand Singh also discharged his duties of part time sweeper at Piro
branch from 19,05,2004 to 31.12.2011 when the services of the both the complainant / workman got to be terminated
by the management without assigning any reason and without giving any notice and notice pay. However, it is clearly
established that both the workman Sri Bijendra Kumar and Sachidanand Singh getting wages payment of part time
sweeper as per circular of the bank initially it was paid Rs. 750/- and when their service were taken up both were
getting Rs. 1600/- P.M i.e well established by the vouchers produced by the management side marked Ext.-W & W/1
respectively. The oral evidence and documentary evidence clearly shows that both the workman were served in their
respective branches for more than 240 days in one calendar year preceding the termination of service i.e 31.12.2011.
The circulars filed by the management side shows that the circular no.- 10/2005 dt- 21.07.2005 ( Exts.- B ) show that
the branches manager is authorised to disbursed Rs. 500/- P.M for cleaning purposes from July-2005. Circular
No.- 23/2008 dt- 27.09.2008 i.e (Exts.-C) authorised the branch manager of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank to paid
Rs. 750/- P.M for cleaning staff. Circular No.- 01/11 dt- 06.01.2011 i.e ( Extx.- D ) also shows that managers their
authorised to make of Rs. 750/- P.M for the cleaning purposes and Circular No.- 04/2011 dt- 22.02.2011 i.e (Exts.- E)
enhanced the payment of wages for cleaning purposes Rs. 750/- P.M to Rs. 1600/- P.M. This tribunal finds that both
the workman have received payment of wages for their services of part time sweeper in their respective branches
according to the circular guidelines by their respective Branch Manager and this is admitted by the workman as well
as management witnesses. This tribunal further finds that both the workman have discharged their duties of part time
sweeper at respective branches Paliganj and Piro. Continuously more than 240 days and when their services is not
taken up by the bank from 31.12.2011 this is the clear cut violation of the section-25F of the Industrial Dispute
Act,1947 i.e Condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen:- No workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that
employer until,-
(a) The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of suchnotice, wages for the period of the notice;
820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1[***]
(b)the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days
average pay 2[ for every completed year of continuous service] or any part there of in excess of six month; and
(c)Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 1[ for such authority as many be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
This tribunal finds and hold that both the workman has successfully establish they have been terminated
from their services without any notice and notice pay. On scrutinizing the available evidence by both the sides this
tribunal finds that there were need of cleaning staff at Paliganj and Piro branches that’s why management bank is
taken the service, of Bijendra Kumar at Paliganj branch and service of Sachidanand Singh at Piro branch from so
many years till 31.12.2011 and all of sudden they have told by the bank not to continues at the their respective
branches also amounts unfair labour practice adopted by the management bank.
17
On the ultimate analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on the record
as discussed above and the points as raised by the representative of the workmen as well as management this tribunal
finds and hold that both the complainant / workman Sri BijendraKumar and Sachidanand Singh who is discharged
their services as part time sweeper at Paliganj ( period - 01.07.2006 to 31.12.2011 )and Piro branches ( period –
19.05.2004 to 31.12.2011 ) respectively. It is also well established by the both the workmn that they were orally
appointed in their respective branches and they were getting payment of wages on monthly basis as per bank
circulars. Accordingly both the complainant /workman have successfully proved their claim by the oral and
documentary evidence and management is completely failed to challenge the validity of the claim of the workman
Bijendra Kumar and Sachidanand Singh. Accordingly this is the considered opinion of this tribunal both the workman
Bijendra Kumar and Sachidanand Singh have succeeded to prove their cases as Bijendra Kumar has given his service
to the Paliganj branch as part time sweeper from 01.07.2006 to 31.12.2011 and complainant / workman Sachidanand
Singh has given his service to the Piro branch as part time sweeper from 19.05.2004 to 31.12.2011 and both have
served the respective branches more than 240 days preceding the termination on 31.12.2011. Accordingly this tribunal
holds that action of the management of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank in terminating the services of workman Bijendra
Kumar and Sachidanand Singh is neither legal nor justified. Accordingly the management bank is directed to reinstate
the workman Sri Bijendra Kumar and Sachidanand Singh to their services from the date of termination i.e. 31.12.2011
as a part time sweeper and make payment as per prevailing salary I,e 1/3 of full time sub-ordinate staff as per terms of
9th Bi-partite Settlement. Since complainant / workman Ajay Singh and Sanjeev Singh did not turn-up before this
tribunal to establish their claim as per terms of reference. It is clearly indicative to this fact that they have no
grievance from the management bank, accordingly “No Dispute Award” is passed for the two complainant / workman
namely Ajay Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Singh. The management is further directed to implement the award within
60 days from the date of its publication of award.This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated &Corrected by me.
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 378.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
यूको बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa vkS?kksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV (a12 (C) of 2015) 09 (C) of 2004) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/242/2003-आईआर-(बी-II)]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 20th February, 2024
S.O. 378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 12 (C ) of 2015) 09 ( C ) of 2004 ) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/242/2003-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
821
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.
Reference Case No.:-12 (C) of 2015
09 (C) of 2004
Between the management of UCO Bank, Regional Office, Bhagalpur Sabour Road, Bhagalpur and their
workman Sri Vishnu Kant Jha represented by UCO Bank Employees Association, Exhibition Road, Patna.
For the management:-
Sri Praveen Kumar, Advocate.
For the workman:-
Sri Birendra Kumar Jha, Advocate.
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dt- 22nd December, 2023.
By the adjudication order no.- L-12011/242/2003-IR(B-II) New Delhi, dated- 28.06.2004 the Govt. of India
Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2K) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the
management of UCO Bank, Regional Office, Bhagalpur Sabour Road, Bhagalpur and their workman Sri Vishnu Kant
Jha for adjudication to this tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Claim of UCO Bank Employees Association that Shri Vishnu Kant Jha was engaged to perform
the duties of Sub-staff during 1996-1998 with the management of UCO Bank is correct? If so, whether the
management’s action to terminate him from service is justified? If not, justified, what relief is the disputant
concerned entitled to?”
2.
As per written statement of the workman side, the worker case in short is that Sri Vishnua Kant Jha, the
workman, was orally appointed to discharge the duties of a peon at currency chest of UCO Bank, Tilka Manjhi, Bhagalpur
w.e.f. 01.10.1996. The workman further asserted that he discharged his duties from 10.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M, Wages were
paid to him through vouchers of different narrations. The workman further claims that he worked there till 25.05.1998
uninterruptedly at currency chest as no other peon was posted there but he was stopped to work on 26.05.1998. He further
claims that he worked for over 240 days in a calendar year preceding to termination so his termination is covered u/s- 2
(OO) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 Further no notice / notice pay and retrenchment compensation was given to him.
Accordingly his termination is illegal and unjustified for violation of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act. Moreover, bank also
played unfair labour practice. The workman further prayed for reinstatement with back wages and regularisation of his
service as a peon under bank sub-ordinate cadre. He also sought relief for the payment of due wages for the period of his
working.
3.
On the other hand the management also filed his written statement and denied the claim of the workman. It is
further averred in the written statement that for efficient working in the Bank in the case of electricity failure, a Generator
set was installed on rental basis under agreement with a private party. The duty was on the owner to maintain, operate and
supply electricity from 10.00A.M to 6.00 P.M. It is further asserted that the worker was engaged by owner of the
generator set and was paid salary by him. While he sat idle during the bank hours, the bank at his request used to take
Misc. work from him on payment by way of Collie charges, labour charges and electric fitting charges out of contingency/
miscellaneous head. The fact is, the worker was never appointed by the bank in any capacity. He was instead an employee
of Generator owner. It is further asserted that there was no relationship of Employer and Employee between bank and so
called worker. The miscellaneous work also was not taken for 240 days in the calendar year. Thus workers claim is
misconceived and there was no termination under law and no unfair labour practice is done by the bank management.
Accordingly, worker is not entitled for any relief.
4.
It is worth mentioning here that initially after taking into consideration the worker’s claim and written statement
filed by the management and further after analysing the evidence as adduced by the rival parties, the worker and the
management, this tribunal has passed award on 3rd June, 2005 in Reference Case No.- 09(C) of 2004with a findings the
worker is not entitled to any relief. Subsequently, the workman Vishnu Kant Jha filed writ application i.e CWJC No.-
14736 of 2005 in the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the Hon’ble Court upheld the tribunal order of award vide order dt-
10.07.2012. Thereafter workman Vishnu Kant Jha filed LPA and his LPA was allowed. vide CWJC No.- 14736 of 2005,
Double bench of the Hon’ble Court remanded back the case to this tribunal with direction to management to examine two
Generator owner M/S Amarnath Choudhary and Irshad Alam and further set aside the impugned award and also set aside
822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the order of the learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Court also held in its order dt- 24.07.2015 setting
aside of the award will not entitle the workman to claim reinstatement until a fresh award is passed reinstating him.
5.
Both parties adduced evidence and contested the reference. The management side examined altogether three
witnesses namely Sri Bhola Pd. Sah, Assistant Manager from 1993 to 1997 (M.W-1 ), Sri Anjani Kumar Tiwary, the then
Currency Chest Officer (M.W-2) and Sri Gyananand Sharma, the Currency Chest Officer since 14.04.2001 (M.W-3).
Besides management some documents got to be proved by the management side namely Ext.-M ( Statement of some
Bank Employees recorded by L.E.O (C), Bhagalpur with enquiry report ) and Ext.-M/1 ( Details of payment ( Ext.-M/1
& Ext.-W/3 series are the same documents). On the other hand initially union has examined together two witnesses in
support of the claim who are namely Sri Anil Kumar, computer operator of UCO Bank, Tilkamanjhi from June-1990 as
(W.W-1) and Vishnu Kant Jha is the workman himself (W.W-1). Some documents was also Extd. From the workman
sides i.e Ext.-W ( ( Union letter dt- 09.04.2003 )to ALC (Central), Patna thereby raising dispute ), Ext.-W/1- ( Details of
payment made to worker ), Ext.-W/2 ( Letter dt- 25.05.1998 of Tilka Manjhi Branch to Regional Manager, Bhagalpur )
and Ext.-W/3 to W/3-14 ( Payment vouchers in worker’s favour). Letter on by order of Hon’ble Court passed in CWJC
No.- 14736 of 2005 dt- 24.07.2015 Dasti Summon was issued to the workmanside to produce witness namely Mr.
Amarnath Choudhary and Irshad Alam the generator operator at UCO Bank of Tilka Manjhi branch but only Mr.
Amarnath Choudhary turned-up. Who deposed before this tribunal as a W.W-3.
6.
Workers case in his written statement is that he was orally appointed to discharge the duties of peon at currency
chest of UCO Bank, Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur from 01.10.1996 and he performed the duties of sub-staff was
uninterruptedly till 25.05.1998 and he also claimed he worked for over 240 days preceding his termination so his
termination is covered u/s-2(OO) of the I.D.Act and it is bad and illegal as he was not given any notice / notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. However, on the contrary management side categorically stated in their written statement the
worker was never employed by the bank rather he was operating generator installed in the branch on hire by a private
person, and of course, the bank has take his services for some misc. work in the bank on the payment from contingency
and as when required like collie or labour charges. He was never appointed by the bank in any capacity.
7.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this tribunal finds that the onus thus vests on worker to prove
that he was appointed to discharge the duties of a peon of currency chest and there was master and servant relationship
between the two. If this aspect of this case is established only then the question relating to section 25(F) will come into
play.
8.
On perusing the written statement of the worker side and his evidence. Worker failed to narrate, who actually
appointed him in the bank and even there is no documents as well to Ext. his appointment. Moreover workman (W.W-2)
himself keeps mum on this point. W.W-1 also does not say who engaged the worker in the bank and took the services of
currency chest as per worker’s claim. W.W-1 being executive member of the union also failed to establish how the worker
was inducted in bank working and who made his appointment. The documents Ext.-W/3 series shows the payment made
by bank to the worker for his services taken between 12.10.1996 to 02.05.1998 it clearly shows that the worker was paid
Rs. 30/- for electric fitting charges, Rs. 25/-, Rs.45/-, Rs.35/-, Rs.60/-, Rs.30/-, Rs.50/- per day towards collie charges
Rs.60/- for chemical filling, Rs. 65/- for working on one Sunday, Rs. 35/-, Rs.25/- or Rs.41/- for sweeping charges.
Besides this workman has been paid also on some occasions for work in absence of one Ghanshyam. The above details of
payments clearly suggest that the payment was not uniform and in absence of above Ghanshyam he did work in his place
on certain dates. Moreover, it is evident that irregular and un-even payments are quite suggestive of the fact he was paid
only in proportion to the work done by him as collie and labourer. Moreover the management side have fairly admitted to
have utilized the services of workman as and when required just to support him financially when he was sitting idle. From
oral evidence and documentary evidence as placed by the workman side this tribunal does not find any cogent and
concrete evidence that he could establish he was employed and utilized by the bank as sub-staff and it is also not
established by the workman, he worked for 240 days continuously in one calendar year preceding his alleged termination.
9.
After remand of this case by the order of Hon’ble Court the workman side produced Mr. Armanath Choudhary
only who admitted this fact he was operating generator in UCO Bank, Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur from 1994 to 1998 and
also reported Vishnu Kant Jha was not his staff but he did not give clear picture from when the Vishnu Kant Jha was
engaged in the bank and what was his duties in the bank, so the evidence of Amarnath Choudhary the generator owner
also does not look convincing and reliable at all taking into consideration the workman claim as he was serving as sub-
staff in currency chest of UCO Bank.
10.
On the other hand the management evidence appears more emphatic and clear as M.W-1 was Branch Manager at
Tilkamanjhi Branch upto 1997 who clearly stated that the workman used to operate the generator installed by Amarnath
Choudhary (W.W-3) and there after by Irshad Alam who did not come forward to depose inspite of Dasti Summons
received by the representative of workman as per Hon’ble Court’s order. This witness also stated that permanent peon was
their in the bank and worker name was not in check off system. M.W-2 was the currency chest officer in the said branch
from 02.08.1993 to January 1999. He categorically stated in his evidence. the worker was never utilized by him at
currency chest of course he was paid carrying boxes when ever his services is taken for which he was paid. M.W-3 the
present currency chest officer also stated in the same tune. This tribunal further finds that management’s witnesses have
fairly admitted that the worker some time performed misc. works of the bank for which payment was made i.e established
from the payment details as filed by the management Ext.-M/1 and the workman Exts.- W/3 series. The management has
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
823
filed the Ext.-M report of LEO (Central ), Bhagalpur together with the statement of different employees of the said branch
to the effect that the worker was operating the generator set installed in the branch and some times at the instruction of the
branch manager did work of carrying boxes ( Collie work ).
11.
Thus on the ultimate analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on the record
and the evidence as adduced on behalf of the rival parties before this tribunal clearly establish that worker’s claim that his
service were utilized by the management at the currency chest, is not at all established and proved and same has to be out
rightly rejected. The evidence also indicates that the workman was never appointed by the bank orally or otherwise as
claimed by the workman. Thus in absence of any cogent evidence in support of his employment as sub-staff in currency
chest section of UCO Bank Branch Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur, this tribunal is of the opinion that there has been no
relationship of master and servant or employer – employee between the parties at any point of time.
12.
In view of the above discussions, this is the considered opinion of this tribunal that the claim of the UCO Bank
Employees Association that the workers was engaged by the management to perform the duties of sub-staff during
1996-98 is totally failed and hence his claim is rejected. Accordingly, there is no point to consider as to whether
management’s action of alleged termination from service is justified or not. Accordingly worker Vishnu Kant Jha is not
entitled to any relief whatsoever. This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.
This is the award accordingly.
Dictated &Corrected by me.
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 379.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa vkS?kksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV (a02 (C) of 2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024-आईआर-(बी-I)-106]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 20th February, 2024
S.O. 379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02 (C) of 2021) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR(B-I)-106]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.
Reference Case No.:-02 (C) of 2021
Between the management of (1) Chief General Manager, State Bank of India ( New work-I ), West Gandhi
Maidan, Patna-800001 (2) Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khagaria Bazar Branch, Mill Road, Dist.- Khagaria
and Their workman Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha, S/O- Shri Ram Narayan Prasad, C/O- Sanjay Kumar Sinha ( Principal ), At-
Lalpur ( Aashirbad Bhawan ), P.O- Chautham, PS- Chautham, Dist.- Khagaria. .
For the management:-
Sri Ambarish Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the workman:-
Sri Vikash Mohan, Advocate.
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dt- 19th January, 2024.
By the adjudication order no.- 1/ID(2)/2021/Dy CLC-Pt dated- 25/27.01.2021 the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Labour & Employment, Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Maurya Lok Complex, A Block,
2nd Floor, Room No.-6,16,& 17, Patna-800001 has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) of Section-10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the following dispute between (1) Chief
General Manager, State Bank of India ( New work-I ), West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 (2) Branch Manager,
824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
State Bank of India, Khagaria Bazar Branch, Mill Road, Dist.- Khagaria and Their workman Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha,
S/O- Shri Ram Narayan Prasad, C/O- Sanjay Kumar Sinha ( Principal ), At- Lalpur ( Aashirbad Bhawan ), P.O-
Chautham, PS- Chautham, Dist.- Khagaria for adjudication to this tribunal:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India toterminate the service of workman Sri Sunil
Kumar Sinha is correct and valid? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
As per the statement of claim of the workman Sunil Kumar Sinha the workman was engaged from
01.11.2003 by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khagaria as messenger and he worked in the said branch
from 2003 to 2009. It is averred that the service of the workman was thoroughly satisfactory and the competent
authority granted certificate with regard to satisfactory service as well as experience but the workman was stopped
working in the said branch of the SBI from 2009. It is further asserted that the workman has discharged his duties
more than 240 days in number of calendar years as such workman is entitled for regularisation for his service as per
Industrial Dispute Act. The workman is also entitled for minimum wages from 2003 to 2009 as per provision of
Minimum Wages Act. It is further asserted that the management of State Bank of India was exploiting the workman
for six years but they have not given service to the workman which is illegal and arbitrary action of the bank.Thus
workman is entitled for regularization of his service U/S- 25(B) of the Industrial Dispute Act. It is further asserted that
workman filed a representation in the light of order passed in C.W.J.C No.- 4003 of 2009 but the representation of the
workman has been rejected on the facts that workman was engaged for cleaning of ATM for few hours on daily
wages which is factually wrong just to deprived the workman for regularization of the workman of his service. It is
further asserted that certificate granted by Branch Manager, SBI, Khagaria clearly shows the workman has discharged
the duties regularly. It is further asserted that one Durga Kumar was engaged by the bank in place of this workman i.e
clearly a violation of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in case of State of Harayana Vs. Piara Singh
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that adhoc cann’t be replaced by the another adhoc. As in the present case the
bank has engaged the other adhoc in place of the workman. It is further asserted that the workman has been retrenched
from the service by the bank without noticing to the workman which is against section-25(F) of the I.D.Act. Thus the
management bank has adopted unfair labour practice. Accordingly workman’s pleading be considered and direct State
Bank of India ( Management ) to regularize the service of the workman from 2003 and further directed to pay full
back wages and pass other order as tribunal may deem fit and proper for ends of justice.
3.
On the other hand the management side filed written statement on 24.05.2022 stating therein the claim of the
workman is not maintainable at all as the workman cann’t be said to be workman of the SBI as he was never
appointed by the competent authority of the bank and therefore termination of service of Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha does
not arise. It is further asserted that SBI is the body corporate and constitution by the State Bank of India Act, 1955
passed by the appropriate legislature. As per section-43 of the Act,1955, the State Bank of India has been empowered
to appoint officers, advisers, employees, as it is considers necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of its
functions and determine the terms of conditions of appointment of the service. It is further asserted that the petitioner
had earlier filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C No.- 4003 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court and sought relief of
regularization on the basis of working messenger w.e.f 01.11.2003 and also claimed salary in the pay scale of Rs.
4060 – 7560/- but on the prayer of the workman / petitioner the said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble
Court vide order dt- 28.04.2017 with a direction that if any representation is filed with supportive documents the
authority concerned may examine the same and pass order in accordance with law as well as instruction of the bank
preferably, within a three months from the date of filing. It is further asserted that the petitioner filed a representation
on 29.05.2017 for absorption in the service, the said representation was dully redressed and securitized and speaking
order passed by the competent authority of the bank on 28.08.2017 where by all the issues raised by the petitioner /
workman was answered keeping in view the facts and applicable rules. It is further asserted that the claim of the
workman is not true as he was never appointed as a messenger by the bank rendered his service in the khagaria branch
of the SBI rather his service utilized for the cleaning of ATM Chamber and branch premisses for a few hours on daily
wage basis and daily wages was paid to the workman through banker’s cheque. Bank neither issued the appointment
letter to Sunil Kumar Sinha in that capacity of messenger nor his name appeared on the rolls of the bank. It is further
asserted that the certificate referred by the workman Sunil Kumar Sinha cann’t form basis for his absorption in the
services of the bank as the bank follows set rules / procedures for the purpose of appointing any person on any
sanctioned post of the bank. It is further asserted that Sunil Kumar Sinha has never rendered his service to the branch
for a continuously 240 days for one calendar years immediately preceding 2009. It is further asserted that the ratio
propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Uma Devi case is an authoritative pronouncement. No absorption,
regularization or grant permanent status to temporary, casual, daily wager or adhoc employee can be given without
following due process of recruitment. Regularization cann’t be claim as a matter of right. It is further asserted that
Sunil Kumar Sinha was never appointed on any sanctioned post of the bank and therefore, there was no employer and
employee relationship. Therefore, question for retrenchment u/s-25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act does not arise.
Even the petitioner / workman had not rendered is service continuously service of 240 days immediately preceding a
calendar of this engagement of service as per claim i.e an essential ingredient of section-25(F) of the I.D.Act, 1947 to
claim retrenchment benefits. Accordingly the claim of the workman is not tenable either in law or on facts.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
825
4.
In order to establish his claim, the workman examined himself only as a W.W-1. Besides, oral evidence,
during course of the proceeding, workman got some documents marked as Exts. i.e:-
(i) Ext. W- Payment details of from the year 2003 to 2009 i.e mentioned from page 15 to 78.
(ii) Ext. W/1- The payment received by the workman through thebanker cheque from 2003 to 2009 shown from page
number 79 to 145.
(iii) Ext.W/2- The conveyance bill and it is payment of dt- 16.02.2004, 17.02.2004, 17.03.2004, 26.03.2004,
31.03.2004, 05.04.2004, 30.09.2004, 14.10.2004, 15.10.2004, 15.10.2004, 18.10.2004, 19.10.2004, 20.10.2004,
21.10.2004, and 25.10.2004 from shown from page no.- 146 to 162.
(iv) Ext.W/3- Certificate working of Sunil Kumar Sinha dt- 15.07.2006 given by the then Branch Manager Sri M.M.
Prasad Sinha of the year 2003 to 2007.
(v) Ext. W/4- The order of dt- 28.04.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.- 4003 of 2009.
(vi) Ext. W/5- Application given by the Sunil Kumar Sinha to the Chairman, State Bank of India Corporate office,
Mumbai and other top official including Branch Manager, SBI, Khagaria Bazar Branch for considering his
representation to regularize his service.
(vi) Ext.W/6- The order of the Regional Manager, SBI dt- 28.08.2017 on the representation petition given by Sunil
Kumar Sinha as per direction of the Hon’ble Court passed in CWJC No.- 4003 of 2009.
(vii) Ext. W/7- Bi-partite Settlement of dt- 27.10.1988 between SBI and All India Staff Federation.
5.
On the other hand management side examined just one witness namely Santosh Kumar Sinha, Dy. Manager,
SBI, Godda Banch and no documents is brought on the records by the management bank from its side during
proceeding.
6.
Now this tribunal Securitizes the evidence of workman Sunil Kumar Sinha (W.W-1) who filed his
affidavited examination-in-chief and stated before this tribunal that he has been engaged by the Branch Manager, SBI,
Khagaria Banch for working as daily messenger from 01.11.2003 and he has worked as a messenger in the said
branch from year 2003 to 2009. This witness further stated that the then Branch Manager had issued a certificate of
his working from of the year November-2003 to July-2006 that shows during the this period he has worked for 804
days in the said branch. This witness further stated that he also discharged the work of draft clearing as per instruction
of the Branch Manager and whatever the bill of his conveyance is given by him that was paid by the bank. This
witness further stated that he has worked 240 days in each calendar year from the year 2003 to 2008. This witness
further stated that he has filed a CWJC No.- 4003 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Court for his regularization and for the
minimum wages that was disposed of by the Hon’ble Court on 28.04.2017 with a direction to filed representation
before appropriate authority of the bank ( i.e proved Ext.-W/4) and thereafter, he file his representation before the
management bank but his representation was disallowed that is also violation of Bi-partite Settlement (i.e proved as
Ext.- W/6 ). This witness further proved the details of the payment of wages i.e from 2003 to 2009 shown from page
no.- 15 to 78 filed by him i.e marked as Ext.-W. He further proved the payment he received through bank cheque
from 2003 to 2009 i.e shown from page no.- 79 to 145 marked as Ext.- W/1. He further proved the details of his
conveyance bill of the year of 2004 that is shown from his filed document page no.- 146 to 162 i.e marked as Ext.-
W/2. This witness further proved the certificate of his working of the period of 2003 to 2007 showing 804 days given
by the then Branch Manager Sri M.M. Prasad Singh on 15.07.2006 i.e marked as Ext.-W/3. This witness also proved
his representation petition before the Chairman, SBI marked as Ext.-W/5.
In cross-examination he admits that for the regularization in the bank one has to work continuously at least
240 days. In para-21 of the cross-examination this witness admits that the attendance of staff of the bank was
maintained in attendance register and through Biomatrix method and again he stated there was no attendance made
through Biomatrix rather attendance register was maintained that was kept by accountant. In para-24 of his cross-
examination this witness categorically admits that the certificate dt- 15.07.2006 shows he has worked 124 days in the
year 2003-2004, 299 days in the year 2004-05, 297 days in the year 2005-06 and 84 days in the year 2006-07. In para-
26 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated he did not take any leave from 2004 to 2006. In para-29
of the cross-examination he has stated that he has filed an application and other persons also filed application but he
was deputed by then Branch Manager Sri M.M. Prasad Sinha. In para-31 of the cross-examination this witness admits
that he did not get any appointment letter for the post of messengers. In para-36 of the cross-examination this witness
admits that he has written in the para-6 of his affidavit evidence he has worked 240 days in each calendar year from
the 2003 to 2007 but the certificate given by the then Branch Manager shows he has worked only 124 days in the year
2003-04. In para-40 of the cross-examination this witness admits that he has enrolment number in employment
exchange office. In para-44 of the cross-examination this witness categorially stated he used to receive the cash after
verification of banker cheque. In para-50 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that who ever was
in-charge of the bank, put his signature on the banker cheque. In para-52 of the cross-examination this witness
categorically stated that he discharged the work of vouchers stitching and he also went for the clearing work to the
826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
head office as per the instruction of the Branch Manager. He used to do the job hospitality and he used to pass the
files and other stationary on the working tables of the staff and he further denied that he never discharge the work in
the bank continuously 240 days.
7.
On the other hand management side examined one witness namely Sri Santosh Kumar Sinha, Dy. Manager,
SBI, Godda Branch as M.W-1. Who deposed before this tribunal on 16.11.2022. He stated before this tribunal that he
was posted in SBI, Khagaria Branch from 1992 to 2010 and he was assistant there. This witness further stated that
during his tenure Sunil Kumar Sinha was working as a casual daily wager for cleaning the bank premises but he
cann’t say the mode of payment given by bank to the Sunil Kumar Sinha. This witness further stated that he does not
remember the working hours of Sunil Kumar Sinha in the said branch. He also stated that he does not remember
whether Sunil Kumar Sinha comes regular or occasionally. In cross-examination this witness admitted that in para-13
that the Ext.-W/3 of workman shows the certificate of working of Sunil Kumar Sinha as daily wager issued by the
then Branch Manager but there is no seal over the said certificate ( Ext.-W/3 ). This witness also admits in para-15 of
the cross-examination Ext.-W/3 shows workman was a daily wager. The settlement document shown to him is of SBI.
This witness further admits in para-17 of cross-examination the contents of settlement is effective but banker can
change the rules time to time and in para-18 this witness categorically stated he does not know whether any settlement
was effective after the 27.10.1998 and he further proved the Bi-partite Settlement of dt- 27.10.1998 marked as
Ext.-W/7. This witness further admits in para-20 of the cross-examination the page no-15 of the Ext.-W shows the
payment bill of the period 01.11.2003 to 10.11.2003.
8.
It is argued on behalf of the workman that workman has come before this tribunal for settlement of his
dispute with regards to regularization of service as well as payment of minimum wages attached to the post. It is
further argued that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in consecutive two calendar years i.e 299 days in
2005-06 and 297 days in 2006 to 2007 i.e evident from the Ext.-W/3. His continuance working can be treated as
continue service u/s 25 B of the Industrial Dispute Act. It is further argued that the certificate granted by the Branch
Manager of the said branch is strong evidence the workman was engaged as daily wager messenger in the SBI
Khagaria Bazar Branch i.e apparent from the rejection order dt-28.08.2017 passed by Regional Manager ( Ext.-W/6 ).
It is further argued that the management bank has not considered the Bi-partite Settlement agreement showing that Bi-
partite Settlement effective for the limited period that is clearly false. One Ranjeet Kumar Tanti got appointment in
1997 who was similarly situated to the workman. It is further argued that workman is entitled for all kinds of
protection under I.D.Act and it is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court it is not a duty of the management bank to
exploit its workman because management is in higher position. Bank management also violated the article 16 (1) of
the ( equal of opportunity of all citizen in matter relating to the employment or appointment any office of the State. It
is further argued that workman has thoroughly proved his engagement in the SBI, Khagaria Bazar Branch
continuously from 2003 to 2009 by way of oral and documentary evidence accordingly the management action of
terminating the service of Sunil Kumar Sinha is illegally and unjustified and so he is entitled for regularization of his
service.
10.
On the other hand it is argued from the management side initially workman filed a writ petition CWJC No.-
4003 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna and sought relief of regularization w.e.f 01.11.2003 and also
claim salary pay scale Rs. 4060 – 7560/- from 01.11.2003. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.04.2017 with
a direction that if any representation is filed with supportive documents, the authority concerned may examine the
same and pass order in accordance with law within a period of three month from the date of filing of such
representation. It is further argued that the workman filed his representation on 29.05.2017 for absorption of his
service in the bank. His representation was dully redressed with a speaking order dt- 28.07,.2017 discharging the
workman claim is not tenable and acceptable as per banking norms and rules. It is further argued that the fact is
workman / claimant is never appointed as a messenger rather the service of workman was utilized for cleaning ATM
Chamber and branch premises for a few hours of the bank premises and he was paid through banker cheque for his
service as a daily wage. It is further argued that the claimant is failed to prove that he has rendered continuous service
for 240 days in any capacity part time / full time basis on any sanctioned post hence he cann’t be said to have been
retrenched u/s-25F of the I.D.Act. It is further argued that workman has failed to bring any cogent evidence to prove
that he has rendered his service continuous for 240 days in a calendar year preceding to year 2009 as per the claim of
the disengagement i.e essential of section-25F of the I.D.Act to claim retrenchment benefits. It is further argued that
the workman has admitted in his affidavited evidence ( para-6 ). He has worked 240 days in each calendar year 2003
to 2008 but letter of 15.07.2006 has proved by the workman clearly shows he has worked for 84 days in 2006-07 and
there is no authentic proof given by the workman of the year 2007-08. Hence his version regarding continuous
working is not at all acceptable as the workman has not come before this tribunal with clean hand. It is further argued
that SBI is the statutory body the recruitment of the staff of the SBI is always as per the rules and guidelines. Facts is
workman is never employed by the bank he was not an employee of the bank so procedure of retrenchment does not
apply to a person on a daily wager. It is also argued by the management side that as per the judgement passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi case no casual workers should be regularised by the courts or the State Government
as per constitutional provisions all the citizens of this country have right to contest for the employment and temporary
and causal workers have no right to seek for regularization. It is further argued from the management side the Hon’ble
Apex Court held in “Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs Om Pal”( AIR 2005 SC 475 ) despite a wide
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
827
discretionary power conferred upon the Industrial Courts Under Section 11A of the I.D.Act, the relief of
reinstatement with full back wages should not be granted automatically. Grant of relief would defend on the fact
situation of each case. It will depend upon several factors; one of which would be as to whether the recruitment was
effected in terms of the statutory provisions operating in the field. It is argued from the management side it is held by
the Hon’ble Apex Court “Union of India Vs. Ilmo Devi”( Civil Appeal Nos. 5689 – 5690 of 2021 ) dt- 7th October,
2021 mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily wages employee, under cover of some interim
orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily
wages service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to
claim regularization. If he is not working against the sanctioned post sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for
passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right. Thus workman is not entitled for any relief.
11.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions as advanced on behalf of the
both the sides and on securitizing the evidence as placed by both the sides in pursuant to respective written
statements, this tribunal finds that admittedly there is no dispute on this point whether the Sunil Kumar Sinha comes
under the purview of workman as per section-2(S) of the Industrial Dispute Act, moreover, there is no dispute
between the parties whether the grievance as raised by Sunil Kumar Sinha as a workman for unjustified retrenchment
from of his service is an Industrial Dispute as per provision of 2(K) of the I.D.Act. From perusal of the Statement of
claim / written statement as filed by the Sunil Kumar Sinha workman, he has worked from the year 2003 to 2009 in
S.B.I Khagaria Branch and he discharged the work of messenger as per instruction of the then Branch Manager and
he also claimed he has discharged his job continuously till he was stopped from working inthe year-2009. However,
on the other hand the management side countered the above claim of the workman by saying the Sunil Kumar Sinha
was never appointed as messenger and he never worked continuously for 240 days preceding his alleged termination
so his claim for regularization and claim for violation of section-25(B) of the I.D.Act and violation section 25(F) of
the I.D.Act is not attracted at all. Considering the rival contention of the two sides this tribunal finds that workman
thoroughly corroborated his details of working in his evidence before this tribunal i.e not at all thoroughly
controverted 10 by the management side hence his evidence regarding his working of S.B.I Khagaria Branch and he
has discharged several assigned work till 2009 cann’t be disbelieved. As the workman has filed some documentary
evidence to this effect as Ext.W/3 indicates the then Branch Manager Mr. M.M.Pd Singh has given a certificate of
working of Sunil Kumar Sinha in the S.B.I Khagaria Branch i.e period of as 2003-04 to 2006-07. On perusal of this
certificate it appears that workman Sunil Kumar Sinha has discharged of different duties as casual trained casual
labour on daily wages in the said branch as per instruction and direction of the then Branch Manager i.e this
certificate issued on 15.07.2006 showing his work of 124 days in the year 2003-04, 299 days in the year 2004-05, 297
days in the year 2005-06 and 84 days in the year-2006-07 this details clearly shows the Branch Manager has
calculated the working of Sunil Kumar Sinha from April of each year to the till 31st March the concluding date of
financial year. Here management side tried to deviate this facts Sunil Kumar Sinha did not discharge his duties
continuously for more than 240 days in the calendar year 2006-07 and after words preceding his termination of job
but since the certificate is issued on 15.07.2006 so the description of work of Sunil Kumar Sinha of the period 2006-
07 ( 84 days ) is the first quarter of 2006-07 i.e April-2006 to 15.07.2006 hence the contention of the management
Sunil Kumar Sinha did not discharge the duty of daily wages continuously 240 days preceding the termination year of
2009 cann’t be accepted because his continuous working from 2003 to 2007 is strong evidence he has discharged his
duties more than 240 days in several calendar years. So definitely it attracts the violation of section-25(B) and 25(F)
of the I.D.Act because no further notice and compensation is given by the management / bank then when bank
stopped the working of Sunil Kumar Sinha. This tribunal further find that taking the service of Sunil Kumar Sinha as
a temporary workman continuously 2003 to 2009 is indicative of this facts the management / bank was in need of a
worker like messenger to meet out the banking duties. It is also indicative of this period in that tenure there is no
permanent staff of doing the job like Sunil Kumar Sinha on the said branch. Ext.-W that shows that Sunil Kumar
Sinha has discharged the work of cleaning and the job of postal work and work related government bill for which he
has received the payment initially Rs. 25/- per day in the year-2003 i.e commence i.e 01.11.2003 and this payment
was continued upto 19.01.2004 and thereafter he received Rs. 30/- per day from 20.01.2004 to 15.07.2006 later on he
received payment of Rs.40/- per day from 17.07.2006 to 31.03.2007 and his wages rate was further enhanced to Rs.
50/- per day from 03.04.2007 to 30.11.2007 and Sunil Kumar Sinha further start getting Rs. 60/- per day from
01.12.2007 to 28.02.2009 i.e the clear indication he has worked continuously from 01.11.2003 to 28.02.2009.
Ext.-W/1 shows that he has received the payment of the details given in Ext.-W by way of banker cheque on monthly
basis and the photo copy of the banker cheque (Ext.-W/6) filed by the workman from month of 01.12.2004 to
05.03.2009. Ext.-W/2 shows workman has filed some conveyance bill for his work went to main branch for the
clearing the cheque statement that clearly shows that manager took the service of Sunil Kumar Sinha sending him
from S.B.I, Khagaria to the Khagaria main branch for the clearing draft and cheques. This tribunal finds that the
management witness was the assistant in the SBI Khagaria branch from 1992 to 2010 also admits Sunil Kumar Sinha
was working a casual daily wager but he failed to gave other details regarding his payment and working hours that
clearly shows that management has failed to discard the claim of the workman Sunil Kumar Sinha regarding his
working and mode of payment as placed by way of documentary evidence Ext.-W, W/1, W/2 & W/3. This tribunal
further finds that workman Sunil Kumar Sinha raised his grievance for his regularization salary payment in the scale
828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of Rs. 4060 to 7560/- from 01.11.2003 before the Hon’ble Court by way CWJC No.-4009 of 2009. The Hon’ble Court
has passed the order dt-28.04.2017 (Ext.-W/4) with direction to the management / bank to securitize his claim about
the regularization and other issue as per rules guidelines of the bank. Ext.-W/5 shows that a representation petition in
wake of order of the Hon’ble Court before the management / bank that was rejected by the Regional Manager vide
order dt-28.08.2017 (Ext.-W/6) showing the workman representation was regarding his absorption as per Bi-partite
Settlement of 27.08.1988 i.e (Ext.W/7) ( Mistakingly date is mentioned as 27.10.1998 in the evidence of M.W-1 ) and
for the equal pay for equal work but his both points for representation is rejected, disclosing the scheme of Bi-partite
Settlement was effective to causal workers of that period and at that time workman was not engaged in the S.B.I
Khagaria Branch and also discarded his representation no casual labour / daily wager cann’t be claim for his
regularization as a matter of right and also assigned for reason for rejection his service were used for cleaning of
ATM Chamber, branch premises and other related work for few hours. This tribunal finds that this rejection of the
management / bank ( Ext.-W/6 ) does not disclose the actual working taken by the bank as reported and placed by
Sunil Kumar Sinha by oral and documentary evidence and further virtually there is no evidence brought by the
management bank before this tribunal that could discard the claim of regular continuous working of workman Sunil
Kumar Sinha from 2003 to Feb.2009. Further this tribunal finds that Sunil Kumar Sinha never claimed he has
received any kind of appointment letter from the bank rather he established this facts he has been engaged by the then
Branch Manager of SBI, Khagaria Branch and he started working from 01.11.2003 till Feb. 2009 when he was
stopped doing the work of the bank and it also appears from the evidence that before stopping to take the work of
Sunil Kuma Sinha no notice was given to him and no compensation as such is given i.e clearly violation of section-
25(F) of the I.D.Act because workman has succeeded in proving he has been continuously working for more than 240
days preceding his termination of work i.e attracts section-25(B) regarding continuous working of 240 days this is the
pre-condition to follow of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act by any management but here management SBI did not follow
the section-25(B). Accordingly this tribunal finds and hold that after taking the service of Sunil Kumar Sinha by
management bank SBI Khagaria Branch from 01.11.2003 to 2009 he was stopped for working comes under the
purview of unfair labour practice i.e described in section 25(T) of the I.D.Act as Section 25(T) says no employer or
workman or a trade union whether registered under the Trade Union Act,1926 or not to commit any unfair labour
practice. Here in the instance case the bank has played unfair labour practice by not giving any opportunity Sunil
Kumar Sinha to worked as sub-staff in the bank after taking his service continuously from 01.11.2003 to 2009. So
rejection order of the management / bank (Ext.-W/6 ) is also not acceptable at all because the I.D.Act is created by the
Govt. of India to protect the rights of workman against the on slaught of management invoking te relevant premises.
12.
On securitizing all the facts and materials available on the records as discussed above, this tribunal finds and
hold that workman Sunil Kumar Sinha has successfully established his claim of reinstatement and of his
regularization by way of oral and documentary evidence, thus this is the considered opinion of this tribunal. The
action of the management / bank of SBI to terminate the service of workman Sunil Kumar Sinha is not correct and
valid. Accordingly, the management is directed to reinstate the Sunil Kumar Sinha ( Workman ) and regularize his
service as a sub-staff from 01.03.2009 with all consequential benefit within the two months of Gazatte of this award.
This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated &Corrected by me.
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2024
का.आ. 380.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
पंिाब नेिनल बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनऊ ds iapkV (a27/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/57/2017-आईआर-(बी-II)]
सलोनी] उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the, 20th February, 2024
S.O. 380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.27/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/57/2017-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 24, 2024/फाल् गुल 5, 1945
829
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 27/2019
Ref. No. L-12012/57/2017-IR(B-II) dated 25.04.2018
BETWEEN
Ms Poonam Singh, 551/K311K/1, Madhuban Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow-226005
AND
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
2. The Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank, HRD Section, Circle Office, BULANDSHAHR(U.P)
3. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kasimpur Branch, ALIGARH(U.P.)
AWARD
By order No. L-12012/57/2017-IR(B-II) dated 25.04.2018 the present industrial dispute has been referred for
adjudication to CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and subsequently, transferred to this CGIT, Lucknow vide order
dated 16.07.2019, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Bulandshahar in dismissing the services
of workman Ms Poonam Singh w.e.f. 28.06.2013 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to?"
The claimant filed its statement of claim on 22.05.2018, before CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur; however, an
application has been moved on behalf of applicant on 22.06.2018, before The Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of
India, New Delhi, praying therein as under:
“It is therefore prayed, that the I.D Case No.46 of 2018 in re Poonam Singh vs Chairman cum Managing
Director, Punjab National Bank & Others( Ref No. L-12012/57/2017-IR(B-II) dated 25-04-2018) pending
before Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, Kanpur, be transferred from Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Lucknow.”
Thereafter, by order dated 16.07.2019 the matter was transferred from CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur to this
CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Lucknow; accordingly, it has been registered as ID case No 27/2019.
From the perusal of the order sheet, the position which emerge out that after the matter was transferred from Kanpur
to Lucknow, none appeared on behalf of claimant. On 03.04.2023, an order was passed, which is quoted herein
under:
“Matter taken up in revised list.
Parties absent.
List on 28.08.2023 for ex-parte hearing. Notice to parties.”
In pursuance to order dated 03.04.2023, the notices were sent to the parties. In spite of service of the said notice,
when the matter was taken up in revised cause list, neither on behalf of workman nor on behalf of respondent
anybody was present.
When matter was taken up in revise cause list, on 28.08.2023, neither workman nor its authorized representative has
turned up before this Tribunal in spite of repeated notices.
Findings & Conclusion:
Taking into consideration the fact that as till date no documentary or oral evidence has been filed by the claimant in
order to establish his claim as per the reference dated 25.04.2018.
830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 24, 2024/PHALGUNA 5, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v.
Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.
Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative
for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is
challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file
written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in
favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.
A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led
by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
As the workman has not filed any documentary/oral evidence in support of his claim, so the present case is liable to
be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
Justice ANIL KUMAR Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
MANOJ KUMAR
VERMA
Digitally signed by
MANOJ KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2024.03.08
19:51:35 +05'30'