478 GI/2025
(297)
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. 03]
नई दिल् ली, िनवरी 26—फरवरी —1, 2025, िजनवार/ माघ 6—माघ 12, 1946
No. 03]
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 26,—FEBRUARY—1, 2025, SATURDAY/MAGHA 6–MAGHA 12, 1946
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जविेि मन्त्राल
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 131.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।
एति् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारती िूतावास, ृेररस,में िुभोिीृ जवश्वास, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी, को
िनवरी 27, 2025 से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(02)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-13022025-260936
CG-DL-W-13022025-260936
298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 131.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shubhodeep Biswas,
Assistant Section Officer, in the Embassy of India, Paris as Assistant Consular Officer to perform Consular services
with effect from January 27, 2025.
[F. No. T.4330/01/2025(02)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV)
ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 132.—केन्द्री सरकार को लोकजित में ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता िज दक ृजरोजल म ृिा व ृररवािन के
जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड द्वारा जवसा (आन्र प्रिेि) से रा ृुर (छत्तीसगढ) ृाइृलाइन जिछाई
िानी चाजिए ;
और केन्द्री सरकार को ऐसी ृाइृलाइन जविा ृट्टणम जिला, आन्र प्रिेि राज् में जिछाने के प्र ोिन के जलए
ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता िज दक ऐसी भूजम में िो इस से उृािद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णवत िज और जिसमें उक्त ृाइृलाइन जिछाए
िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िज, उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन दक ा िाए ;
अतः अि, केन्द्री सरकार, ृेरोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन)
अजिजन म, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, उस भूजम में
उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन करने के अृने आि की घोषणा करती िज ;
कोई व्यजक्त, िो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णवत भूजम में जितिद्ध िज, उस तारी से जिसको इस अजिसूचना से ुक्त भारत
के रािृत्र की प्रजत ााँ सािारण िनता को उृलब्ि करा िी िाती िज, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूजम के नीचे ृाइृलाइन
जिछाए िाने के जलए उस में उृ ोग के अजिकार के अिवन के सम्िन्ि में सक्षम प्राजिकारी, जवसा - रा ृुर ृाइृलाइन
ृरर ोिना, जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, भारत सरकार का उृक्रम, वीआर-ए टी ृी क्षेत्र, नवल िेस ृोस्ट्ट,
जविा ाृत्तनम-530014. को जलज त प ृ में आक्षेृ भेि सकेगा।
अनुसूची
जिलाः जविा ृट्टणम राज् ः आन्र प्रिेि
क्रम
सं् ा
गााँव का नाम
मंडल का नाम
सवे सं् ा
क्षेत्रफल
एकड
सेन््स
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1. ृुल्लमिोटलृालेम-50
गोृालृट्टणम
15
00
41
2
2. नरव-17
ृेंिुती
410
00
13
3
482
00
18
4
413
00
01
5
414
00
02
6
3. िेरीृोतुृालेम-35
ृेंिुती
76
01
90
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
299
7
10
00
59
8
52
00
59
9
72
00
48
10
19
00
62
11
17
00
17
12
16
00
37
13
13
00
36
14
14
00
50
15
68
00
28
16
70
00
63
17
51
00
07
18
50
00
34
19
49
00
20
20
21
00
61
21
25
00
34
22
26
00
13
23
20
00
18
24
15
00
71
25
9
00
61
26
4. चींतगटल-37
ृेंिुती
60
00
28
27
61
00
20
28
59
01
08
29
66
00
01
30
67
00
55
31
5. जृन्नागडी-7/1
ृेंिुती
164
00
53
32
163
00
17
33
162
00
09
34
172
00
05
35
173
00
29
36
188
00
65
37
189
00
34
38
190
00
40
39
191
00
14
40
159
00
53
300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
41
153
00
17
42
154
00
72
43
155
00
02
44
152
00
01
45
126
00
01
46
122
00
06
47
125
00
44
48
118
00
07
49
131
00
80
50
133
00
16
51
136
00
41
52
135
00
04
53
146
00
23
54
145
02
86
55
17
00
01
56
5
00
11
57
7
02
52
58
6. गरृल्ले-1
ृेंिुती
13
01
02
59
10
00
79
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/12/2018-ओआर-I/ई-25587)]
एस.एस.ससंि, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 132.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for
the transportation of Petroleum Product from Visakha (Andhra Pradesh) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pipeline should be
laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government 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 at
Visakhapatnam District in Andhra Pradesh State, 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 Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government 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 Gazette of India containing this notification 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 The Competent
Authority, Visakha – Raipur Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Government of India
Enterprises, VR-ATP Area, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam-530014, Andhra Pradesh.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
301
SCHEDULE
District: Visakhapatnam State: Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No.
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Cents
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1. Pullambhotlapalem-50
Gopalapatnam
15
00
41
2
2. Narava-17
Pendurthi
410
00
13
3
482
00
18
4
413
00
01
5
414
00
02
6
3. Jerripotulapalem-35
Pendurthi
76
01
90
7
10
00
59
8
52
00
59
9
72
00
48
10
19
00
62
11
17
00
17
12
16
00
37
13
13
00
36
14
14
00
50
15
68
00
28
16
70
00
63
17
51
00
07
18
50
00
34
19
49
00
20
20
21
00
61
21
25
00
34
22
26
00
13
23
20
00
18
24
15
00
71
25
9
00
61
26
4. Chintagatla-37
Pendurthi
60
00
28
27
61
00
20
28
59
01
08
29
66
00
01
30
67
00
55
31
5. Pinnagadi-7/1
Pendurthi
164
00
53
32
163
00
17
33
162
00
09
34
172
00
05
35
173
00
29
302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
36
188
00
65
37
189
00
34
38
190
00
40
39
191
00
14
40
159
00
53
41
153
00
17
42
154
00
72
43
155
00
02
44
152
00
01
45
126
00
01
46
122
00
06
47
125
00
44
48
118
00
07
49
131
00
80
50
133
00
16
51
136
00
41
52
135
00
04
53
146
00
23
54
145
02
86
55
17
00
01
56
5
00
11
57
7
02
52
58
6. Gorapalle-1
Pendurthi
13
01
02
59
10
00
79
[F. No. R-11025(11)/12/2018-OR-I/E-25587]
S. S. SINGH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 133.—केन्द्री सरकार को लोकजित में ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता िज दक ृजरोजल म ृिा व ृररवािन के
जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड द्वारा जवसा (आन्र प्रिेि) से रा ृुर (छत्तीसगढ) ृाइृलाइन जिछाई
िानी चाजिए ;
और केन्द्री सरकार को ऐसी ृाइृलाइन अनकृल्ली जिला, आन्र प्रिेि राज् में जिछाने के प्र ोिन के जलए ि
आवश् क प्रतीत िोता िज दक ऐसी भूजम में िो इस से उृािद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णवत िज और जिसमें उक्त ृाइृलाइन जिछाए
िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िज, उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन दक ा िाए ;
अतः अि, केन्द्री सरकार, ृेरोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन)
अजिजन म, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, उस भूजम में
उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन करने के अृने आि की घोषणा करती िज ;
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
303
कोई व्यजक्त, िो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णवत भूजम में जितिद्ध िज, उस तारी से जिसको इस अजिसूचना से ुक्त भारत
के रािृत्र की प्रजत ााँ सािारण िनता को उृलब्ि करा िी िाती िज, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूजम के नीचे ृाइृलाइन
जिछाए िाने के जलए उस में उृ ोग के अजिकार के अिवन के सम्िन्ि में सक्षम प्राजिकारी, जवसा - रा ृुर ृाइृलाइन
ृरर ोिना, जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, भारत सरकार का उृक्रम, वीआर-ए टी ृी क्षेत्र, नवल िेस ृोस्ट्ट,
जविा ाृत्तनम-530014. को जलज त प ृ में आक्षेृ भेि सकेगा।
अनुसूची
जिलाः अनकृल्ली राज् ः आन्र प्रिेि
क्रम सं् ा
गााँव का नाम
मंडल का नाम
सवे सं् ा
क्षेत्रफल
एकड
सेन््स
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1.चींतगटल अग्रिारम-24
सब्िावरम
42
00
78
2
41
00
02
3
39
00
35
4
38
00
27
5
31
00
29
6
32
00
06
7
29
00
21
8
33
00
21
9
25
00
34
10
22
00
40
11
5
00
04
12
23
00
22
13
2. अमषतृुरम-23
सब्िावरम
180
00
25
14
175
00
32
15
173
00
74
16
176
00
02
17
146
00
19
18
169
00
17
19
150
00
11
20
147
00
06
21
149
00
27
304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22
424
00
44
23
148
00
01
24
423
00
57
25
153
00
44
26
141
00
40
27
131
00
24
28
134
00
11
29
132
00
04
30
133
00
09
31
45
00
28
32
46
00
11
33
49
00
37
34
419
00
43
35
43
01
00
36
40
00
16
37
19
00
03
38
17
00
58
39
18
00
01
40
14
00
05
41
13
00
33
42
3. मोगलीृुरम-4
सब्िावरम
189
00
01
43
188
00
20
44
187
00
20
45
186
00
25
46
185
00
25
47
133
00
38
48
130
00
57
49
129
00
60
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/12/2018-ओआर-I/ई-25587]
एस.एस.ससंि, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
305
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 133.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for
the transportation of Petroleum Product from Visakha (Andhra Pradesh) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pipeline should be
laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government 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 at Anakapalli
District in Andhra Pradesh State, 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 Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government 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 Gazette of India containing this notification 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 The Competent
Authority, Visakha – Raipur Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Government of India
Enterprises, VR-ATP Area, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam-530014, Andhra Pradesh.
SCHEDULE
District: Anakapalli State: Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No.
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Cents
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1. Chintagatla Agraharam-24
Sabbavaram
42
00
78
2
41
00
02
3
39
00
35
4
38
00
27
5
31
00
29
6
32
00
06
7
29
00
21
8
33
00
21
9
25
00
34
10
22
00
40
11
5
00
04
12
23
00
22
13
2. Amrutapuram-23
Sabbavaram
180
00
25
14
175
00
32
15
173
00
74
16
176
00
02
17
146
00
19
18
169
00
17
19
150
00
11
20
147
00
06
21
149
00
27
22
424
00
44
23
148
00
01
306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24
423
00
57
25
153
00
44
26
141
00
40
27
131
00
24
28
134
00
11
29
132
00
04
30
133
00
09
31
45
00
28
32
46
00
11
33
49
00
37
34
419
00
43
35
43
01
00
36
40
00
16
37
19
00
03
38
17
00
58
39
18
00
01
40
14
00
05
41
13
00
33
42
3. Mogalipuram-4
Sabbavaram
189
00
01
43
188
00
20
44
187
00
20
45
186
00
25
46
185
00
25
47
133
00
38
48
130
00
57
49
129
00
60
[F. No. R-11025(11)/12/2018-OR-I/E-25587]
S. S. SINGH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 134.—केन्द्री सरकार को लोकजित में ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता िज दक ृजरोजल म ृिा व ृररवािन के
जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड द्वारा जवसा (आन्र प्रिेि) से रा ृुर (छत्तीसगढ) ृाइृलाइन जिछाई
िानी चाजिए ;
और केन्द्री सरकार को ऐसी ृाइृलाइन जवि नगरम जिला, आन्र प्रिेि राज् में जिछाने के प्र ोिन के जलए
ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता िज दक ऐसी भूजम में िो इस से उृािद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णवत िज और जिसमें उक्त ृाइृलाइन जिछाए
िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िज, उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन दक ा िाए ;
अतः अि, केन्द्री सरकार, ृेरोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन)
अजिजन म, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, उस भूजम में
उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन करने के अृने आि की घोषणा करती िज ;
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
307
कोई व्यजक्त, िो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णवत भूजम में जितिद्ध िज, उस तारी से जिसको इस अजिसूचना से ुक्त भारत
के रािृत्र की प्रजत ााँ सािारण िनता को उृलब्ि करा िी िाती िज, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूजम के नीचे ृाइृलाइन
जिछाए िाने के जलए उस में उृ ोग के अजिकार के अिवन के सम्िन्ि में सक्षम प्राजिकारी, जवसा - रा ृुर ृाइृलाइन
ृरर ोिना, जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, भारत सरकार का उृक्रम, वी आर-ए टी ृी क्षेत्र, नवल िेस ृोस्ट्ट,
जविा ाृत्तनम-530014. को जलज त प ृ में आक्षेृ भेि सकेगा।
अनुसूची
जिलाः जवि नगरम राज् ः आन्र प्रिेि
क्रम
सं् ा
गााँव का नाम
मंडल का नाम
सवे सं् ा
क्षेत्रफल
एकड
सेन््स
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1. संताृालेम-184
कोत्तवलस
24
00
02
2
25
00
79
3
26
00
11
4
21
00
15
5
20
00
19
6
19
00
73
7
17
00
51
8
16
01
63
9
12
00
55
10
2. िेंडेरु-181
कोत्तवलस
49
00
83
11
47
00
67
12
46
00
73
13
41
00
71
14
39
00
42
15
42
00
04
16
17
00
62
17
16
00
29
18
7
00
02
19
8
00
56
20
3
00
53
21
2
00
05
22
3. गुलीवीिड-179
कोत्तवलस
60
00
33
23
61
00
54
24
57
00
28
25
54
00
07
308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26
55
00
40
27
51
00
61
28
50
00
02
29
44
00
53
30
41
00
21
31
40
00
54
32
39
00
09
33
38
00
66
34
22
00
11
35
24
00
68
36
25
00
40
37
1
00
02
38
27
00
40
39
4. चीृुप वलसा-178
कोत्तवलस
95
00
83
40
97
00
28
41
98
00
48
42
106
00
55
43
42
00
13
44
41
00
55
45
108
00
23
46
109
00
33
47
110
00
18
48
112
00
24
49
113
00
95
50
116
00
13
51
5. सुिरय् ाृेटा-167
कोत्तवलस
53
00
18
52
48
00
63
53
47
00
12
54
49
00
17
55
42
00
29
56
41
00
29
57
40
00
45
58
33
00
05
59
21
00
62
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
309
60
22
00
20
61
24
00
45
62
25
00
06
63
7
00
48
64
26
00
42
65
4
00
44
66
6. वीरभिा्र ृुरम-168
कोत्तवलस
67
00
33
67
66
00
37
68
65
00
56
69
58
00
30
70
63
00
29
71
59
00
45
72
61
00
77
73
27
00
20
74
7. िेवड-163
कोत्तवलस
181
00
63
75
180
00
84
76
179
00
18
77
176
00
18
78
178
00
06
79
177
00
02
80
156
00
03
81
159
00
14
82
157
00
47
83
155
00
19
84
152
00
54
85
154
00
35
86
8. नरृम-169
कोत्तवलस
91
00
30
87
88
00
32
88
89
00
10
89
5
00
42
90
4
00
23
91
8
00
31
92
9
00
23
93
10
00
05
310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
94
1
00
44
95
9. तामरृल्ली-162
लक्कवरृुकोटा
74
00
21
96
228
00
62
97
195
00
28
98
196
00
70
99
201
00
79
100
226
00
06
101
225
00
11
102
223
00
11
103
224
00
73
104
210
00
06
105
212
00
15
106
211
00
48
107
209
00
02
108
138
00
29
109
137
00
49
110
136
00
07
111
134
00
40
112
133
00
02
113
131
00
48
114
132
00
29
115
119
00
36
116
45
00
05
117
46
00
16
118
47
00
36
119
31
00
19
120
32
00
14
121
33
00
15
122
29
00
30
123
8
00
49
124
7
00
23
125
10. श्रीरामृुरम-121
लक्कवरृुकोटा
52
00
12
126
51
00
19
127
50
00
27
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
311
128
54
00
20
129
49
00
42
130
46
00
57
131
45
00
35
132
43
00
15
133
42
00
40
134
35
00
60
135
31
00
23
136
32
00
52
137
23
00
24
138
24
00
23
139
25
00
14
140
17
00
37
141
16
00
27
142
15
00
44
143
12
00
03
144
11
00
18
145
9
00
66
146
5
00
66
147
4
00
06
148
11. रेलीगौरम्माृेटा-122
लक्कवरृुकोटा
36
00
68
149
38
00
37
150
39
00
18
151
40
00
48
152
27
00
63
153
25
00
04
154
26
00
02
155
23
00
03
156
24
00
69
157
12. मलावृल्ली-123
लक्कवरृुकोटा
235
00
16
158
236
00
44
159
232
00
61
160
233
00
27
161
231
00
19
312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
162
116
00
24
163
115
00
07
164
113
00
60
165
365
00
13
166
108
00
53
167
366
00
37
168
109
00
35
169
104
00
28
170
13. रंगाृुरम-101
लक्कवरृुकोटा
57
00
12
171
58
00
78
172
62
00
44
173
63
00
06
174
50
01
14
175
48
01
23
176
128
00
02
177
45
00
61
178
44
00
62
179
43
00
06
180
11
00
49
181
12
00
34
182
23
00
42
183
24
00
38
184
25
00
81
185
28
00
40
186
29
00
11
187
27
00
59
188
31
00
08
189
14. कुमावरम-103
लक्कवरृुकोटा
30
00
46
190
29
00
24
191
76
00
32
192
77
00
02
193
75
00
59
194
74
00
36
195
72
00
27
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
313
196
71
00
33
197
70
00
26
198
69
00
35
199
66
00
15
200
68
00
57
201
62
00
05
202
51
00
29
203
52
00
20
204
53
00
55
205
38
00
68
206
46
00
06
207
43
00
03
208
45
00
04
209
44
00
24
210
15. लक्कवरृुकोटा तलारी- 104
लक्कवरृुकोटा
61
00
15
211
60
00
31
212
58
00
36
213
56
00
24
214
18
00
61
215
19
00
25
216
21
00
60
217
12
00
34
218
11
00
08
219
134
00
89
220
133
00
03
221
137
00
04
222
136
00
46
223
16. कोट्ट ाडा-71
लक्कवरृुकोटा
213
00
34
224
191
00
42
225
192
00
37
226
194
00
15
227
197
00
23
228
201
00
48
229
198
00
40
314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
230
199
00
54
231
183
00
36
232
43
00
02
233
44
00
03
234
45
00
18
235
172
00
17
236
171
00
40
237
66
00
57
238
67
00
24
239
74
00
02
240
64
00
31
241
62
00
82
242
63
00
16
243
61
00
27
244
59
00
46
245
78
00
14
246
80
00
20
247
83
00
38
248
85
00
83
249
87
00
06
250
17. वीरभद्रृेटा-72
लक्कवरृुकोटा
126
00
53
251
125
00
27
252
128
00
84
253
133
00
51
254
132
00
84
255
141
00
05
256
140
00
13
257
145
00
49
258
146
00
29
259
18. िगराम-55
िामी
109
00
62
260
133
00
15
261
132
00
45
262
130
00
08
263
129
00
12
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
315
264
125
00
53
265
139
00
02
266
124
00
15
267
123
00
30
268
142
00
37
269
144
00
29
270
145
00
09
271
190
00
20
272
191
00
59
273
188
00
02
274
192
00
05
275
194
00
04
276
195
00
04
277
187
00
02
278
19. तनवरम-49
िामी
184
00
52
279
185
00
29
280
179
00
26
281
178
00
20
282
177
00
42
283
175
00
03
284
169
00
10
285
172
00
46
286
174
00
02
287
173
00
08
288
157
00
41
289
155
00
31
290
128
00
38
291
129
00
36
292
138
00
40
293
137
00
36
294
140
00
30
295
141
00
06
296
66
00
49
297
56
00
48
316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
298
57
00
27
299
54
00
40
300
59
00
35
301
48
00
02
302
60
00
05
303
20. जवजिजनजगरी-48
िामी
39
00
29
304
40
00
30
305
77
00
49
306
76
00
18
307
36
00
10
308
78
00
06
309
79
00
45
310
35
00
07
311
13
00
31
312
12
00
08
313
15
00
55
314
20
00
34
315
18
00
55
316
17
00
02
317
21. तंड्रंगी-42
िामी
203
00
57
318
204
00
39
319
209
00
53
320
208
00
10
321
171
00
39
322
172
00
55
323
137
00
32
324
138
00
35
325
133
00
46
326
130
00
47
327
125
00
61
328
120
00
50
329
127
00
04
330
118
00
38
331
116
00
36
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
317
332
115
00
31
333
114
00
41
334
88
00
19
335
113
00
04
336
89
00
18
337
86
00
09
338
22. कोट्टम-41
श्रुंगवरृुकोटा
161
00
59
339
160
00
02
340
158
00
57
341
135
00
26
342
137
00
44
343
118
00
13
344
117
00
02
345
139
00
07
346
140
00
41
347
116
00
09
348
111
00
23
349
112
00
02
350
110
00
28
351
106
00
36
352
105
00
37
353
104
00
18
354
103
00
41
355
98
00
25
356
88
00
55
357
93
00
53
358
23. ृेंटा श्रीरामृुरम-66
गन्ट ाडा
55
00
48
359
54
00
37
360
48
00
39
361
47
00
46
362
40
00
31
363
41
00
06
364
8
00
65
365
9
00
04
318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
366
3
00
31
367
11
00
38
368
2
00
35
369
12
00
02
370
24. रेगुजिल्ली-67
गन्ट ाडा
89
00
32
371
86
00
47
372
83
01
22
373
25. डोंकाडा-64
गन्ट ाडा
33
00
50
374
34
00
23
375
32
00
16
376
31
00
19
377
30
00
81
378
29
00
03
379
26
00
04
380
24
00
27
381
23
00
49
382
21
00
37
383
20
00
40
384
17
00
23
385
15
00
02
386
16
00
30
387
26. वासादि-62
गन्ट ाडा
115
00
39
388
112
00
04
389
113
00
30
390
114
00
02
391
74
00
34
392
106
00
02
393
105
00
05
394
75
00
04
395
80
00
05
396
86
00
60
397
83
00
65
398
82
00
30
399
33
00
27
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
319
400
61
00
06
401
34
00
16
402
60
00
90
403
40
00
29
404
3
00
35
405
41
00
04
406
43
00
29
407
48
00
12
408
45
00
39
409
27. कोंडातामारृल्ली-60
गन्ट ाडा
135
00
61
410
136
00
34
411
138
00
44
412
156
00
09
413
161
00
58
414
158
00
28
415
160
00
02
416
159
00
34
417
110
00
77
418
93
00
75
419
94
00
02
420
84
00
06
421
83
00
65
422
70
00
50
423
63
00
56
424
62
00
19
425
56
00
26
426
55
00
13
427
57
00
47
428
54
00
10
429
28. जगन्िेरु-54
गन्ट ाडा
2
00
09
430
3
00
60
431
5
00
65
432
28
00
23
433
27
00
02
320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
434
29
00
52
435
33
00
17
436
34
00
09
437
32
00
37
438
35
00
38
439
29. ृेिमाज्जीृालेम-53
गन्ट ाडा
104
00
51
440
105
00
02
441
103
00
38
442
98
00
33
443
97
00
24
444
96
00
42
445
95
00
36
446
45
00
82
447
44
00
44
448
43
00
48
449
41
00
24
450
30. मरुवाड कोत्त्त्तवलस-47
िोंडृल्ले
109
00
72
451
125
00
03
452
110
00
24
453
106
00
26
454
105
00
44
455
112
00
14
456
113
00
12
457
103
00
50
458
102
00
42
459
101
00
21
460
83
00
24
461
81
00
30
462
82
00
05
463
79
00
47
464
73
00
40
465
62
00
48
466
61
00
05
467
55
00
30
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
321
468
58
00
12
469
56
00
06
470
31. िुडतनाृल्ली रािेरु-34
िोंडृल्ले
220
00
66
471
214
00
82
472
210
00
10
473
211
00
29
474
175
00
29
475
167
00
16
476
168
00
20
477
169
00
30
478
170
00
25
479
171
00
33
480
179
00
18
481
156
00
05
482
154
00
42
483
151
00
45
484
150
00
35
485
148
00
49
486
123
00
35
487
124
00
21
488
125
00
42
489
119
00
12
490
118
00
40
491
77
00
41
492
75
00
07
493
78
00
07
494
81
00
28
495
82
00
38
496
83
00
50
497
95
00
28
498
94
00
49
499
96
00
07
500
93
00
10
501
32. चीन तामराृल्ले-33
िोंडृल्ले
135
00
65
322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
502
119
00
24
503
117
00
46
504
118
00
09
505
115
00
12
506
114
00
41
507
113
00
03
508
110
00
30
509
33. राज द्रम-36
िोंडृल्ले
167
00
14
510
168
00
36
511
143
00
24
512
144
00
28
513
162
00
04
514
161
00
27
515
159
00
32
516
158
00
30
517
156
00
25
518
15
00
32
519
16
00
05
520
12
00
03
521
17
00
78
522
22
00
41
523
23
00
21
524
25
00
02
525
31
00
33
526
30
00
21
527
33
00
07
528
34
00
27
529
34. कजनमेरक-28
िोंडृल्ले
207
00
52
530
208
00
27
531
209
00
28
532
203
00
23
533
202
00
12
534
201
00
23
535
200
00
25
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
323
536
199
00
26
537
289
00
13
538
286
00
42
539
287
00
71
540
185
00
67
541
186
00
62
542
187
00
09
543
176
00
65
544
177
00
14
545
175
00
26
546
1
00
21
547
2
00
18
548
35. जग्टुृल्ले-29
िोंडृल्ले
169
00
06
549
168
00
41
550
161
00
44
551
162
00
13
552
159
00
05
553
158
00
40
554
157
00
04
555
156
00
20
556
154
00
07
557
155
00
38
558
148
00
47
559
149
00
04
560
119
00
30
561
118
00
19
562
120
00
37
563
113
00
38
564
112
00
42
565
111
00
34
566
108
00
33
567
107
00
28
568
106
00
20
569
105
00
39
324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
570
104
00
27
571
103
00
31
572
102
00
36
573
101
00
54
574
99
00
21
575
97
00
52
576
96
00
02
577
36. िेवलृेटा-22
गिृजतनगरम
13
00
57
578
37. ृरवाड-12
गिृजतनगरम
88
00
53
579
87
00
37
580
94
00
33
581
85
00
06
582
84
00
20
583
78
00
38
584
77
00
47
585
76
00
37
586
75
00
34
587
74
00
14
588
71
00
51
589
72
00
24
590
38. गंगा चोल्लाृेंटा-178
गिृजतनगरम
200
00
08
591
201
00
38
592
202
00
24
593
203
00
03
594
183
00
06
595
178
00
16
596
181
00
51
597
180
00
09
598
111
00
37
599
108
00
81
600
105
00
34
601
106
00
03
602
103
00
34
603
98
00
24
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
325
604
96
00
42
605
95
00
46
606
91
00
04
607
59
00
07
608
58
00
46
609
57
00
54
610
63
00
26
611
64
00
15
612
65
00
34
613
66
00
05
614
68
00
21
615
76
00
48
616
71
00
10
617
75
00
26
618
39. ृाटिग्गम-170
गिृजतनगरम
255
00
05
619
251
00
34
620
252
00
08
621
250
00
08
622
249
00
42
623
247
00
15
624
246
00
34
625
226
00
16
626
227
00
24
627
243
00
10
628
242
00
33
629
238
00
21
630
239
00
08
631
240
00
25
632
177
00
08
633
86
00
32
634
85
00
14
635
89
00
23
636
84
00
09
637
78
00
02
326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
638
79
00
46
639
82
00
18
640
81
00
02
641
72
00
40
642
71
00
10
643
55
00
94
644
49
00
38
645
50
00
19
646
302
00
28
647
303
00
41
648
301
00
49
649
40. िंगारम्मृेटा-175
गिृजतनगरम
111
00
65
650
110
00
03
651
62
00
26
652
58
00
18
653
60
00
32
654
59
00
27
655
65
00
11
656
66
00
56
657
68
00
31
658
76
00
10
659
77
00
73
660
78
00
35
661
41. कोम्ृंगी-138
मेंटाड
127
00
15
662
122
00
65
663
123
00
30
664
109
00
52
665
108
00
52
666
106
00
23
667
105
00
50
668
42. मीसालाृेट-107
मेंटाड
34
00
29
669
33
00
48
670
35
00
04
671
36
00
03
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
327
672
37
00
52
673
19
00
25
674
7
00
51
675
20
00
25
676
1
01
25
677
43. गडिावलस-171
ित्तीरािेरु
49
00
66
678
47
00
08
679
44. लक्ष्मीृुरम-197
ित्तीरािेरु
24
00
29
680
23
00
02
681
22
00
44
682
12
00
14
683
13
00
18
684
6
00
26
685
15
00
37
686
45. चीन्नाचमालृल्ले-195
ित्तीरािेरु
90
00
46
687
91
00
27
688
92
00
32
689
95
00
24
690
94
00
55
691
46. इंगीलृल्ली-173
ित्तीरािेरु
203
00
61
692
202
00
44
693
201
00
05
694
194
00
20
695
195
00
35
696
177
00
02
697
169
00
27
698
176
00
06
699
173
00
80
700
172
00
51
701
158
00
21
702
157
00
46
703
156
00
40
704
155
00
36
705
154
00
04
328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
706
136
00
35
707
137
00
54
708
134
00
35
709
138
00
45
710
139
00
47
711
122
00
06
712
111
00
30
713
110
00
45
714
113
00
30
715
109
00
34
716
108
00
45
717
106
00
15
718
47. कोमाटीृल्ले-204
ित्तीरािेरु
7
00
20
719
12
00
06
720
11
00
56
721
14
00
11
722
30
00
08
723
39
00
24
724
37
00
42
725
36
00
36
726
48. मरडम-187
ित्तीरािेरु
346
00
60
727
345
00
03
728
348
00
39
729
359
00
35
730
338
00
39
731
360
00
45
732
336
00
40
733
333
00
26
734
334
00
40
735
231
00
32
736
230
00
08
737
220
00
20
738
221
00
10
739
219
00
23
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
329
740
208
00
57
741
206
00
58
742
205
00
42
743
203
00
15
744
200
00
60
745
195
00
07
746
193
00
15
747
194
00
06
748
96
00
24
749
97
00
45
750
100
00
29
751
99
00
27
752
102
00
02
753
103
00
59
754
112
00
38
755
113
00
21
756
114
00
28
757
122
00
41
758
118
00
02
759
123
00
41
760
124
00
63
761
17
00
36
762
16
00
89
763
13
00
17
764
12
00
27
765
9
00
05
766
8
00
21
767
7
00
40
768
6
00
59
769
49. कोरृा कोत्तावलसा-180
ित्तीरािेरु
118
00
28
770
117
00
13
771
120
00
78
772
122
00
34
773
123
00
44
330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
774
127
00
21
775
188
00
12
776
147
00
39
777
148
00
02
778
146
00
38
779
149
00
26
780
150
00
44
781
151
00
42
782
157
00
48
783
158
00
07
784
159
00
20
785
161
00
05
786
160
00
07
787
50. कोरृा-177
ित्तीरािेरु
147
00
56
788
51. ृाृल लींगलवलसा-173
ित्तीरािेरु
65
00
30
789
64
00
04
790
62
00
29
791
61
00
32
792
60
00
33
793
56
00
41
794
57
00
94
795
45
00
48
796
33
00
68
797
32
00
60
798
12
00
04
799
10
00
25
800
11
00
07
801
250
00
10
802
249
00
63
803
14
00
34
804
15
00
02
805
16
00
76
806
170
00
28
807
171
00
59
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
331
808
173
00
16
809
52. जवरसग्रमा-174
िडंगी
186
00
97
810
184
00
30
811
183
00
11
812
181
00
21
813
179
00
33
814
53. कोडुप -171
िडंगी
311
00
45
815
322
00
56
816
323
00
07
817
306
00
02
818
305
00
51
819
303
00
48
820
301
00
71
821
292
00
52
822
293
00
09
823
291
00
31
824
290
00
46
825
286
00
38
826
287
00
23
827
270
00
10
828
267
00
67
829
261
00
45
830
262
00
23
831
258
00
03
832
253
00
29
833
199
00
52
834
255
00
34
835
254
00
34
836
206
00
65
837
256
00
02
838
205
00
46
839
204
00
27
840
51
00
07
841
164
00
47
332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
842
60
00
45
843
163
00
20
844
64
00
45
845
161
00
30
846
98
00
34
847
96
00
15
848
92
00
30
849
93
00
24
850
95
00
07
851
94
00
23
852
54. रामचंद्रृुरम-128
िडंगी
19
00
39
853
18
00
05
854
20
00
08
855
23
00
14
856
24
00
18
857
26
00
52
858
25
00
65
859
6
00
09
860
5
00
27
861
4
00
14
862
55. ृुिीवलसा-129
िडंगी
40
00
11
863
41
00
55
864
45
00
17
865
54
00
32
866
57
00
40
867
56
00
54
868
56. मल्लमृेट-127
िडंगी
105
00
18
869
104
00
70
870
106
01
40
871
96
00
19
872
107
00
31
873
95
00
31
874
94
00
36
875
93
00
26
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
333
876
85
00
04
877
86
00
03
878
84
00
02
879
58
00
34
880
59
00
33
881
56
00
23
882
55
00
32
883
50
00
33
884
118
00
40
885
119
00
16
886
49
00
50
887
48
00
08
888
57. ृल्टेप -126
िडंगी
220
00
06
889
221
00
41
890
247
00
41
891
260
00
35
892
259
00
18
893
258
00
55
894
261
00
45
895
263
00
32
896
265
00
35
897
268
00
51
898
269
00
33
899
275
00
10
900
274
00
16
901
273
00
70
902
292
00
06
903
294
00
63
904
293
00
17
905
295
00
41
906
311
00
41
907
312
00
18
908
310
00
38
909
1
00
99
334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
910
58. अलिंगी-113
िोब्िीली
336
00
53
911
338
00
20
912
339
00
47
913
343
00
81
914
344
00
56
915
345
00
30
916
347
00
35
917
321
00
12
918
322
00
47
919
316
00
21
920
315
00
33
921
311
00
35
922
312
00
08
923
309
00
14
924
306
00
21
925
307
00
46
926
308
00
06
927
301
00
39
928
302
01
34
929
281
00
06
930
283
00
45
931
284
00
28
932
287
00
41
933
286
00
30
934
59. ंिन्नवलस-112
िोब्िीली
103
00
27
935
104
00
70
936
106
00
31
937
107
00
37
938
108
00
10
939
110
00
40
940
111
00
68
941
112
00
56
942
60. ृीररडी-96
िोब्िीली
342
00
18
943
341
00
14
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
335
944
343
00
12
945
344
00
33
946
345
00
11
947
346
00
56
948
378
00
63
949
376
00
46
950
375
00
08
951
364
00
55
952
365
00
16
953
138
00
03
954
137
00
31
955
136
00
41
956
139
00
02
957
140
00
16
958
132
00
23
959
130
00
30
960
131
00
58
961
124
00
13
962
123
00
70
963
61. कोंडिेवुृल्ले-110
िोब्िीली
2
00
02
964
62. कम्मावलस-99
िोब्िीली
48
00
73
965
49
00
62
966
44
00
41
967
50
00
23
968
43
00
46
969
52
00
30
970
53
00
65
971
55
00
25
972
34
00
29
973
33
00
44
974
16
00
44
975
31
00
11
976
29
00
57
977
28
00
57
336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
978
27
00
67
979
20
00
04
980
22
00
47
981
21
00
18
982
63. रामडूवलस-48
िोब्िीली
12
00
32
983
13
00
77
984
14
00
31
985
8
00
09
986
5
00
63
987
6
00
45
988
2
00
62
989
1
00
84
990
44
00
27
991
45
00
15
992
47
00
44
993
64. चींताडा-49
िोब्िीली
496
00
05
994
495
00
62
995
494
00
30
996
493
00
08
997
176
00
71
998
177
00
42
999
192
00
07
1000
178
00
28
1001
171
00
06
1002
170
00
48
1003
179
00
02
1004
180
00
10
1005
182
00
50
1006
181
00
02
1007
183
00
31
1008
157
00
04
1009
156
00
26
1010
154
00
60
1011
149
01
10
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
337
1012
150
00
02
1013
151
00
13
1014
472
00
28
1015
471
00
58
1016
104
00
55
1017
108
00
57
1018
470
00
39
1019
469
00
37
1020
103
00
81
1021
464
00
48
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/12/2018-ओआर-I/ई-25587]
एस.एस.ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 134.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Petroleum Product from Visakha (Andhra Pradesh) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pipeline should be laid
by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government 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 at
Vizianagaram District in Andhra Pradesh State, 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
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government 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 Gazette of India containing this notification 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 The Competent
Authority, Visakha – Raipur Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Government of India
Enterprises, VR-ATP Area, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam-530014, Andhra Pradesh.
SCHEDULE
District: Vizianagaram State: Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No.
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Cents
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1. Santapalem-184
Kothavalasa
24
00
02
2
25
00
79
3
26
00
11
4
21
00
15
5
20
00
19
6
19
00
73
7
17
00
51
8
16
01
63
9
12
00
55
10
2. Denderu-181
Kothavalasa
49
00
83
11
47
00
67
338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12
46
00
73
13
41
00
71
14
39
00
42
15
42
00
04
16
17
00
62
17
16
00
29
18
7
00
02
19
8
00
56
20
3
00
53
21
2
00
05
22
3. Gulividada - 179
Kothavalasa
60
00
33
23
61
00
54
24
57
00
28
25
54
00
07
26
55
00
40
27
51
00
61
28
50
00
02
29
44
00
53
30
41
00
21
31
40
00
54
32
39
00
09
33
38
00
66
34
22
00
11
35
24
00
68
36
25
00
40
37
1
00
02
38
27
00
40
39
4. Chipuruvalasa-178
Kothavalasa
95
00
83
40
97
00
28
41
98
00
48
42
106
00
55
43
42
00
13
44
41
00
55
45
108
00
23
46
109
00
33
47
110
00
18
48
112
00
24
49
113
00
95
50
116
00
13
51
5. Sundarayyapeta-167
Kothavalasa
53
00
18
52
48
00
63
53
47
00
12
54
49
00
17
55
42
00
29
56
41
00
29
57
40
00
45
58
33
00
05
59
21
00
62
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
339
60
22
00
20
61
24
00
45
62
25
00
06
63
7
00
48
64
26
00
42
65
4
00
44
66
6. Virabhadra Puram-168
Kothavalasa
67
00
33
67
66
00
37
68
65
00
56
69
58
00
30
70
63
00
29
71
59
00
45
72
61
00
77
73
27
00
20
74
7. Devada-163
Kothavalasa
181
00
63
75
180
00
84
76
179
00
18
77
176
00
18
78
178
00
06
79
177
00
02
80
156
00
03
81
159
00
14
82
157
00
47
83
155
00
19
84
152
00
54
85
154
00
35
86
8. Narapam-169
Kothavalasa
91
00
30
87
88
00
32
88
89
00
10
89
5
00
42
90
4
00
23
91
8
00
31
92
9
00
23
93
10
00
05
94
1
00
44
95
9. Tamarapalli-162
Lakkavarapukota
74
00
21
96
228
00
62
97
195
00
28
98
196
00
70
99
201
00
79
100
226
00
06
101
225
00
11
102
223
00
11
103
224
00
73
104
210
00
06
105
212
00
15
106
211
00
48
340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
107
209
00
02
108
138
00
29
109
137
00
49
110
136
00
07
111
134
00
40
112
133
00
02
113
131
00
48
114
132
00
29
115
119
00
36
116
45
00
05
117
46
00
16
118
47
00
36
119
31
00
19
120
32
00
14
121
33
00
15
122
29
00
30
123
8
00
49
124
7
00
23
125
10. Srirampuram-121
Lakkavarapukota
52
00
12
126
51
00
19
127
50
00
27
128
54
00
20
129
49
00
42
130
46
00
57
131
45
00
35
132
43
00
15
133
42
00
40
134
35
00
60
135
31
00
23
136
32
00
52
137
23
00
24
138
24
00
23
139
25
00
14
140
17
00
37
141
16
00
27
142
15
00
44
143
12
00
03
144
11
00
18
145
9
00
66
146
5
00
66
147
4
00
06
148
11. Relligaurammapeta-122
Lakkavarapukota
36
00
68
149
38
00
37
150
39
00
18
151
40
00
48
152
27
00
63
153
25
00
04
154
26
00
02
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
341
155
23
00
03
156
24
00
69
157
12. Marlapalli-123
Lakkavarapukota
235
00
16
158
236
00
44
159
232
00
61
160
233
00
27
161
231
00
19
162
116
00
24
163
115
00
07
164
113
00
60
165
365
00
13
166
108
00
53
167
366
00
37
168
109
00
35
169
104
00
28
170
13. Rangapuram-101
Lakkavarapukota
57
00
12
171
58
00
78
172
62
00
44
173
63
00
06
174
50
01
14
175
48
01
23
176
128
00
02
177
45
00
61
178
44
00
62
179
43
00
06
180
11
00
49
181
12
00
34
182
23
00
42
183
24
00
38
184
25
00
81
185
28
00
40
186
29
00
11
187
27
00
59
188
31
00
08
189
14. Kurmavaram-103
Lakkavarapukota
30
00
46
190
29
00
24
191
76
00
32
192
77
00
02
193
75
00
59
194
74
00
36
195
72
00
27
196
71
00
33
197
70
00
26
198
69
00
35
199
66
00
15
200
68
00
57
201
62
00
05
342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
202
51
00
29
203
52
00
20
204
53
00
55
205
38
00
68
206
46
00
06
207
43
00
03
208
45
00
04
209
44
00
24
210
15. Lakkavarapukota Talari- 104
Lakkavarapukota
61
00
15
211
60
00
31
212
58
00
36
213
56
00
24
214
18
00
61
215
19
00
25
216
21
00
60
217
12
00
34
218
11
00
08
219
134
00
89
220
133
00
03
221
137
00
04
222
136
00
46
223
16. Kotyada-71
Lakkavarapukota
213
00
34
224
191
00
42
225
192
00
37
226
194
00
15
227
197
00
23
228
201
00
48
229
198
00
40
230
199
00
54
231
183
00
36
232
43
00
02
233
44
00
03
234
45
00
18
235
172
00
17
236
171
00
40
237
66
00
57
238
67
00
24
239
74
00
02
240
64
00
31
241
62
00
82
242
63
00
16
243
61
00
27
244
59
00
46
245
78
00
14
246
80
00
20
247
83
00
38
248
85
00
83
249
87
00
06
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
343
250
17. Virabhadrapeta-72
Lakkavarapukota
126
00
53
251
125
00
27
252
128
00
84
253
133
00
51
254
132
00
84
255
141
00
05
256
140
00
13
257
145
00
49
258
146
00
29
259
18. Jagaram-55
Jami
109
00
62
260
133
00
15
261
132
00
45
262
130
00
08
263
129
00
12
264
125
00
53
265
139
00
02
266
124
00
15
267
123
00
30
268
142
00
37
269
144
00
29
270
145
00
09
271
190
00
20
272
191
00
59
273
188
00
02
274
192
00
05
275
194
00
04
276
195
00
04
277
187
00
02
278
19. Tanavaram-49
Jami
184
00
52
279
185
00
29
280
179
00
26
281
178
00
20
282
177
00
42
283
175
00
03
284
169
00
10
285
172
00
46
286
174
00
02
287
173
00
08
288
157
00
41
289
155
00
31
290
128
00
38
291
129
00
36
292
138
00
40
293
137
00
36
294
140
00
30
295
141
00
06
296
66
00
49
344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
297
56
00
48
298
57
00
27
299
54
00
40
300
59
00
35
301
48
00
02
302
60
00
05
303
20. Vizinigiri-48
Jami
39
00
29
304
40
00
30
305
77
00
49
306
76
00
18
307
36
00
10
308
78
00
06
309
79
00
45
310
35
00
07
311
13
00
31
312
12
00
08
313
15
00
55
314
20
00
34
315
18
00
55
316
17
00
02
317
21. Tandrangi-42
Jami
203
00
57
318
204
00
39
319
209
00
53
320
208
00
10
321
171
00
39
322
172
00
55
323
137
00
32
324
138
00
35
325
133
00
46
326
130
00
47
327
125
00
61
328
120
00
50
329
127
00
04
330
118
00
38
331
116
00
36
332
115
00
31
333
114
00
41
334
88
00
19
335
113
00
04
336
89
00
18
337
86
00
09
338
22. Kottam-41
Srungavarapukota
161
00
59
339
160
00
02
340
158
00
57
341
135
00
26
342
137
00
44
343
118
00
13
344
117
00
02
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
345
345
139
00
07
346
140
00
41
347
116
00
09
348
111
00
23
349
112
00
02
350
110
00
28
351
106
00
36
352
105
00
37
353
104
00
18
354
103
00
41
355
98
00
25
356
88
00
55
357
93
00
53
358
23. Penta Srirampuram-66
Gantyada
55
00
48
359
54
00
37
360
48
00
39
361
47
00
46
362
40
00
31
363
41
00
06
364
8
00
65
365
9
00
04
366
3
00
31
367
11
00
38
368
2
00
35
369
12
00
02
370
24. Regubili-67
Gantyada
89
00
32
371
86
00
47
372
83
01
22
373
25. Donkada-64
Gantyada
33
00
50
374
34
00
23
375
32
00
16
376
31
00
19
377
30
00
81
378
29
00
03
379
26
00
04
380
24
00
27
381
23
00
49
382
21
00
37
383
20
00
40
384
17
00
23
385
15
00
02
386
16
00
30
387
26. Vasadi-62
Gantyada
115
00
39
388
112
00
04
389
113
00
30
390
114
00
02
391
74
00
34
346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
392
106
00
02
393
105
00
05
394
75
00
04
395
80
00
05
396
86
00
60
397
83
00
65
398
82
00
30
399
33
00
27
400
61
00
06
401
34
00
16
402
60
00
90
403
40
00
29
404
3
00
35
405
41
00
04
406
43
00
29
407
48
00
12
408
45
00
39
409
27. Kondatamarapalli-60
Gantyada
135
00
61
410
136
00
34
411
138
00
44
412
156
00
09
413
161
00
58
414
158
00
28
415
160
00
02
416
159
00
34
417
110
00
77
418
93
00
75
419
94
00
02
420
84
00
06
421
83
00
65
422
70
00
50
423
63
00
56
424
62
00
19
425
56
00
26
426
55
00
13
427
57
00
47
428
54
00
10
429
28. Ginjeru-54
Gantyada
2
00
09
430
3
00
60
431
5
00
65
432
28
00
23
433
27
00
02
434
29
00
52
435
33
00
17
436
34
00
09
437
32
00
37
438
35
00
38
439
29. Pedamajipalem-53
Gantyada
104
00
51
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
347
440
105
00
02
441
103
00
38
442
98
00
33
443
97
00
24
444
96
00
42
445
95
00
36
446
45
00
82
447
44
00
44
448
43
00
48
449
41
00
24
450
30. Maruvada Kottavalasa-47
Bondapalle
109
00
72
451
125
00
03
452
110
00
24
453
106
00
26
454
105
00
44
455
112
00
14
456
113
00
12
457
103
00
50
458
102
00
42
459
101
00
21
460
83
00
24
461
81
00
30
462
82
00
05
463
79
00
47
464
73
00
40
465
62
00
48
466
61
00
05
467
55
00
30
468
58
00
12
469
56
00
06
470
31. Budatanapalle rajeru-34
Bondapalle
220
00
66
471
214
00
82
472
210
00
10
473
211
00
29
474
175
00
29
475
167
00
16
476
168
00
20
477
169
00
30
478
170
00
25
479
171
00
33
480
179
00
18
481
156
00
05
482
154
00
42
483
151
00
45
484
150
00
35
485
148
00
49
486
123
00
35
348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
487
124
00
21
488
125
00
42
489
119
00
12
490
118
00
40
491
77
00
41
492
75
00
07
493
78
00
07
494
81
00
28
495
82
00
38
496
83
00
50
497
95
00
28
498
94
00
49
499
96
00
07
500
93
00
10
501
32. Chinatamarapalle-33
Bondapalle
135
00
65
502
119
00
24
503
117
00
46
504
118
00
09
505
115
00
12
506
114
00
41
507
113
00
03
508
110
00
30
509
33. Rayidram-36
Bondapalle
167
00
14
510
168
00
36
511
143
00
24
512
144
00
28
513
162
00
04
514
161
00
27
515
159
00
32
516
158
00
30
517
156
00
25
518
15
00
32
519
16
00
05
520
12
00
03
521
17
00
78
522
22
00
41
523
23
00
21
524
25
00
02
525
31
00
33
526
30
00
21
527
33
00
07
528
34
00
27
529
34. Kanimeraka-28
Bondapalle
207
00
52
530
208
00
27
531
209
00
28
532
203
00
23
533
202
00
12
534
201
00
23
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
349
535
200
00
25
536
199
00
26
537
289
00
13
538
286
00
42
539
287
00
71
540
185
00
67
541
186
00
62
542
187
00
09
543
176
00
65
544
177
00
14
545
175
00
26
546
1
00
21
547
2
00
18
548
35. Gittupalle-29
Bondapalle
169
00
06
549
168
00
41
550
161
00
44
551
162
00
13
552
159
00
05
553
158
00
40
554
157
00
04
555
156
00
20
556
154
00
07
557
155
00
38
558
148
00
47
559
149
00
04
560
119
00
30
561
118
00
19
562
120
00
37
563
113
00
38
564
112
00
42
565
111
00
34
566
108
00
33
567
107
00
28
568
106
00
20
569
105
00
39
570
104
00
27
571
103
00
31
572
102
00
36
573
101
00
54
574
99
00
21
575
97
00
52
576
96
00
02
577
36. Davalapeta-22
Gajapathinagaram
13
00
57
578
37. Patruvada-12
Gajapathinagaram
88
00
53
579
87
00
37
580
94
00
33
581
85
00
06
350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
582
84
00
20
583
78
00
38
584
77
00
47
585
76
00
37
586
75
00
34
587
74
00
14
588
71
00
51
589
72
00
24
590
38. Gangachollapenta-178
Gajapathinagaram
200
00
08
591
201
00
38
592
202
00
24
593
203
00
03
594
183
00
06
595
178
00
16
596
181
00
51
597
180
00
09
598
111
00
37
599
108
00
81
600
105
00
34
601
106
00
03
602
103
00
34
603
98
00
24
604
96
00
42
605
95
00
46
606
91
00
04
607
59
00
07
608
58
00
46
609
57
00
54
610
63
00
26
611
64
00
15
612
65
00
34
613
66
00
05
614
68
00
21
615
76
00
48
616
71
00
10
617
75
00
26
618
39. Patabaggam-170
Gajapathinagaram
255
00
05
619
251
00
34
620
252
00
08
621
250
00
08
622
249
00
42
623
247
00
15
624
246
00
34
625
226
00
16
626
227
00
24
627
243
00
10
628
242
00
33
629
238
00
21
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
351
630
239
00
08
631
240
00
25
632
177
00
08
633
86
00
32
634
85
00
14
635
89
00
23
636
84
00
09
637
78
00
02
638
79
00
46
639
82
00
18
640
81
00
02
641
72
00
40
642
71
00
10
643
55
00
94
644
49
00
38
645
50
00
19
646
302
00
28
647
303
00
41
648
301
00
49
649
40. Bangarammapeta-175
Gajapathinagaram
111
00
65
650
110
00
03
651
62
00
26
652
58
00
18
653
60
00
32
654
59
00
27
655
65
00
11
656
66
00
56
657
68
00
31
658
76
00
10
659
77
00
73
660
78
00
35
661
41. Kompangi-138
Mentada
127
00
15
662
122
00
65
663
123
00
30
664
109
00
52
665
108
00
52
666
106
00
23
667
105
00
50
668
42. Messalapeta-107
Mentada
34
00
29
669
33
00
48
670
35
00
04
671
36
00
03
672
37
00
52
673
19
00
25
674
7
00
51
675
20
00
25
676
1
01
25
352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
677
43. Gadabavalasa-171
Dattirajeru
49
00
66
678
47
00
08
679
44. Lakshmipuram-197
Dattirajeru
24
00
29
680
23
00
02
681
22
00
44
682
12
00
14
683
13
00
18
684
6
00
26
685
15
00
37
686
45. Chinna Chamalapalle-195
Dattirajeru
90
00
46
687
91
00
27
688
92
00
32
689
95
00
24
690
94
00
55
691
46. Ingilapalli-173
Dattirajeru
203
00
61
692
202
00
44
693
201
00
05
694
194
00
20
695
195
00
35
696
177
00
02
697
169
00
27
698
176
00
06
699
173
00
80
700
172
00
51
701
158
00
21
702
157
00
46
703
156
00
40
704
155
00
36
705
154
00
04
706
136
00
35
707
137
00
54
708
134
00
35
709
138
00
45
710
139
00
47
711
122
00
06
712
111
00
30
713
110
00
45
714
113
00
30
715
109
00
34
716
108
00
45
717
106
00
15
718
47. Komatipalle-204
Dattirajeru
7
00
20
719
12
00
06
720
11
00
56
721
14
00
11
722
30
00
08
723
39
00
24
724
37
00
42
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
353
725
36
00
36
726
48. Maradam-187
Dattirajeru
346
00
60
727
345
00
03
728
348
00
39
729
359
00
35
730
338
00
39
731
360
00
45
732
336
00
40
733
333
00
26
734
334
00
40
735
231
00
32
736
230
00
08
737
220
00
20
738
221
00
10
739
219
00
23
740
208
00
57
741
206
00
58
742
205
00
42
743
203
00
15
744
200
00
60
745
195
00
07
746
193
00
15
747
194
00
06
748
96
00
24
749
97
00
45
750
100
00
29
751
99
00
27
752
102
00
02
753
103
00
59
754
112
00
38
755
113
00
21
756
114
00
28
757
122
00
41
758
118
00
02
759
123
00
41
760
124
00
63
761
17
00
36
762
16
00
89
763
13
00
17
764
12
00
27
765
9
00
05
766
8
00
21
767
7
00
40
768
6
00
59
769
49. Korapa Kottavalasa-180
Dattirajeru
118
00
28
770
117
00
13
771
120
00
78
354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
772
122
00
34
773
123
00
44
774
127
00
21
775
188
00
12
776
147
00
39
777
148
00
02
778
146
00
38
779
149
00
26
780
150
00
44
781
151
00
42
782
157
00
48
783
158
00
07
784
159
00
20
785
161
00
05
786
160
00
07
787
50. Korapa -177
Dattirajeru
147
00
56
788
51. Pappala lingalavalasa-173
Dattirajeru
65
00
30
789
64
00
04
790
62
00
29
791
61
00
32
792
60
00
33
793
56
00
41
794
57
00
94
795
45
00
48
796
33
00
68
797
32
00
60
798
12
00
04
799
10
00
25
800
11
00
07
801
250
00
10
802
249
00
63
803
14
00
34
804
15
00
02
805
16
00
76
806
170
00
28
807
171
00
59
808
173
00
16
809
52. Virasagaram-174
Badangi
186
00
97
810
184
00
30
811
183
00
11
812
181
00
21
813
179
00
33
814
53. Koduru-171
Badangi
311
00
45
815
322
00
56
816
323
00
07
817
306
00
02
818
305
00
51
819
303
00
48
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
355
820
301
00
71
821
292
00
52
822
293
00
09
823
291
00
31
824
290
00
46
825
286
00
38
826
287
00
23
827
270
00
10
828
267
00
67
829
261
00
45
830
262
00
23
831
258
00
03
832
253
00
29
833
199
00
52
834
255
00
34
835
254
00
34
836
206
00
65
837
256
00
02
838
205
00
46
839
204
00
27
840
51
00
07
841
164
00
47
842
60
00
45
843
163
00
20
844
64
00
45
845
161
00
30
846
98
00
34
847
96
00
15
848
92
00
30
849
93
00
24
850
95
00
07
851
94
00
23
852
54. Ramachandrapuram-128
Badangi
19
00
39
853
18
00
05
854
20
00
08
855
23
00
14
856
24
00
18
857
26
00
52
858
25
00
65
859
6
00
09
860
5
00
27
861
4
00
14
862
55. Pudivalasa-129
Badangi
40
00
11
863
41
00
55
864
45
00
17
865
54
00
32
866
57
00
40
356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
867
56
00
54
868
56. Mallammapeta-127
Badangi
105
00
18
869
104
00
70
870
106
01
40
871
96
00
19
872
107
00
31
873
95
00
31
874
94
00
36
875
93
00
26
876
85
00
04
877
86
00
03
878
84
00
02
879
58
00
34
880
59
00
33
881
56
00
23
882
55
00
32
883
50
00
33
884
118
00
40
885
119
00
16
886
49
00
50
887
48
00
08
888
57. Palteru-126
Badangi
220
00
06
889
221
00
41
890
247
00
41
891
260
00
35
892
259
00
18
893
258
00
55
894
261
00
45
895
263
00
32
896
265
00
35
897
268
00
51
898
269
00
33
899
275
00
10
900
274
00
16
901
273
00
70
902
292
00
06
903
294
00
63
904
293
00
17
905
295
00
41
906
311
00
41
907
312
00
18
908
310
00
38
909
1
00
99
910
58. Alajangi-113
Bobbili
336
00
53
911
338
00
20
912
339
00
47
913
343
00
81
914
344
00
56
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
357
915
345
00
30
916
347
00
35
917
321
00
12
918
322
00
47
919
316
00
21
920
315
00
33
921
311
00
35
922
312
00
08
923
309
00
14
924
306
00
21
925
307
00
46
926
308
00
06
927
301
00
39
928
302
01
34
929
281
00
06
930
283
00
45
931
284
00
28
932
287
00
41
933
286
00
30
934
59. Yembannavalasa-112
Bobbili
103
00
27
935
104
00
70
936
106
00
31
937
107
00
37
938
108
00
10
939
110
00
40
940
111
00
68
941
112
00
56
942
60. Piridi-96
Bobbili
342
00
18
943
341
00
14
944
343
00
12
945
344
00
33
946
345
00
11
947
346
00
56
948
378
00
63
949
376
00
46
950
375
00
08
951
364
00
55
952
365
00
16
953
138
00
03
954
137
00
31
955
136
00
41
956
139
00
02
957
140
00
16
958
132
00
23
959
130
00
30
960
131
00
58
961
124
00
13
358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
962
123
00
70
963
61. Kondadevupalle-110
Bobbili
2
00
02
964
62. Kammavalasa-99
Bobbili
48
00
73
965
49
00
62
966
44
00
41
967
50
00
23
968
43
00
46
969
52
00
30
970
53
00
65
971
55
00
25
972
34
00
29
973
33
00
44
974
16
00
44
975
31
00
11
976
29
00
57
977
28
00
57
978
27
00
67
979
20
00
04
980
22
00
47
981
21
00
18
982
63. Ramuduvalasa-48
Bobbili
12
00
32
983
13
00
77
984
14
00
31
985
8
00
09
986
5
00
63
987
6
00
45
988
2
00
62
989
1
00
84
990
44
00
27
991
45
00
15
992
47
00
44
993
64. Chintada-49
Bobbili
496
00
05
994
495
00
62
995
494
00
30
996
493
00
08
997
176
00
71
998
177
00
42
999
192
00
07
1000
178
00
28
1001
171
00
06
1002
170
00
48
1003
179
00
02
1004
180
00
10
1005
182
00
50
1006
181
00
02
1007
183
00
31
1008
157
00
04
1009
156
00
26
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
359
1010
154
00
60
1011
149
01
10
1012
150
00
02
1013
151
00
13
1014
472
00
28
1015
471
00
58
1016
104
00
55
1017
108
00
57
1018
470
00
39
1019
469
00
37
1020
103
00
81
1021
464
00
48
[F. No. R-11025(11)/12/2018-OR-I/E-25587]
S. S. SINGH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 135.—केन्द्री सरकार को लोकजित में ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता िज दक ृजरोजल म ृिा व ृररवािन के
जलए जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड द्वारा जवसा (आन्र प्रिेि) से रा ृुर (छत्तीसगढ) ृाइृलाइन जिछाई
िानी चाजिए ;
और केन्द्री सरकार को ऐसी ृाइृलाइन ृाववतीृुरम मान् म जिला, आन्र प्रिेि राज् में जिछाने के प्र ोिन के
जलए ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता िज दक ऐसी भूजम में िो इस से उृािद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णवत िज और जिसमें उक्त ृाइृलाइन
जिछाए िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िज, उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन दक ा िाए ;
अतः अि, केन्द्री सरकार, ृेरोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन)
अजिजन म, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, उस भूजम में
उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिवन करने के अृने आि की घोषणा करती िज ;
कोई व्यजक्त, िो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णवत भूजम में जितिद्ध िज, उस तारी से जिसको इस अजिसूचना से ुक्त भारत
के रािृत्र की प्रजत ााँ सािारण िनता को उृलब्ि करा िी िाती िज, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूजम के नीचे ृाइृलाइन
जिछाए िाने के जलए उस में उृ ोग के अजिकार के अिवन के सम्िन्ि में सक्षम प्राजिकारी, जवसा - रा ृुर ृाइृलाइन
ृरर ोिना, जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, भारत सरकार का उृक्रम, वीआर-ए टी ृी क्षेत्र, नवल िेस ृोस्ट्ट,
जविा ाृत्तनम-530014. को जलज त प ृ में आक्षेृ भेि सकेगा।
अनुसूची
जिलाः ृाववतीृुरम मान् म राज् ः आन्र प्रिेि
क्रम सं् ा
गााँव का नाम
मंडल का नाम
सवे सं् ा
क्षेत्रफल
एकड
सेन््स
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1. सुिद्रा-28
िलीिाृेटा
109
00
03
2
110
00
88
3
111
00
42
4
101
00
37
360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5
96
00
37
6
71
00
47
7
68
00
08
8
67
00
34
9
66
00
11
10
60
00
31
11
59
00
32
12
58
00
46
13
55
00
52
14
54
00
15
15
23
00
09
16
22
00
02
17
2. िीवरामृुरम-34
िलीिाृेटा
46
00
68
18
45
00
19
19
43
00
09
20
42
00
75
21
41
00
62
22
40
00
41
23
39
00
12
24
5
00
21
25
4
00
24
26
3. ृनकुवलसा-33
िलीिाृेटा
124
00
03
27
125
00
77
28
128
00
49
29
127
00
26
30
157
00
40
31
156
00
36
32
151
00
29
33
155
00
04
34
152
00
23
35
153
00
62
36
141
00
09
37
148
00
02
38
147
00
15
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
361
39
146
00
44
40
145
00
02
41
4. अरसाड-35
िलीिाृेटा
164
00
02
42
163
00
44
43
162
00
69
44
161
00
49
45
158
00
27
46
157
00
29
47
35
00
33
48
36
00
17
49
113
00
66
50
112
00
28
51
110
00
07
52
111
00
59
53
107
00
16
54
103
00
18
55
104
00
42
56
99
00
05
57
95
00
31
58
96
00
25
59
97
00
37
60
88
00
49
61
89
00
58
62
70
00
33
63
72
00
34
64
71
00
41
65
5. अज्जाडा-32
िलीिाृेटा
278
00
28
66
275
00
04
67
246
00
59
68
245
00
44
69
244
00
38
70
233
00
56
71
229
00
83
72
224
00
69
362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
73
220
00
07
74
218
00
41
75
192
00
54
76
189
00
44
77
185
00
67
78
183
00
66
79
6. रावीृल्ले-109
गाप गुजिल्ली
243
00
02
80
7. ृेध्िुप -86
गाप गुजिल्ली
173
00
04
81
175
00
75
82
176
00
62
83
178
00
16
84
186
00
14
85
187
00
68
86
188
00
28
87
37
00
04
88
36
00
40
89
76
00
29
90
82
00
02
91
75
00
05
92
72
00
32
93
43
00
93
94
44
00
40
95
69
00
39
96
67
00
52
97
66
00
04
98
8. िीवरामृुरम ृेध्िुप िरर-107
गाप गुजिल्ली
200
00
31
99
201
00
39
100
202
00
30
101
227
00
27
102
228
00
32
103
226
00
03
104
225
00
03
105
219
00
02
106
9. िीवम-108
गाप गुजिल्ली
221
00
53
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
363
107
220
00
52
108
219
00
65
109
77
00
32
110
76
00
58
111
75
00
53
112
10. ृोलीना डूवलस-106
गाप गुजिल्ली
275
00
16
113
274
00
24
114
273
00
87
115
308
00
02
116
266
01
32
117
307
00
40
118
238
00
26
119
306
00
21
120
236
00
46
121
11. गोट्टीवलस-103
गाप गुजिल्ली
189
00
27
122
188
00
11
123
155
00
38
124
187
00
55
125
157
00
02
126
158
00
50
127
159
00
28
128
160
00
41
129
161
00
32
130
163
00
46
131
162
00
56
132
172
00
04
133
171
00
12
134
170
00
21
135
173
00
58
136
12. सांिन्नवलस-35
गाप गुजिल्ली
90
00
69
137
63
00
41
138
65
00
13
139
64
00
02
140
59
00
25
364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
141
66
00
24
142
58
00
20
143
55
00
06
144
56
00
02
145
54
00
13
146
53
00
06
147
52
00
41
148
50
00
21
149
49
00
26
150
48
00
25
151
13. नागुप -113
गाप गुजिल्ली
128
00
25
152
116
00
34
153
120
00
24
154
117
00
38
155
112
00
51
156
110
00
11
157
107
00
40
158
105
00
69
159
106
00
18
160
94
00
21
161
14. संतोसृुरम-102
गाप गुजिल्ली
158
00
31
162
79
00
62
163
78
00
10
164
76
00
80
165
75
00
37
166
73
00
24
167
72
00
15
168
67
00
47
169
68
00
34
170
51
00
80
171
46
00
06
172
47
00
86
173
41
00
98
174
15. कुडूम-72
िीय् म्मवलस
479
00
15
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
365
175
16. गोरीृुरम-84
िीय् म्मवलस
49
00
29
176
44
00
50
177
43
00
86
178
42
00
17
179
20
00
44
180
19
00
30
181
18
00
29
182
17. गंगरािृुरम-86
गाप गुजिल्ली
7
00
32
183
18. तोटृल्ले-87
गाप गुजिल्ली
177
00
17
184
176
00
17
185
174
00
72
186
175
00
02
187
172
00
32
188
164
00
38
189
163
00
17
190
162
00
36
191
161
00
16
192
32
00
45
193
30
00
56
194
22
00
31
195
29
00
04
196
23
00
50
197
25
00
48
198
12
00
42
199
11
00
38
200
10
00
51
201
9
00
23
202
19. ससंगनाृुरम
िीय् म्मवलस
156
00
87
203
20. चींतल िेलगाम-68
िीय् म्मवलस
74
00
65
204
72
00
78
205
71
00
28
206
56
00
38
207
55
00
08
208
54
00
80
366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
209
53
00
41
210
21. गीिि-77
गाप गुजिल्ली
86
00
05
211
22. मकान िरीृुरम
िीय् म्मवलस
120
00
35
212
121
00
69
213
89
00
51
214
88
00
38
215
80
00
15
216
79
00
56
217
23. िसंगी-76
िीय् म्मवलस
85
00
54
218
86
00
20
219
112
00
14
220
110
00
30
221
111
00
49
222
107
00
37
223
94
00
30
224
97
00
41
225
24. गौरमृेटा-34
िीय् म्मवलस
85
00
11
226
86
00
50
227
84
00
34
228
72
00
79
229
74
00
03
230
70
00
55
231
23
00
53
232
19
00
54
233
18
00
34
234
17
00
16
235
25. भट्टलभद्र-27
िीय् म्मवलस
75
00
51
236
111
00
25
237
76
00
50
238
77
00
26
239
110
00
08
240
78
00
34
241
79
00
06
242
82
00
42
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
367
243
89
00
17
244
88
00
63
245
87
00
79
246
92
00
24
247
93
00
25
248
94
00
39
249
7
00
04
250
95
00
02
251
6
00
67
252
5
00
02
253
26. कीटसाडा-14
कुप ृम
90
00
47
254
89
00
50
255
87
00
41
256
86
00
44
257
84
00
44
258
79
00
18
259
81
00
30
260
82
00
32
261
83
00
58
262
27. िलाइृेटा-25
कोमरड
143
00
10
263
142
00
33
264
141
00
41
265
140
00
35
266
115
00
15
267
114
00
32
268
113
00
24
269
112
00
41
270
49
00
06
271
110
00
13
272
50
00
15
273
108
00
41
274
107
01
11
275
73
00
18
276
74
00
60
368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
277
76
00
38
278
78
00
49
279
79
00
17
280
80
00
30
281
81
00
25
282
82
00
27
283
83
00
45
284
85
00
17
285
86
00
13
286
88
00
76
287
87
00
04
288
28. मिलाडी-15
कोमरड
128
00
36
289
127
00
37
290
126
00
45
291
123
00
39
292
122
00
14
293
29. तुडम-105
कोमरड
124
00
32
294
122
00
48
295
120
00
52
296
119
00
14
297
117
00
35
298
116
00
31
299
114
00
05
300
113
00
39
301
111
00
38
302
98
00
04
303
95
00
32
304
94
00
28
305
92
00
54
306
89
00
13
307
90
00
38
308
87
00
53
309
30. रा ृुरम-15
कोमरड
81
00
46
310
63
00
35
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
369
311
65
00
82
312
60
00
04
313
59
00
21
314
58
00
03
315
36
00
14
316
35
00
21
317
34
00
38
318
33
00
53
319
32
00
08
320
27
00
92
321
28
00
03
322
15
00
58
323
14
00
41
324
31. को्टु-92
कोमरड
36
00
17
325
33
00
47
326
32
00
06
327
32. केमीसीला-77
कोमरड
124
00
42
328
122
00
73
329
118
00
46
330
117
00
18
331
119
00
06
332
116
00
56
333
111
00
20
334
112
00
66
335
113
00
02
336
104
00
07
337
102
00
27
338
103
00
15
339
33. लि॓सु-115
कोमरड
7
00
36
340
6
00
51
341
4
00
76
342
2
00
59
343
34. कोरीसील-5
कोमरड
92
00
49
344
96
00
17
370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
345
93
00
04
346
95
00
96
347
74
00
54
348
75
00
11
349
72
00
03
350
76
00
55
351
71
00
40
352
69
00
80
353
63
00
74
354
62
00
03
355
64
00
23
356
46
00
47
357
45
00
17
358
44
00
38
359
21
00
59
360
39
00
34
361
22
00
12
362
38
00
83
363
37
00
02
364
28
00
21
365
1
01
86
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/12/2018-ओआर-I/ई-25587]
एस.एस.ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 135.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Petroleum Product from Visakha (Andhra Pradesh) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pipeline should be laid
by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government 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 at
Parvathipuram Manyam District in Andhra Pradesh State, 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
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government 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 Gazette of India containing this notification 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 The Competent
Authority, Visakha – Raipur Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Government of India
Enterprises, VR-ATP Area, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam-530014, Andhra Pradesh.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
371
SCHEDULE
District: Parvathipuram Manyam State: Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No.
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Cents
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1. Subhadra-28
Balijipeta
109
00
03
2
110
00
88
3
111
00
42
4
101
00
37
5
96
00
37
6
71
00
47
7
68
00
08
8
67
00
34
9
66
00
11
10
60
00
31
11
59
00
32
12
58
00
46
13
55
00
52
14
54
00
15
15
23
00
09
16
22
00
02
17
2. Sivarampuram-34
Balijipeta
46
00
68
18
45
00
19
19
43
00
09
20
42
00
75
21
41
00
62
22
40
00
41
23
39
00
12
24
5
00
21
25
4
00
24
26
3. Panukuvalasa-33
Balijipeta
124
00
03
27
125
00
77
28
128
00
49
29
127
00
26
30
157
00
40
31
156
00
36
32
151
00
29
33
155
00
04
34
152
00
23
35
153
00
62
36
141
00
09
37
148
00
02
38
147
00
15
39
146
00
44
40
145
00
02
41
4. Arasada-35
Balijipeta
164
00
02
42
163
00
44
372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
43
162
00
69
44
161
00
49
45
158
00
27
46
157
00
29
47
35
00
33
48
36
00
17
49
113
00
66
50
112
00
28
51
110
00
07
52
111
00
59
53
107
00
16
54
103
00
18
55
104
00
42
56
99
00
05
57
95
00
31
58
96
00
25
59
97
00
37
60
88
00
49
61
89
00
58
62
70
00
33
63
72
00
34
64
71
00
41
65
5. Ajjada-32
Balijipeta
278
00
28
66
275
00
04
67
246
00
59
68
245
00
44
69
244
00
38
70
233
00
56
71
229
00
83
72
224
00
69
73
220
00
07
74
218
00
41
75
192
00
54
76
189
00
44
77
185
00
67
78
183
00
66
79
6. Ravipalle-109
Garugubilli
243
00
02
80
7. Pedduru-86
Garugubilli
173
00
04
81
175
00
75
82
176
00
62
83
178
00
16
84
186
00
14
85
187
00
68
86
188
00
28
87
37
00
04
88
36
00
40
89
76
00
29
90
82
00
02
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
373
91
75
00
05
92
72
00
32
93
43
00
93
94
44
00
40
95
69
00
39
96
67
00
52
97
66
00
04
98
8. Sivarampuram Pedduru Dari-107
Garugubilli
200
00
31
99
201
00
39
100
202
00
30
101
227
00
27
102
228
00
32
103
226
00
03
104
225
00
03
105
219
00
02
106
9. Sivvam-108
Garugubilli
221
00
53
107
220
00
52
108
219
00
65
109
77
00
32
110
76
00
58
111
75
00
53
112
10. Polinaiduvalasa-106
Garugubilli
275
00
16
113
274
00
24
114
273
00
87
115
308
00
02
116
266
01
32
117
307
00
40
118
238
00
26
119
306
00
21
120
236
00
46
121
11. Gottivalasa-103
Garugubilli
189
00
27
122
188
00
11
123
155
00
38
124
187
00
55
125
157
00
02
126
158
00
50
127
159
00
28
128
160
00
41
129
161
00
32
130
163
00
46
131
162
00
56
132
172
00
04
133
171
00
12
134
170
00
21
135
173
00
58
136
12. Sambannavalasa-35
Garugubilli
90
00
69
137
63
00
41
374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
138
65
00
13
139
64
00
02
140
59
00
25
141
66
00
24
142
58
00
20
143
55
00
06
144
56
00
02
145
54
00
13
146
53
00
06
147
52
00
41
148
50
00
21
149
49
00
26
150
48
00
25
151
13. Naguru-113
Garugubilli
128
00
25
152
116
00
34
153
120
00
24
154
117
00
38
155
112
00
51
156
110
00
11
157
107
00
40
158
105
00
69
159
106
00
18
160
94
00
21
161
14. Santhoshapuram-102
Garugubilli
158
00
31
162
79
00
62
163
78
00
10
164
76
00
80
165
75
00
37
166
73
00
24
167
72
00
15
168
67
00
47
169
68
00
34
170
51
00
80
171
46
00
06
172
47
00
86
173
41
00
98
174
15. Kuduma-72
Jiyyammavalasa
479
00
15
175
16. Gauripuram-84
Jiyyammavalasa
49
00
29
176
44
00
50
177
43
00
86
178
42
00
17
179
20
00
44
180
19
00
30
181
18
00
29
182
17. Gangarajupuram-86
Garugubilli
7
00
32
183
18. Thotapalle-87
Garugubilli
177
00
17
184
176
00
17
185
174
00
72
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
375
186
175
00
02
187
172
00
32
188
164
00
38
189
163
00
17
190
162
00
36
191
161
00
16
192
32
00
45
193
30
00
56
194
22
00
31
195
29
00
04
196
23
00
50
197
25
00
48
198
12
00
42
199
11
00
38
200
10
00
51
201
9
00
23
202
19. Singanapuram
Jiyyammavalasa
156
00
87
203
20. Chintala Belagam-68
Jiyyammavalasa
74
00
65
204
72
00
78
205
71
00
28
206
56
00
38
207
55
00
08
208
54
00
80
209
53
00
41
210
21. Gijaba-77
Garugubilli
86
00
05
211
22. Makhana Haripuram
Jiyyammavalasa
120
00
35
212
121
00
69
213
89
00
51
214
88
00
38
215
80
00
15
216
79
00
56
217
23. Basangi-76
Jiyyammavalasa
85
00
54
218
86
00
20
219
112
00
14
220
110
00
30
221
111
00
49
222
107
00
37
223
94
00
30
224
97
00
41
225
24. Gourammapeta-34
Jiyyammavalasa
85
00
11
226
86
00
50
227
84
00
34
228
72
00
79
229
74
00
03
230
70
00
55
231
23
00
53
232
19
00
54
376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
233
18
00
34
234
17
00
16
235
25. Bhatlabhadra-27
Jiyyammavalasa
75
00
51
236
111
00
25
237
76
00
50
238
77
00
26
239
110
00
08
240
78
00
34
241
79
00
06
242
82
00
42
243
89
00
17
244
88
00
63
245
87
00
79
246
92
00
24
247
93
00
25
248
94
00
39
249
7
00
04
250
95
00
02
251
6
00
67
252
5
00
02
253
26. Kitsada-14
Kurupam
90
00
47
254
89
00
50
255
87
00
41
256
86
00
44
257
84
00
44
258
79
00
18
259
81
00
30
260
82
00
32
261
83
00
58
262
27. Dalayipeta-25
Komarada
143
00
10
263
142
00
33
264
141
00
41
265
140
00
35
266
115
00
15
267
114
00
32
268
113
00
24
269
112
00
41
270
49
00
06
271
110
00
13
272
50
00
15
273
108
00
41
274
107
01
11
275
73
00
18
276
74
00
60
277
76
00
38
278
78
00
49
279
79
00
17
280
80
00
30
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
377
281
81
00
25
282
82
00
27
283
83
00
45
284
85
00
17
285
86
00
13
286
88
00
76
287
87
00
04
288
28. Madalangi-15
Komarada
128
00
36
289
127
00
37
290
126
00
45
291
123
00
39
292
122
00
14
293
29. Thodumu-105
Komarada
124
00
32
294
122
00
48
295
120
00
52
296
119
00
14
297
117
00
35
298
116
00
31
299
114
00
05
300
113
00
39
301
111
00
38
302
98
00
04
303
95
00
32
304
94
00
28
305
92
00
54
306
89
00
13
307
90
00
38
308
87
00
53
309
30. Rayapuram-15
Komarada
81
00
46
310
63
00
35
311
65
00
82
312
60
00
04
313
59
00
21
314
58
00
03
315
36
00
14
316
35
00
21
317
34
00
38
318
33
00
53
319
32
00
08
320
27
00
92
321
28
00
03
322
15
00
58
323
14
00
41
324
31. Kottu-92
Komarada
36
00
17
325
33
00
47
326
32
00
06
327
32. Kemisila-77
Komarada
124
00
42
378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
328
122
00
73
329
118
00
46
330
117
00
18
331
119
00
06
332
116
00
56
333
111
00
20
334
112
00
66
335
113
00
02
336
104
00
07
337
102
00
27
338
103
00
15
339
33. Labesu-115
Komarada
7
00
36
340
6
00
51
341
4
00
76
342
2
00
59
343
34. Korisila-5
Komarada
92
00
49
344
96
00
17
345
93
00
04
346
95
00
96
347
74
00
54
348
75
00
11
349
72
00
03
350
76
00
55
351
71
00
40
352
69
00
80
353
63
00
74
354
62
00
03
355
64
00
23
356
46
00
47
357
45
00
17
358
44
00
38
359
21
00
59
360
39
00
34
361
22
00
12
362
38
00
83
363
37
00
02
364
28
00
21
365
1
01
86
[F. No. R-11025(11)/12/2018-OR-I/E-25587]
S. S. SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
379
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम् िर, 2024
का.आ. 136.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार फेरो
स्ट्क्रजृ जनगम जलजमटेड, िुगावृुर,के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों , और फेरो स्ट्क्रजृ जनगम जलजमटेड कमवचारी संघ, िुगावृुर, के
िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -आसनसोल ृंचाट(संिभव सं् ा 31 of
2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
19.12.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल - 42025-07-2024-225-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2024
S.O. 136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. 31 of 2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court– Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur, and Shri Pravat Mondal, Worker, which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.12.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-225-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 31 OF 2023
PARTIES: Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees’ Union (CITU), Durgapur Unit.
Vs.
Management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur Unit.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Employees:
Mr. Susanta Kumar Ganguly, Advocate.
Mr. Asit Kumar Kolay, Advocate.
For the Management of FSNL:
Mr. Anupam Ghosh, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Steel.
STATE:
West Bengal.
DATED:
18.11.2024.
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office of the
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, vide its Order No. 1(17)/2023/E dated 01.06.2023 has been
pleased to refer the scheduled dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited,
Durgapur Unit and their non-executive employees represented by the said union for adjudication by this Tribunal.
380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur Unit in not settling the
demand of the revision of wages of the non executive employees of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur
Unit w.e.f. 01.01.2017, which is pending since long, is justified or not? If not, what relief the non-executive
employees are entitled to? ”
1. On receiving Order No. 1(17)/2023/E dated 01.06.2023 from the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute,
Reference case No. 31 of 2023 was registered on 07.06.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties
through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in
support of their claim and a list of witnesses.
2. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees Union, Durgapur filed their written statement on 13.03.2024 and the
management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as FSNL), Durgapur, represented by Mr. Saurabh
Radhesham Tharewal, the Constituted Attorney filed their written statement on 17.05.2024. Brief fact of the case of
the union as disclosed in their written statement is that the wage structure of employees of FSNL, Durgapur Unit is
fixed and implemented according to the wage structure applicable to the employees of Steel Authority of India
Limited (hereinafter referred to as SAIL) as per order no. ASP-6(6)/86 dated 24.07.1986 of the Government of India,
Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of Steel), where the government has directed that the wage structure in
FSNL would be according to the wage structure of SAIL. The Assistant General Manager I/C of FSNL in his letter
dated 11.06.2019 informed the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raniganj at Durgapur that “Ferro Scrap
Nigam Limited was a subsidiary company of SAIL and as per the practice, the employees of FSNL are getting revised
wage structure of SAIL on the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Department of Public enterprises vide
his memorandum No. 2(7)/2006 DPE(WC) GL-IVX dated 09.11.2006”. It is the case of the union that the usual
practice of FSNL is that they revise the pay structure of its employees according to the revision of the pay structure of
SAIL. It is inter-alia pleaded that during the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 SAIL allowed twenty-one percent
(21%) of the Minimum Guaranteed Benefit to their non-executive employees. The non-executive employees of FSNL
are therefore entitled to the same benefit but the management of FSNL paid only twelve percent (12%) of the
Minimum Guaranteed Benefit to its non-executive employees as per the tripartite agreement on 11.02.2011 for the
period from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 and the management of FSNL agreed to pay the balance nine percent (9%) of
the Minimum Guaranteed Benefit to the non-executive employees w.e.f. 01.01.2007 but they started to pay the same
w.e.f. 01.10.2014. Therefore, nine percent (9%) of the Minimum Guaranteed Benefit is due to the non-executive
employees of FSNL for the period from 01.01.2007 to 30.09.2014. Furthermore, the management of FSNL paid only
eleven percent (11%) of the Minimum Guaranteed Benefit for the period from 01.01.2012 till date whereas SAIL has
allowed seventeen percent (17%) of the Minimum Guaranteed Benefit to its employees which is six percent (6%)
more than what the employees of FSNL has been received. It is contended that this act of FSNL, Durgapur Unit is in
violation of Government Order No. ASP-6(6)/86 dated 24.07.1986. It is asserted that during the period from
01.01.2012 to 30.11.2016 SAIL paid six percent (6%) of Special Allowance at their revised Basic Pay to their non-
executive employees but the management of FSNL started to pay the Special Allowance at the rate of five percent
(5%) w.e.f. 01.12.2016 instead of paying six percent (6%) from 01.01.2012. Therefore, the non-executive employees
are entitled to get six percent (6%) of Special Allowance for the period from 01.01.2012 to 30.11.2016 and one
percent (1%) of the said allowance from 01.12.2016 till date. The petitioner union of FSNL has claimed
implementation of revised wage structure for the non-executive employees of FSNL according to the wage structure
of SAIL w.e.f. 01.01.2017 in terms of the Government Order No. ASP-6(6)/86 dated 24.07.1986. The union has
further contended that the employees of SAIL are already getting the benefit of pension for their non-executive
employees who are on roll from 01.01.2012 but the management of FSNL has not implemented any such pension
scheme to its non-executive employees which is in violation of Government Order. The union therefore has prayed
for issuing direction to the management of FSNL to make payment of the aforesaid dues in respect of the non-
executive employees and for implementation of wage structure according to the pay structure of the non-executive
employees of SAIL along with compound interest and compensation of an equal amount towards mental distress and
monetary loss caused by the management.
3. The management contested the case by filing written statement through the constituted attorney, wherein it is
stated that the union has no locus standi because they are not a recognized union The management of FSNL after
discussion with the recognized unions in a Joint Forum Committee meeting held on 13.04.2022 arrived at a decision
for wage revision of its employees from 01.01.2017 in line with the guidelines of the Department of Public
Enterprises. Proposal for revision of wage of workmen and Ministerial Staff of FSNL was adopted on the basis of
agreement and the Board of Directors of FSNL, in their 193rd Boad Meeting held on 20.05.2022 approved the
proposal for revision of wage. Subsequently the proposal for revision of wage was approved by the Ministry of Steel
vide its letter dated 15.06.2023 and an Office Order bearing Reference. No. FC/3362/2023 dated 19.10.2023 was
issued by the management. It is asserted that by virtue of the Office Order wage structure of workmen and Ministerial
Staff of FSNL have been revised w.e.f. 01.01.2017, which is produced as Annexure-A. It is stated that the arrears
accruing due to wage revision has been paid to the workmen and Ministerial Staff and the Industrial Dispute raised by
the union is liable to be dismissed.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
381
4. The short point for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the management of FSNL has implemented
wage revision to its non-executive employees of Durgapur Unit w.e.f. 01.01.2017. If not what relief the employees
are entitled to.
5. In order to substantiate their claim union has examined Mr. Haradhan Sain, General Secretary, Ferro Scrap
Nigam Limited Employees Union, Durgapur as Workman Witness – 1. The witness in his affidavit-in-chief has
reiterated the case disclosed in the written statement and further stated that the management of FSNL did not
implement the pension scheme for non-executive employees who are on rolls from 01.01.2012. though the employees
of SAIL are getting the pension benefit and this tantamount to violation of the Government order of 1986. Witness
further claimed that the non-executive employees are entitled to admissible wages along with compound interest
thereon till the payment is made. The witness has produced some documents which have been admitted in evidence as
exhibits as follows :
(i)
Copy of the Government Order dated 24.07.1986 has been produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of the letter dated 11.06.2019 issued by the Assistant General Manager I/C to Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Durgapur, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 29.04.2010, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.02.2011, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 30.12.2014, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Copy of the Minutes of discussions held in the Joint Forum Committee meeting on 29.12.2014 and
30.12.2014, as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
Copy of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 01.07.2014, as Exhibit W-7.
(viii)
Copy of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 20.09.2017, as Exhibit W-8.
(ix)
Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.10.2021, as Exhibit W-9.
(x)
Copy of the letter dated 12.08.2019 issued by Mr. Haradhan Sain addressed to the Managing
Director, FSNL, Bhilai, as Exhibit W-10.
(xi)
Copy of Certificate of Registration of Trade Union, as Exhibit W-11.
(xii)
Copy of the Acknowledgement Receipt for annual return of trade unions dated 15.03.2024, as
Exhibit W-12.
6. In his cross-examination the workman witness deposed that their Trade Union is registered under the Trade
Unions Act, 1926 and admitted that no letter of recognition has been issued in their favour. The witness further
deposed that there are thirty-two non-executive employees in FSNL, Durgapur as on June, 2024 and apart from
having Durgapur Unit, FSNL has other units at Burnpur, Bhilai, Vizag, Bokaro and few other places. In reply to a
suggestion on behalf of the management that revision of pay for non-executive employees in the Durgapur Unit of
FSNL has been made from 01.01.2017, the witness deposed that he is unaware about such revision of pay. It may be
derived from his cross-examination that as General Secretary of the union he participated in the settlement between
the management and workmen held on 11.02.2011. It also transpires from his testimony that he is aware about pay of
arrear of wages to the non-executive employees w.e.f. 01.01.2017 upon revision of wages. The management of FSNL
posed a question to the workman witness that a Joint Forum Committee was formed at FSNL, Durgapur and revision
of wages was made on the basis of an agreement between the members of union and employees at the Joint Forum
Committee meeting. The witness expressed his unawareness about such development.
7. Management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur Unit defending their claim examined Mr. Saurabh
Radhesham Tharewal, the Constituted Attorney, as Management Witness – 1. It is categorically stated in the affidavit-
in-chief that the Reference case is not maintainable because the union is not recognized and they have no authority to
raise the issue. It is further stated that FSNL has already made wage revision of its employees from 01.01.2017 to
31.12.2026, based on the agreement reached between the representatives of recognized unions and the management
of FSNL, which has been approved by the Competent Authority and arrears payment has already been made to the
concerned workmen. In support of such claim management has produced a Memorandum of Understanding arrived
between the management of FSNL and its recognized union at Durgapur dated 13.04.2022, the same has been
admitted in evidence as Exhibit M-1 and a corresponding Office Order bearing No. AFC/3362/2023 dated 19.10.2023
issued by the management of FSNL, implementing revised pay is produced as Exhibit M-3. A copy of letter of
recognition of the representative union dated 13.05.2015 issued to the President, Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited
Permanent Employees’ Union (INTTUC), Durgapur, by the AGM (P&A) has been produced as Exhibit M-2.
8. In course of cross-examination of MW-1 on being confronted with Exhibit W-1, a Government Order dated
24.07.1986, the witness deposed that he is aware about the Order of the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and
382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mines (Department of Steel), whereby the Government in principle has approved the revised wage structure of
staff/officers in Metal Scrap Trade Corporation / Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited followed in Steel Authority of India
Limited. The witness deposed that he is not aware if any such government order was passed by the Ministry of Steel
and Mines, Government of India after July, 1986 revoking or altering the order dated 24.07.1986. The witness further
deposed that FSNL is following the same order dated 24.07.1986 and after issuance of letter dated 11.06.2019
(Exhibit W-2) there has been revision of pay at FSNL w.e.f. 21.11.2017 as per terms of agreement between the
management of FSNL and the recognized unions. Witness admitted that a charter of demand dated 12.08.2019 was
received from the union and on the basis of Office Order dated 19.10.2023 (Exhibit M-3) issued by the General
Manager (P&A)/Law for revision of wages w.e.f. 01.01.2017 for all employees of FSNL in India at Bhilai,
Burnpur, Durgapur, Nagarnar, Rourkela and Vishakahpatnam units, the Joint Forum Committee at Durgapur had
taken a decision but representatives of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees’ Union, Durgapur were not intimated
to attend the meeting, since they are not the representative union. It is further stated that other union representatives of
other units were requested to participate in the meeting and the management of FSNL has following the government’s
direction regarding pay revision of its staff and officers. As per Memorandum of Agreement management has revised
the pay of the employees of FSNL, Durgapur from April 2010, which was given effect on 01.01.2007.
9. Mr. Asit Kumar Kolay, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the aggrieved union argued that FSNL,
Durgapur is a public sector undertaking under the Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of Steel). Referring to
Exhibit W-1, a copy of order dated 24.07.1986 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, submitted
that the workmen of Metal Scrap Trade Corporation and FSNL are entitled to revision of wages at par with employees
of SAIL. It is submitted that the management witness admitted that the decision of the government, communicated in
letter No. ASP-6(6)/86 dated 24.07.1986 is applicable to the employees of FSNL but the non-executive employees of
FSNL have not been granted the benefit of wage revision at par with employees of SAIL. Referring, to the
Memorandum of Agreement reached at National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry dated 29.04.2010 (Exhibit W-
3), it is submitted that as per Clause 3.1.4 “the employees covered by the Agreement and on the rolls as on 31.12.2006
would be entitled to a guaranteed benefit @ 21% Basic plus DA (78.2 %)” but the employees of FSNL were not
admitted to the guaranteed benefit and were paid only twelve percent (12%) to their non-executive employees as per
tripartite agreement as on 11.02.2011 (Exhibit W-4). Learned advocate for the union submitted that on 12.08.2019
the General Secretary of the union had issued a letter to the Managing Director of FSNL (Exhibit W-10) wherein
it had placed the Charter of Demands of the employees for the period from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2021 and urged the
management to invite the representatives of CITU to which their union is affiliated, to take part in the meeting for
wage revision of employees of FSNL, Durgapur. Learned advocate contended that though Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited
Employees’ Union, Durgapur is a registered Trade Union and produced its Registration Certificate as Exhibit W-11,
the management has illegally debarred the union from participating in the meeting for the wage revision. It is urged
that the management of FSNL should make necessary pay revision for its non-executive employees from 01.01.2017
at par with employees of SAIL.
10. In reply, Mr. Anupam Ghosh, learned advocate for the management submitted that his argument mainly rests on
two points. Firstly, whether the demand raised in the Industrial Dispute has been satisfied w.e.f. 01.01.2017and the
second limb of the argument would be on the issue whether the present union which raised the Industrial Dispute was
a recognized union at the relevant time, having bargaining capacity to participate in the tripartite agreement. Learned
advocate submitted that the management of FSNL has already revised the pay of non-executive employees w.e.f.
01.01.2017 and has also made arrear payments in respect of all the employees of Durgapur Unit. Referring to Exhibit
M-1, a Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the management of FSNL and its recognized unions on
13.04.2022 at Durgapur, in the matter of revision of wage structure of workmen, it is submitted that the recognized
union and the management of FSNL had signed a Memorandum of Agreement in Joint Forum Committee meeting
held on 19.12.2016 for revision of wage structure to FSNL w.e.f. 01.01.2012. The agreement was approved by the
Board of Directors in the 165th meeting on 18.01.2017 (Exhibit M-1). The Ministry of Steel also approved the same
and the wage agreement arrived on 19.12.2016 was implemented. Learned advocate referring to Exhibit M-3, an
Office Order of FSNL dated 19.10.2023 submitted that the wage structure was revised and implemented w.e.f.
01.01.2017. Learned advocate refuted the contention of the union that no wage revision had taken place for the non-
executive employees of FSNL.
11. The second leg of argument of the management is that the Memorandum of Understanding for revision of wages
agreed between the management of FSNL and its recognized unions in Joint Forum Committee meeting held on
13.04.2022 at Durgapur was subsequently approved by the Board of Directors of FSNL and the Competent Authority
of the Ministry of Steel, the Government of India. Mr. Prabhat Chatterjee, President, Durgapur Ferro Scrap Nigam
Limited Permanent Employees’ Union, Durgapur and Mr. D. R. Patra, of the same union from Durgapur participated
in that Joint Forum Committee meeting as recognized union along with other union representatives from Rourkella,
Burnpur, Vizag units of the company. It is contended that Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees’ Union (CITU),
Durgapur Unit was not a recognized union under Section 28-B of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and certificate of
recognition was not issued to them. Thus, the said Trade Union did not have any bargaining capacity in respect of the
wage revision of employees of FSNL. The Industrial Dispute therefore has no merit and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
383
12. Having considered the pleadings, evidence adduced by both sides and the argument advanced by the contending
parties, it appears to me that the bone of the contention is embedded in the issue of revision of wage of non-executive
employees of FSNL, Durgapur Unit. Initially, Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees’ Union (CITU), Durgapur Unit
which has raised this Industrial Dispute harped upon a case that no wage revision of non-executive employees has
taken place from 01.01.2017. It has relied upon a copy of letter issued from the Ministry of Steel and Mines
(Department of Steel) on 24.07.1986, wherein the Ministry conveyed the approval of the government to follow the
revision of wage structure of staff and officers in Metal Scrap Trade Corporation and FSNL at par with employees of
SAIL. It is the case of the union that at the time of revision of wage the employees of FSNL did not get the benefit of
revision of wage at par with SAIL. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon Exhibit W-3, a
Memorandum of Agreement dated 29.04.2010 executed at the National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry, which
assured the employees of SAIL to a guaranteed benefit @ 21% Basic plus Dearness Allowance (78.2 %). On the other
hand, it is argued that in the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the management of FSNL and Ferro
Scrap Nigam Limited Employees Union, Durgapur held on 11.02.2011 (Exhibit W-4). The employees of FSNL were
entitled to a guaranteed benefit @ 12% Basic plus Dearness Allowance (78.2 %) which is less by 9%. It is clear from
Exhibit M-1, which is a Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the management of FSNL and recognized
unions dated 13.04.2022 that there has been revision of wages of the employees of various units of FSNL, including
its Durgapur Unit. It was agreed between the stakeholders that the agreement for revision of wages would cover all
categories of workmen and non-executive employees of FSNL who were on the rolls of the company on 31.12.2016
and employed thereafter. The employees would be entitled to guaranteed benefit @ 12% Basic plus Dearness
Allowance as on 01.01.2017 and the revised wage structure on 01.01.2017 for different category of employee as per
Annexure-I. It was also laid down that payment of wage arrears would be effective from 01.01.2017 after signing the
tripartite agreement in the respective units.
13. An agreement was reached on 13.04.2022 (Exhibit M-1) in presence representative of workmen union of various
units including its Durgapur unit. In consonance with the agreement reached in Joint Forum Committee meeting
between the management and the recognized unions an Office Order dated 19.10.2023 (Exhibit M-3) was issued
wherein it is stated that the Board of Directors of FSNL as well as Ministry of Steel, Government of India, New Delhi
has accorded approval to the revised wage structure of workmen and ministerial staff of FSNL w.e.f. 01.01.2017. Mr.
Haradhan Sain (WW-1) in his cross-examination has admitted that the non-executive employees have received arrears
of wages w.e.f. 01.01.2017 upon revision of wages. The witness thereby contradicting his earlier statement that he
was not aware of pay revision of non-executive employees of FSNL, Durgapur made effective from 01.01.2017. The
contention of the union that no wage revision was made for the non-executive employees of FSNL, Durgapur from
01.01.2017 therefore, is a conscious misrepresentation and contrary to truth. The union which raised the Industrial
Dispute has failed to satisfy the requirement under Section 28-B of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The union has
produced their copy of the Registration Certificate as Exhibit W-11. Only after grant of certificate of recognition
under Section 28-B of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 in the prescribed manner, a trade union gets a bargaining right in
respect of the industrial establishment in a class of industry or in the local area as the case may be. In the instant case
the union has failed to produce any certificate of recognized trade union. It is crystal clear from Exhibit M-1 that Mr.
Prabhat Chatterjee and Mr. D. R. Patra, Durgapur Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Permanent Employees’ Union,
Durgapur were the representatives of the Durgapur Unit and participated in the Joint Forum Committee meeting held
on 13.04.2022 at Durgapur, along with other recognized union from other units of the company. The decision reached
in the agreement cannot be challenged by other unions which were not recognized trade unions at the relevant time.
Furthermore, the subject matter of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.04.2022 and the corresponding
Office Order dated 19.10.2023 (Exhibit M-3) have not been challenged in this case nor has the aggrieved union
impleaded the recognized unions which had participated in the meeting to arrive at an agreement. I therefore hold that
the Industrial Dispute raised by the aggrieved union agitating over the issue of non-revision of wage of the non-
executive employees of FSNL, Durgapur w.e.f. 01.01.2017 is not sustainable under the established facts and
provision of law involved. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. There is no merit in the claim of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited
Employees’ Union (CITU), Durgapur Unit. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the
Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for
information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 137.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मेससव एफआईएस ृेमेंट, सॉल् ूिन एंड सर्ववसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मेससव श्रेष्ठ जडटेजटटव एंड जसट ोररटीि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड
384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds ूजन न ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कोलकाता ds iapkV (23/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/43/2019-vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2025
S.O. 137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of
India; M/s. FIS Payment, Solution & Services Pvt. Ltd.; M/s. Shresth Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. and
Their Union.
[No. L-12012/43/2019-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 23 OF 2019
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
1. Bank of India,
2. M/s. FIS Payment, Solution & Services Pvt. Ltd.
3. M/s. Shresth Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd.
VS
Their Union
Appearance:
On behalf of Bank of India: Smt. Banirupa Dutta Chowdhury, Authorised Representative.
On behalf of M/s. FIS Payment, Solution & Services Pvt. Ltd. : Absent.
On behalf of M/s. Shresth Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. : Absent.
On behalf of the Union: Mr.Sudipta Saha Roy, Authorised Representative.
Dated: 20th November, 2024
ORDER
By order No. L-12011/43/2019 –IR(B-II) dated 08-11-2019, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of power conferred sub-section 1(d) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has
referred the following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
“Whether the action on the part of the principal employer i.e. Bank of India in changing the model of hiring
of services of the contractor which affected deployment of contract labour is legal and/or justified. Whether the action
on the part of the contractor i.e. M/s. FIS Payment, Solution & Services India Pvt. Ltd., in retrenching services of the
workmen Abdul Aziz Malita and 21 others (as per list enclosed) working as caretakers through its sub-contractor M/s.
Shresth Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 01-08-2019, without complying section 25(F) of the I.D. Act is legal
and/or justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
The facts giving rise to the present dispute in gist is that Bank of India, for the safety and security in running
ATMs in different locations in the State of West Bengal, had engaged contractors for providing men
powers/Caretakers through tenders. The same set of Caretakers continued to work in the ATMs of the bank with the
changes of different contractors on expiry of their tenure or terms of agreement.
That M/s. FIS Payment Solutions & Services India Pvt. Ltd., the main contractor of the bank had engaged
three sub-contractors namely M/s. Shresth Detective and Security Pvt. Ltd., M/s. An Hour Solution Pvt. Ltd. and
M/s. Visual Securas Ltd. for providing Caretakers in different ATMs of the Bank. Those sub-contractors engaged the
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
385
concerned workmen as Caretakers, who were already working with the previous contractor for more than ten years,
but all on a sudden those three sub-contractors served notice of termination upon those 22 workmen on 01-08-2019,
without complying the statutory provisions of I.D. Act and in violation of section 21(24) of Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1940.
It has been alleged by the union, which has espoused the dispute that those principal contractor and sub-
contractors were compelled to issue notice of termination as bank has decided to abolish the post of Caretakers at
ATMs. Therefore, the union has alleged that termination of the service of those 22 Caretakers by the contractors at the
instance of the bank is illegal and void ab initio and has prayed payment of terminal benefits, statutory payment and
compensation u/s 25-F of the I.D. Act, for having served the bank for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
The bank has contested the case of the union by filing written state where it has categorically the reference is
not maintainable against it as there exists no employer-employee relationship between it and those 22 workmen
recruited by or engaged by the contractors whose tender for supply of men power was accepted by it. It has further
alleged that those 22 workmen were engaged by M/s. Shresth Detective and Security Pvt. Ltd. and they were under
the pay roll of M/s. Shreshth Security Pvt. Ltd. and who was a sub-contractor of M/s. FIS Payment Solutions &
Service India Pvt. Ltd.
It has also alleged the bank had entered into service agreement with M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service
India Pvt. Ltd. for providing daily rental modular ATMs with rent different from phase to phase. The daily rent was to
cover different set of services including deployment of caretaker/ site attendant. That as per the agreement M/s. FIS
Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. was to provide service on operational expenditure model and for which
bank was to pay fixed service fee for uses of those ATMs along with various services provided including service of
caretakers/site attendance.
In a bid to rationalise ATM operation Board of the Bank approved e-surveillance of ATMs and as such the
contract which it had with M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. for providing caretaker service at
ATMs got terminated. Consequently, M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. too terminated its service
agreement with its sub-contractors for providing men power or caretakers w.e.f. 01-04-2019. Those workmen not
being engaged by it directly were not its employee and as such there exists no industrial dispute between it and
contractors’ employees. Thereby, it has prayed for dismissal of reference against it.
The union reiterated what it has stated in its claim statement, in its rejoinder. The record shows the contractor
employer M/s. Shreshth Detective Pvt. Ltd. has been proceeded exparte as it has failed to put appearance and contest
the dispute. That in order of reference there is no mention of other two contractors namely An Hour Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. and Visual Securas Ltd. The union too has failed to implead them as parties to this proceeding.
The union in order to its case and claim has examined Sri Raja Ali Seikh, one of the workmen as W.W.1 and
Sri Ranjit Das Adhikary, another workman as W.W.2. The union has produced and exhibited following documents
through W.W.2 :-
1. Copy of 22 letters of termination issued by An Hour Solution Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Visual Securas Ltd. and
M/s. Shresth Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. and which have been marked as Exb.W-1 to Exb. W-1/V.
2. Photocopy of union’s letter dt.21-05-2019 addressed to DLC (C ) and which has been marked as Exb.W-
2 and
3. Copy of conciliation failure report of DLC, Kolkata dt. 25-09-2019 and which has been marked as
Exb.W-3.
On the other hand the Bank has examined its Chief Manager Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey as M.W. 1 and who
has proved following documents :-
1. Copy of agreement for outsourcing of installation and managed services for 1500 cash dispenser
machines dt. 22-05-2014 executed between Bank of India and M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Services
India Pvt. Ltd. and which has been marked as Exb.M-1.
2. Copy of Master Services Agreement with effective date from 01-04-2019 executed between M/s. FIS
Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shresth Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. for
providing caretaker and house-keeping services and which has been marked as Exb.M-2.
3. Two Copies of same Master Services Agreement with effective date from 01-04-2019 executed between
M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. and An Hour Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for providing
caretaker and house-keeping services and which has been marked as Exb.M-3 and Exb.M-8.
4. Copy of mutual termination agreement executed between M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India
Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shresth Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. on 01-04-2019 and which has been marked
as Exb.M-4.
386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. Copy of mutual termination agreement executed between M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India
Pvt. Ltd. and Visual Securas Ltd. on 01-04-2019 and which has been marked as Exb.M-5.
6. Copy of mutual termination agreement executed between M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India
Pvt. Ltd. and An Hour Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on 01-04-2019 and which has been marked as Exb.M-6 and
7. Copy of Master Services Agreement with effective date from 01-04-2019 executed between M/s. FIS
Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. and Visual Securas Ltd. for providing caretaker and house-
keeping services and which has been marked as Exb.M-7.
Both union and bank have filed written notes of argument. The bank has placed reliance on Steel Authority
of India & Ors. –vs- National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors., reported (2001) 7 SCC 1.
From the documents filed by the bank it appears that Bank of India had outsourced the installation and
managed services for 1500 cash dispensers throughout India on an opex basis daily rental model for a period upto 31st
December, 2020 with FIS payments Solutions & Services India Ltd. on 22nd May, 2014.
That M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. had engaged sub-contractors namely M/s. Shresth
Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd., An Hour Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Visual Securas Ltd. for supply of Caretaker and
Housekeeping services by executing Master Services Agreement on 2nd day of February 2018 and on 1st April, 2019
till the date of termination on occurrence of certain events as provided in the agreement.
Thus, from the documents exhibited by the bank, it appears that bank had sourced out the installation and
maintenance of Cash Dispensers Machines at its different ATM Kiosks to M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India
Pvt. Ltd. and who in turn sourced out the job of caretakers and attendants to three different sub-contractors named
above. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that Caretakers and Attendants deployed by three sub-contractors of M/s.
FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. were never engaged directly by the bank. Consequently, there exists
no direct relationship of employer- employee between bank and those persons engaged as Caretakers and Attendants
by three sub-contractors to work for M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. at ATM Kiosks of Bank of
India, installed and maintained by it.
Exhibit W-1 to W-1/V prima facie shows that the service of those caretakers and attendants supplied by three
sub-contractors of M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. to work in the ATM Kiosks maintained by
M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. were terminated as bank had terminated the agreement which it
had for installation and maintenance of ATM Machines with M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd.
sometime in the month of May and June, 2019 i.e. within two or three months of execution of Master Service
Agreements on 1st day of April,2019 by M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. with its three sub-
contractors.
Further, Exb. M-4, M-5 and M-6 shows that M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. executed
mutual termination agreement on 1st day of April, 2019 the day it executed Master Service Agreement with those
three sub-contractors. However, from Exb.M-4, M-5 and M-6 it is seen that those three sub-contractors had entered
into an agreement with M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. for providing caretaker services on 02-
02-2018 and such agreement was terminated on 1st April, 2019, the day another fresh Master Service Agreements
were executed.
However, this tribunal is of view the contractor employees or their union have no right to decide on the
internal management policy of the bank and they cannot raise their voice for withdrawal of caretaker and attendant
service from ATMs of the bank or they cannot say that internal management policy of the bank is illegal just because
the changed policy has affected continuity of their service at ATM Kiosks. No Court of Law can dictate a bank how
to frame its management rules and policy or interfere with its management policy or administrative policy. The bank
is at liberty to frame its internal management rule and policy within the framework of Constitution of India and so
long the same is not illegal or irrational. Nothing has come on record to prove the change in policy by bank in running
the ATM without caretaker/ attendant to be ultra-virus and illegal
Nevertheless, the union which has raised the dispute has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show
that 22 workmen named in Exb.W-1 to W-1/V were all along engaged by M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India
Pvt. Ltd. through its sub-contractors from 2014 and those 22 workmen continuously worked for M/s. FIS Payment
Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. at Bank of India’s ATM Kiosks for more than 240 days in a calendar year or to
prove violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act by both the sub-contractors and M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service
India Pvt. Ltd., the principal contractor of the bank.
Nothing has come on record to show that those 22 workmen were engaged on permanent basis by their
respective immediate employer i.e. sub -contractors of M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd. In fact,
nothing has come on record to show on what terms and conditions those 22 workmen were engaged as caretakers and
attendants by those three sub-contractors i.e. whether on contractual basis or on permanent basis. If they had been
appointed on contractual basis or on tenure basis, then their service will automatically come to an end on the expiry of
the contract or on the expiry of the tenure for which they have been engaged. Had they been engaged by those
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
387
sub-contractors on permanent basis then question of retrenchment will arise but no evidence whatsoever have come
on record to prove the nature of their appointment/ engagement.
In view of the above, this Tribunal is of view the union which has raised the present dispute has failed to
substantiate its claim and case by adducing cogent documentary evidence, such as appointment letter, pay slip, EPF &
ESI slips or any such document from where the nature of appointment can be proved or engagement of those 22
workmen for more than 240 days in a calendar year to saddle the principal contractor and its sub-contractors with the
statutory liabilities under the Labour Laws or the termination of service of those 22 workmen to be illegal. In fact it
has come on record their service got terminated on termination of contract by the principal employer with its service
provider contractor i.e. M/s. FIS Payment Solution & Service India Pvt. Ltd.
Accordingly, the Reference No. 23 of 2019 is dismissed and an award to that effect is passed.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 138.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj
ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ि ृुर ds iapkV (26/2012) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/54/2011-vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 26/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab
National Bank and Punjab National Bank Workers Organization.
[No. L-12011/54/2011-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
vuqyXud
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 26@2012
Reference No. L-12011/54/2011-IR (B-II) Dated: 19.01.2012
egkl
¼jktLFkku½A
------izkFkhZ
cuke
1-
-----vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mifLFkr%&
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
% vf/kfu.kZ; %
fnukad %03-10-2024
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 19-01-2012 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947
dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn
U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“Whether the action of the management of Panjab National Bank, Jaipur in not giving fix pay of
Rs. 295/- to Shri Hari Kishan Sharma and Laxman Singh w.e.f. 11.06.2007 is legal and justified?
What relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”
2- fnukad 19-02-2015 dks izkFkhZ dh vksj ls nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd bl
Z vkSj y{e.k flag foi{kh cSad esa fyfid oxZ esa dk;Zjr gS]
rFkk lhdj vkSj fcnklj 'kk[kk esa inLFkkfir gSA nksuksa Jfed izkFkhZ laxBu ds lnL; gSA foi{kh }kjk
fnukad 10-06-2007 dks bu nksuksa Jfedksa dks v/khuLFk oxZ ls fyfidh; oxZ esa inksUufr nh xbZA
inksU
8640@&:-
- ,oa y{e.k flag ewy osru 78910@&:-
505@&:-A foi{kh rFkk cSad deZpkfj;ksa ds laxBuksa ds chp lEiUu le>kSrs ds vuqlkj fnukad 10-06-
2007 dks inksUufr ij bu nksuksa Jfedksa dk osru 10]000@&:- ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;kA fnukad 11-
06-2007 dks ;s nksuksa Jfed 295@&:- fQDl ilZuy is Hkh izkIr dj jgs FksA ilZuy fQDl is dks
inksUufr ij fdl izdkj lajf{kr fd;k tkos ;g ekeyk fopkjk/khu FkkA 2007 esa Li"Vhdj.k izkIr gqvk
ftlds vuqlkj ewy osru ij osru fu/kkZfjr djus ij iwoZ esa nh tk jgh ilZuy is vafre LVst rd
igqpus rd ns; gSA tks bu Jfedksa dks ugha nh xbZA vr% okn Lohdkj dj nksuksa Jfedksa dks fnukad
11-06-2007 ls 295@&:- fQDl ilZuy is rF
3- fnukad 23-09-2015 dks foi{kh us oknksRrj esa ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ dks inksUufr ds le; osru fu/kkZj.k
-ih-ih- tksM+ dj inksUur in dk osru ykHk fn;k x;k gSA
fdarq izkFkhZ us bl rF; dks tkucw> dj Nqik;k gSA Jfed y{e.k flag izkFkhZ laxBu dk lnL; ugha
osru@ ,Q-ih-ih- fu;ekuqlkj ns; ugha gSA ;fn ,Q-ih-ih- dks 'kkfey ugha fd;k tkrk rks budk
fQVesaV 10]000@&:- ls de ij gksrkA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
4- fnukad 15-01-2020 ls izkFkhZ dks lk{; izLrqr fd;s tkus dk volj fn;k x;kA fnukad 23-05-2022 dks
vafre volj fn;k x;kA rnqijkar izkFkhZ }kjk of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks volj fn;s
x;s vkSj vafre volj vfHko`} fd;s x;sA fnukad 30-05-2024 dks 500@&:- ifjO;o vkjksfir djrs
gq;s volj iqu% fn;k x;kA fdarq dksbZ ifj.kke n`f"Vxr ugha gqvkA fnukad 11-09-2024 dks izkFkhZ
vdkj.k vuqifLFkr jgkA blfy;s lk{; izkFkhZ dk volj lekIr dj fn;k x;kA foi{kh dh vdkj.k
vuqifLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s foi{kh dh lk{; Hkh lekIr dj nh xbZA
5- bl fookn esa izkFkhZ us vius vfHkopuksa ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gSA tcfd foi{kh us
izkFkhZ ds vfHkopuksa dk [k.Mu djrs gq;s okn fujLr djus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA
6- izkFkhZ ds lk{; ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd izkFkhZ laxBu ds Jfed Jh
- fQDl is fnukad 11-06-2007 ls u fn;s tkus dk foi{kh
dk d`R; voS/k o vuqfpr gksA blfy;s lk{; ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ] foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus
dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
7- lanfHkZr fookn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA
8-
izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
389
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 139.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
सजचव, कॉ र िोडव, कोचीन, केरल; क्षेत्री कॉ र जवकास अजिकारी, आरसीटी और डीसी, रािमुंिरी, ई िी, के प्रिंितंत्र
के संिद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सज ि मौलाना,कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-
श्रम न् ा ाल - िजिरािाि ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा LC 9/2008) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज
िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-42025-07-2025-32-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 9/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Secretary, Coir Board, Cochin, Kerala; The Regional Coir Development Officer, RCT & DC,
Rajahmundry, E G, and Shri Syed Moulana, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 27.01.2025.
[No. L-42025-07-2025-32-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 10th day of January, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 9/2008
Between:
Sri Syed Moulana,
S/o Sillar, Ex-Safaiwala,
D No 1-3-87, Beside Masjid,
Pichen, Line,
Samalkot, East Godavari District
….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Secretary,
Coir Board, Cochin
Kerala State.
2.
Regional Coir Development Officer
RCT & DC, Rajahmundry, E G District
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
A K Jayaprakash Rao & M Govind, Advocates
For the Respondent:
M/s. Ravinder Viswanath, Advocates
390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Sri Syed Moulana, who worked as Safaiwala (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition
under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Coir Board seeking for declaring the
proceeding dated 28.1.2003 issued by Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently
directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as
continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems
fit.
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that Petitioner worked as Ex-Safaiwala and he got terminated by Respondent on 28.1.2003. Further, it
is submitted that the Petitioner was drawing wages of Rs.1300/- per month. It is submitted that the Petitioner served
demand letters on dt.12.1.2004 and subsequently reminders on dt.24.5.2004, 21.7.2005 and the latest being on
dt.22.6.2006 to the employer by Registered Post with acknowledgement due to reconsider the decision of termination
of his service and to take him back with service benefits. The Respondent neither send any reply nor reconsider his
case. It is submitted that Petitioner did not approach any other authority or Forum for getting the dispute settled. It is
submitted that the workman has registered his name with Employment Exchange in the year 1992 and belongs to
Schedule Caste. The 2nd Respondent called for interview vide letter dt.2.8.1994 and according to which Petitioner
attended interview on 12.8.1994 and thereby he was appointed vide order dt.28.9.1994, as Safaiwala and he reported
duty in October, 1994. The workman was appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.750/- per month. The workman
submits that clear vacancies were existing in the office of 2nd Respondent, however, after completion of 89 days, the
management shown break of about 1 or 2 days and used to issue fresh appointment letters which action has been
evident from the Memo dt.27.4.1995 and on dt.16.7.1995. The workman submits that he had worked for more than
240 days continuously, but the management shown artificial breaks in service, obviously to evade regularization of
the service of the workman. After the latest engagement of 89 days of spell in the year 1995, without there being any
intimation or notice, the service of the workman was terminated. However, during the tenure of his employment, the
workman approached the High Court and filed a W.P.No.23063/1995 along with one Mr.K.Yeseph in which interim
direction was granted to continue the workmen in service and as such the workmen were continued in service.
However, at later stage in the year 2002, the Writ Petition was dismissed, as the issue relating to fact finding of the
contention raised, therefore, the High Court observed that the contentions have to be agitated under the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Subsequently, in the year 1996, the consolidated pay was enhanced to Rs.1300/- per
month, vide order No.66 dt.5.8.1996. It is submitted that during the interregnum while the workman was in
continuous service in pursuance of the interim order of the High Court, the 1st Respondent issued an Office Order
No.32, dt.17.5.2000 under which the workman was given temporary status of a Group D Employee as he rendered
more than 240 days in a year. According to the above referred circular, the workman (i) is entitled for wages at daily
rates with reference to the minimum of the pay scale for a corresponding regular Group D Official including DA,
HRA and CCA. (ii) is entitled to increments at the same rate as applicable to a Group D Employee (ii) is also eligible
for leave on a pro-ratabasis (iv) is also entitled that his half of the service rendered under temporary status would be
counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularization (v) is entitled to be treated on par with temporary
Group D Employees for the purpose of contribution to GPF after 3 years continuous service after conferment of
temporary status and till then the workman would be considered for Product Linked Bonus/Adhoc Bonus. The name
of the workman is shown at Serial No.6 of the said proceeding. Contrary to the above referred circular dt.17.5.2000,
the management terminated the service of the Petitioner w.e.f.28.1.2003. The management alleged that it had sent the
termination notice to the workman and in fact made up a story of return of the same notice due to non delivery, and as
such published in a News Paper. It is submitted that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court while dealing
with number of Writ Appeals filed by the Coir Board against its employees, decided the issue on dt.9.6.2006 that the
Coir Board is an industry within the meaning of provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. The present case on hand also has
similarity as to violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and also in violation of the
Circular dt.17.5.2000 issued by the management. Hence, the present ID proceedings are initiated against management
for appropriate relief in favour of the Petitioners and against the management. Even as seen from the Paper
Publication, the Proceedings are dt.18.3.2003 and the date of effect of termination is 28.1.2003. In view of the
settled principles of law, the termination cannot be effected with retrospective date, hence, the order of termination is
liable to be set aside. The workman has approached the management for reinstatement him into service on
22.12.2007 but Management did not respond positively, hence, this petition. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order
dt.18.3.2003 terminating the workman w.e.f. 28.1.2003 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent to
reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits.
3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
It is submitted that the Coir Board had established four regional Coir training and development centres, one each in
Thanjavur (Tamilnadu), Arsikere ( Karnataka), Rajahmundry, (A.P), and Bhubaneswar (Orissa). The staff for these
centres were to be appointed on deputation basis from the state governments concerned after an initial period of
operation of five years. From the above, it is clear that no staff were able to be appointed by the Coir Board on
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
391
regular basis, in these centres. It is submitted that in the case of the Petitioner, Shri. Syed Moulana, he was engaged as
a contingent Safaiwala in the hostel attached to the RCT&DC( Regional Coir Training and Development Centre) at
Rajahmundry for a period of 89 days w.e.f 17.10.1994. It is submitted that he was given a consolidated pay of
Rs.700/ per month. After the initial 89 days, after a break, he was again engaged as contingent Safaiwala for another
89 days period with the same consolidated remuneration. Further, it is submitted that since the services of Petitioner
was not required for the hostel attached to the RCT&DC (Regional Coir Training and Development Centre),
Rajahmundry, his engagement was discontinued. At that time, Petitioner moved the Hon’ble High Court,
Hyderabad filing a Writ Petition No. 23063/ 1995. As per the interim directions of the Hon’ble High Court in
W.P.23063 / 1995, the Petitioner was re-engaged from 20.10.1995. Subsequently, the consolidated remuneration
being paid to him was enhanced to Rs. 1,100/- p.m w.e.f 1.8.1996. It is submitted that the Petitioner was absenting
from duty during the period 6.8.1998 to 31.1.2001. It is submitted that Petitioner was given temporary status of a
group D employee vide Office Orders No.32 dated 17.5.2000. In the meantime, correspondence was going on with
the Central Government on the matter of transfer of RCT&DCs to the state governments concerned. Since the State
Government were not coming forward to take over these Centres with the men and machinery available in the
Centres, ultimately the Central Government issued a direction to the Coir Board to close down the Centres and
discontinue the activities through them vide letter No.7(22)/95-Coir dated 4th July, 2000. Thus, the activities in the
RCT&DCs, Rajahmurndry were stopped w.e.f 31.3.2001. The Petitioner was still continuing in the service by the
virtue of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.23063 / 1995. But the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment
dated 22.11.2002 dismissed the above writ petition filed by the Petitioner. It is submitted that in the light of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the engagement of relevant the Petitioner was terminated w.e.f.
28.1.2003 and termination order was sent by registered post to the contingent staff but it was returned undelivered.
Therefore, the notice was published e in the local newspaper on 21.1.2003. With respect to the allegation that the
termination Order cannot be effected with retrospective date, it may kindly be noted that the termination notice was
first sent to him in his postal address by registered post promptly. But, since the same was returned after some days,
undelivered, the same was issued in the local newspaper as per procedure. This was the fact against which the public
notice was issued on 28-01-2003 for termination of the engagement of the Petitioner. Therefore, prayed to dismiss
the petition with costs.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of both parties and arguments advanced, the following points emerge for
determination:-
I. Whether the action of the Respondent management in terminating the services of the Petitioner workman vide
order dated 28.1.2003 is legal and justified?
II. To what relief the Petitioner is entitled for?
Findings:-
5. Point No.I: Petitioner claims that he joined the services of Respondent on 28.9.1994 as safaiwala. The Workman
was appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.750/- per month and from the date of joining till termination he worked
continuously with unblemished record of service. Further, Petitioner submits that he had worked for more than 240
days of continuous service in every completed year. Further, it is submitted that Respondent in the month of October,
1995 gave artificial break. Thereafter, Workman approached Hon’ble High Court and filed WP No.23063 of 1995
along with another employee and the Hon’ble High Court passed the order in WPMP number 28326 of 1995, Ex. W6
directing the Respondent to continue the Petitioner in the service pending disposal of writ petition. Further, it is
submitted that from 1995, Respondent continued the services of the Petitioner without giving any break in the service.
Further, it is submitted that first Respondent issued an office order No. 32 dated 17th May, 2000, Ex.W8 under which
they have given temporary status of a Group D employee to the employees who completed 240 days of service, as the
Petitioner has completed 240 days of continuous service in every completed year, the Respondent gave the temporary
status of Group D employee to the Petitioner also along with other employees and the name of the Petitioner appears
in the office Order No.32 dated 17.5.2000 at Sl No. 6. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner was granted
temporary status by Respondent No.1 in the said office order but the Respondent has terminated the services of the
Petitioner with effect from 28.1.2003 and the said action of the Respondent is illegal and contrary to the law. Further
Petitioner has submitted that Respondent has terminated his services in violation of provision of Section 25 F of
ID Act. To fortify the claim, Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and filed chief affidavit of wherein has
reiterated the averments made in petition. WW1 Witness has also exhibited 11 documents in support of the claim i.e.,
Ex. W1 to W 11.
6. Perusal of the docket reveals that despite sufficient opportunity accorded to him, Respondent did not adduce any
evidence nor cross examined witness WW1. Therefore, case was set exparte against the Respondent. As the
Respondent did not cross examine Witness WW1, the deposition of the witness remained uncontraverted. The
Petitioner has filed documents in support of his the claim which we proceed to discuss one by one. Ex. W1 is the
memorandum dated 28.9.94 issued by the Management Coir Board for appointment of Petitioner Sri Syed Moulana at
the hostel attached to RCT &DC, Rajahmundry on contingent basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.700/- per month.
Further Ex.W2 is another memorandum dated 27.1.1995 issued by Regl.Coir Dev. Officer of the Respondent, which
392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reveals that again the Petitioner Md. Moulana was offered the post of Safaiwala for 89 days at the hostel attached to
Regl.Coir Training and Development Centre, Rajahmundry on contingent basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.700/- per
month. Further, Ex.W3 is another memorandum issued by COIR Board to the Petitioner for the post of Safaiwala, at
the hostel attached to Regional Coir Training and Development Centre, Rajahmundry on contingent basis dated
16.7.1995 for a period of 89 days. Ex.W4 is an affidavit which has been filed in writ petition No.23063 of 1995 by
Petitioner. Further Ex.W5 is the counter copy of affidavit filed by Respondent. Further Ex.W6 is copy of order of
High Court of AP wherein High Court has ordered that notice issued to the Respondents into show cause why this
application of the Petitioner Sri Md. Moulana should not be complied with and it is further ordered that the
Respondents herein and hereby are directed to continue the Petitioner in Service pending further orders on this
petition. Thus, Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 13.10.1995 has directed the Respondent to continue the
Petitioner in services till further orders. Ex.W7 is the copy of another memorandum dated 20.10.1995, issued by Coir
Board, Regl. Coir Dev. Officer-I, Rajahmundry the contents of the aforesaid is extracted below:-
“ In pursuance of the orders cited, Sri. Md. Mowlana, Safaiwala at hostel attached to Regl. Coir Trg. & Dev. Centre,
Rajahmundry is continuing his service in same post until further orders.”
Thus, in view of the order dated 13.10.1995 of Hon’ble High Court of AP in the WPMP No. 28326/1995
Respondent was directed to continue the services of the Petitioner in the same post until further orders. Further, Ex.
W8 is the office order No.32 dated 17.5.2000, of Respondent whereby the Petitioner was conferred the temporary
status of Group D in the service of the Respondent. Ex.W9 is the Newspaper publication of notice of Termination of
Petitioner dated 18.3.2003 wherein it is mentioned that services of the Petitioner Sri Syed Moulana and Sri K. Yeseph
of Rajahmundry are no longer required as the activity of the Centre has been discontinued. Therefore, the services of
the Petitioner are not required in pursuance of the order dated 22.11.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court of AP in WP
No.23063 of 1995. Further, it is mentioned in the said notice that the termination order was sent by RPAD which
was undelivered, hence the same was published in the newspaper. Therefore, with the dismissal of the writ petition,
the services of the Petitioner was terminated by the Respondent management with effect from 28.1.2003 for the
reason assigned that the activities of the centre has been discontinued.
7. Admittedly, the activities of the centre of the Respondent has been discontinued vide letter dated
Issued by Government of India whereas the Respondent centre has been closed due to discontinued of its activities,
the provision of Sec.25FFF would apply to the case of Petitioner.
In this context, I would like to make the reference of Section 25 FFF which reads as follows:-
25FFF. Compensation to workmen in case of closing down of undertakings.
(1)Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous
service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions
of sub-section (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25-F, as if the
workman had been retrenched:Provided that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable
circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation to be paid to the workman under clause (b) of
section 25-F, shall not exceed his average pay for three months.
Further, in this context, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. The
Workmen & Ors. 1973 Air page 878 have held,
“According to sub-s.(2) of s. 25FFF it is quite clear that in case of closure of the categories of undertakings as
mentioned therein, no workman employed in those undertakings can claim compensation under cl. (b) of S. 25F. The
language of s. 25FFF(2) is plain and unambiguous. Indeed, the learned counsel for the Respondent also did not
dispute that if it were to be held in this case that the undertaking had been closed down then cl. (b) of S. 25F would
not be attracted and Shri Naidu would not be entitled to claim relief under that clause. According to Shri Madan
Mohan, however, the present was not a case of closure of the undertaking. His submission was that only the work of
the Housing Project at Ranchi had been completed. It was argued that unless the entire undertaking of the appellant
was closed down not acceptable. The word undertaking as used in S. 25FFF seems to us to have been used in its
ordinary sense connoting thereby any work, enterprise, project or business undertaking. It is not intended to cover the
entire industry or business of the employer 'as was suggested on behalf of the Respondent. Even closure or stoppage
of a part of the business or activities of the employer would seem in law to be covered by this sub-section. The
question has indeed to, be decided on the facts of each case",,,. In the present case the Ranchi (1) [1957] S.C.R. 121.
Housing Project was clearly a distinct venture undertaken by the appellant and it had a distinct beginning and an
end. Separate office was apparently set up for this venture and on the completion of the project or enterprise that
undertaking was closed down. The Tribunal has actually so found. Its conclusion has not been shown to be wrong and
we have no hesitation in agreeing with its view. There is no cogent ground for reopening the Tribunars conclusion
under Art. 136 of the Constitution. It is also noteworthy that Shri Naidu had been recruited to the work-charged
establishment of the Ranchi Housing Project. In Workmen of the Indian Leafs Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v.
Management(1) closure of eight out of 21 depots of the company though not amounting to, closure of its entire
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
393
business was considered, to amount to a closure within the contemplation of s. 25FFF. In Parry & Co. Ltd. v. P. C.
Lal(2) it was observed that it was within the managerial discretion of an employer to organise and arrange his
business in the manner he considered best and that if a bona fide scheme for such re-organisation results in
surplusage of employees, no employer is expected to carry on the burden of such economic deadweight and
retrenchment has to be accepted as inevitable, however unfortunate. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions
support the appellant's argument.”
8. From the perusal of evidence on record it is established that the activities of the Respondent management has
been closed and consequently, the services of the Petitioner was no more required in the Respondent office and
Petitioner was terminated with effect from 28.1.2003. In this context, Respondent has also filed a document that
goes to reveal that Regional Coir Development Officer, Rajahmundry Government of India, has written a letter to the
Chairman, Coir Board, Ernakulam, regarding subject of transfer of Regional Coir Training and Development Centre
to the State Government and contents of para 2 of the said letter is extracted as under:-
“The issue of continued retention of these Centres by the Coir Board has been carefully examined in this Ministry in
consultation with the Integrated Finance Wing and it has been decided that Coir Board may in accordance with the
prescribed administrative procedure forthwith dispense with the services of the staff engaged on contractual/casual
basis at these centres, as there is no Government sanction for the engagement of this staff. A compliance report in
this regard may please be sent to this Ministry by 24th July, 2000.”
Thus, the service of staff engaged on contractual /casual basis at the centre of Respondent has been dispensed with
as there was no Government sanction for engagement of the staff.
9. Therefore, in view of the above the circumstances was beyond the control of the Respondent, and it was decided
to close activities of the centre. Consequently services of the staff engaged on contractual /casual basis at the centre
as there was no government sanction for the staff engaged on contractual /casual basis at the Centre. Thus, for the
want of sanction of contract to engage the staff, the services of the Petitioner was terminated and that circumstances
was beyond the control of the Respondent management due to closure of its activity. Considering the evidence on
record produced by Petitioner which is uncontraverted, it is established that the undertaking of the Respondent was
closed down due to want of sanction from the Government of India to engage the staff and it is also established.
Petitioner workman has been in continuous service for not less than one year in the Respondent centre immediately
before such closure. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation to be paid under clause (b) of Sec.25F
which shall not exceed his average pay for three months under the I.D. Act, 1947. As regard compliance of the
provision of the notice and compensation to the Petitioner according to the provision contained under section 25 F(b)
of the ID Act is concerned, the averment of the Petitioner in this respect remained uncontraverted that the
Petitioner’s services has been terminated in contravention of the provision of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to compensation in accordance with the provision contained under Section 25F of the
Act.
10. In view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the services of the Petitioner
has been terminated under section 25FFF of the I.D. Act. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation as provided under
Section 25F of the Act.
This point is answered accordingly.
11.
Point No.II:- Since the termination of the Petitioner was due to the closure of the activities of the
Respondent management for the want of sanction, in view of the provision of Section 25 FFF read with Section
25F(b), Petitioner is entitled for compensation as per Section 25 F(b).
This Point is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In view of the fore gone discussion and finding arrived at Points No. I & II, I hold that Petitioner’s
services has been terminated by the Respondent under provision of Sec.25FFF due to closure of activities of its
centre and he is entitled for compensation as per provision contained u/s.25F(b) of I.D. Act, 1947.v Hence, the
Petitioner is entitled to his average pay of three months. Respondent is directed to pay compensation to the Petitioner
as per provision contained u/s25F(b) of I.D. Act, 1947 within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
Petition partly allowed accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 10th day of January, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Syed Moulana
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of memorandum dt.28.9.94 issued by Respondent appointing Petitioner
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of memorandum dt. 27.1.95 issued by Respondent appointing Petitioner
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of memorandum dt. 16.7.95 issued by Respondent appointing Petitioner
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of affidavit filed in WP 23063/95 dt.12.10.95
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of counter affidavit filed in WP 23063/95
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of interim direction in WPMP 28326/1995 in WP 23063/95
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of order of Respondent dt.20.10.95 to continue the Petitioner in service
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of circular dt.17.5.2000 conferring temporary status to Petitioner
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of paper publication dt.18.3.2003, terminating the services of Petitioner
Ex.W10: Photostat copy of common order in batch of writ appeals dt.9.6.2006
Ex.W11: Photostat copy of office order no.51 dt.18.12.2015 regularising the services of similarly placed workers at
R.O., Bhubaneswar by the Board
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 140.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन मए 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार अिीक्षण अजभ ंता (जसजवल), मेससव िीएसएनएल, डािागाडवन्स, जविा ाृत्तनम, के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्रीमती िी. ृद्मा, कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -
िजिरािाि ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा LC 5/2010) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-40012/02/2010-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 5/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Superintending Engineer (Civil), M/s. BSNL, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam, and
Smt. B. Padma, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
27.01.2025.
[No. L-40012/02/2010-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of January, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 5/2010
Between:
Smt. B. Padma,
S/o L. Vijaya Kumari,
D.No.5-6-(9), Lakshmi Devi Peta,
Anakapalli,
Visakhapatnam(A.P.)
….. Petitioner
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
395
AND
The Superintending Engineer(Civil),
M/s. BSNL,
Civil Circle, D.No.29-6-3, 2nd floor,
Lalitha Colony, Dabagardens,
Visakhapatnam -530 020.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. B. J. Krishna Mohan & N.V.S.S. Papa Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri K. Mohan, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 40012/ 2/2010-IR(DU) dated 15.4.2010
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. BSNL and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Superintending Engineer, BSNL, Visakhapatnam in terminating
the services of Smt. B. Padma w.e.f 1.9.2009 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 5/2010 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:
The workman submits that under an application she was selected and appointed as Group "D" Part Time Sweeper
cum water woman with the employer w.e.f. 19th June 1984 and she rendered continuously the service so, she was
categorized as Beldar cum peon w.e.f. June, 1994 and that while she was working so with the department of
Telecommunications (DOT), Anakapalli and that from June 1994 in the office of the Executive Engineer M/s. B.S.NI
Civil Division, Visakhapatnam being sponsored from the regional employment exchange and got selected and
working on wages of Rs. 1, 500/- per month and the nature of duties were stitching of files, posting of letters at Post
Office, carrying and handing over letters etc.,to different units, taking Xerox copies, paper filing and estimated
stitching. supplying water and tea and other works entrusted by the officers of the employer and the hours of duty per
day were of 08 to 10 hours. It is submitted that the work that she was doing was perennial in nature and that while
she was working uninterruptedly for more than 240 days in a year in all those years continuously. It is further
submitted that no smart practices were on her part she was terminated from service unceremoniously w.e.f.
01.10.2003 under violation of the statutory provisions of law relating to the industrial jurisprudence and consequently
she raised an industrial dispute before the Authority appointed under the Act of 1947 which inter alia convened joint
meetings between the employer and the workman and finally parties to the dispute under their volition got entered
into a settlement dated 31.03.2004 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and consequently the
workman was reinstated w.e.f. 02.04.2004 with continuity of service from the date of termination .i.e. 01.10.2003 till
02.04.2004 as if there was no termination at all and ever since then she has been working uninteruptedly duly working
for more than 240 days a year in all these years. During 1995 to 1999 attendance registers had also been maintained
by the department. It is submitted that the letter dated 10.11.1982 being notified by the DOT, Anakapalli bears the
name of the workman (L. Padma by then), and copy of the settlement dated 31.03.2004 under Section 12(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Further it has also been represented to the concerned authority for regularization of the
services of the workman through the Auhority appointed under the Act of 1947 vide representation dated 23.01.2004.
It is submitted that during that period the workman got so many employment opportunities but she remained back
with the employer owing to the assurance given by the concerned authority that her services could be absorbed and
permanency be granted with higher benefits than the one she could get elsewhere. That apart she is a member of the
Scheduled Caste. It is submitted that I was appointed substantively against sanctioned post. The alleged name as
"Contract Labour" is only sham and nominal. It is a camouflage to prevent the workman from claiming the benefits of
Labour Laws that are applicable in the circumstances. Ipso facto there is no mediator in the matter of either
appointment of the workman or her continuance of the service with the employer. The employer used to maintain an
attendance register. Copies of the attendance registers for the period of 1995 to 1999 are herewith annexed. As the
services of the workman are continuous in the same department the entire service of her be computed for all the
purposes. It is submitted that the workman is now age barred and ineligible for any other employment in any
statutory establishment and she is the bread winner to the large family. It is submitted that the workman in toto
rendered 25 years of unblemished service to the employer straining herself from dawn to dusk with a fond hope that
in all just and fairness that her services could be continued till she attains superannuation. But, services of workman
396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
were uninterrupted and she was denied even temporary status in consonance of the notification of the Department of
the employer apart from being denied equal pay for equal work which was a constitutional guarantee to which the
workman is fairly entitled to. It is further submitted that she raised an industrial dispute. Hence prayed to declare the
alleged contract employment as bogus, a sham and nominal and that the action taken by the employer is unjust, unfair,
illegal, arbitrary, vindictive, an unfair labour practice but also unreasonable and unsustainable under rule of law and
direct the employer to reinstate the workman with all consequential and attendant benefits., continuity of service with
full back wages for the period from date of arbitrary termination i.e. 01.09.2009 till date of actual reinstatement for
the workman has not been employed gainfully ever anywhere and that she is also entitled for absorption with the
employer in lieu of the nature and length of service she rendered.
3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:
At the outset Respondent denied various allegations made by the Petitioner except those which are specifically
admitted. It is denied that the claimant was selected and appointed vide application with effect from 01.03.1996
Divisional Engineer, B.S.NL, Srikakulam and that the salary was fixed at Rs.1200/- per month and that she worked
for 10 to 12 hours per day is also denied. It is submitted that no such person has been appointed and no such
appointment letter has been filed by the claimant and it is submitted that the appointment cannot be made by the
Superintendent Engineer as the procedure of appoint of staff is decided by the Central Office. It is also denied that the
claimant had worked for 240 days uninterruptedly. It is submitted that the claimant was neither appointed nor
terminated as such the very fact that the claimant states that her salary was Rs.1200/- per month falsifies is contention
and suffice to state that the claimant was never appointed hence the question of terminating does not arise and no
piece of paper has been filed to establish the same. It is submitted that the procedure for appointment is governed by
the Constitution of India and there cannot be any other mode of appointment as such the claim of the claimant has to
be rejected. It is denied that the Petitioner has obtained order from the Asst. Commissioner of Labour under the
name of B.Padma under representation dated 23.01.2004 but it is suffice to state that the description of the said
employee does not tally with the Petitioner and the claim is now time barred. That Respondent had given any
assurance to the claimant is denied. It is submitted that the contention of claimant that she was shown a contract
labour is contradictory to her claim wherein she claims to have been appointed. It is submitted that whenever the
Respondent took contract labour, the contract between the Respondent and the labour contractor and Respondent
never paid any amount directly to the labour, and has no concern as to who would be engaged by the contractor. It is
suffice to state that no documentary evidence has been filed to show that the Respondent has engaged the service and
paid the wages, which falsifies the claim of the claimant. It is denied that claimant has rendered services of 25 years,
as per records of the Respondent and the question of sudden and surprise un ceremonious action does not arise. It is
submitted that the claimant had claimed at he was appointed by Respondent on his application and now the claimant
claim that job works were carried by contractors. It is submitted that odd jobs were given in contract to contractors
and the amounts were paid to the contractors, and the contention of the claimant that the same is sham and unfair is
contrary to the record and suffice to state that the claimant has not produced a single piece of paper to establish that he
was employed by the Respondent and terminated on 10.10.2003 and it is submitted that the appointments were done
as per the rules by the Central Office and no recruitments are done directly by the department itself. The claimant
was never employed and as such is not a workman of the Respondent and not entitled to raise the disputes under the
Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim of the claimant.
4. On the basis of rival pleadings following points emerged for determination in the present matter:-
I.
Whether the action of the management of Superintending Engineer BSNL Visakhapatnam Intermediate in the
services of Smt. B Padma w.e.f. 1.9.2009 is legal and justified?
II. To what relief the Workman is entitled for?
Findings:-
5. Point No.I:- As per claim of the Workman, she was selected and appointed as Group D part time sweeper cum
water woman with the employer with effect from 19.6.1984 and she rendered continuous service. Further, it is
submitted that she was categorised as Beldar cum Peon with effect from June, 1994. That while she was working so
with the Department of Telecommunications, Anakapalli in the office of the Executive Engineer, M/s. BSNL, Civil
Division, Visakhapatnam being sponsored from the regional Employment Exchange and got selected and working on
wages of Rs.1500/- per month. Further, the nature of duties were stitching of files, posting of letters at post office,
carrying and handing over letters etc., to different units, taking Xerox copies, paper filing and estimated stitching,
supplying water and tea and other works entrusted by the officers of the employer. Further, it is submitted that hours
of duty per day were 8 to 10 hours and she was doing the work of perennial in nature and she was working
uninterruptedly for more than 240 days in a year, in all those years, continuously. Further, it is submitted that
Respondent in violation of the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 has terminated the Workman from service
unceremoniously with effect from 1.10.2003. Further, it is submitted that Petitioner raised industrial dispute before
the authority appointed under the Act who convened joint meetings between the employer and the Workman and
finally, parties to the dispute under their volition got entered into a settlement dated 31.3.2004 under section 12(3) of
the I.D. Act, 1947 and consequently the Workman was reinstated with effect from 2.4.2004 with continuity of service
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
397
from the date of termination i.e., 1.10.2003 to 2.4.2004 as if there were no termination at all and ever since she has
been working uninterruptedly for more than 240 days a year, in all these years. Further, it is submitted that during
1995 to 1999 attendance registers had also been maintained by the department. She has filed the letter dated
10.11.1982 being notified by the DOT, Anakapalli wherein the name of the Workman is mentioned and also filed the
copy of settlement dated 31.3.2004 under Section 12(3) of ID Act.
6. Per contra, Respondent has filed counter wherein it is contended that the claim of the Petitioner is neither
maintainable in law nor on facts and liable to be dismissed. Further, it is denied that claimant Workman was an
employee of the Respondent. Further, it is submitted that as per record of the Respondent, the Petitioner was never
employed by the Respondent. Further, it is submitted that the Workman is not employee of the Respondent and
address of the Respondent given by the Petitioner is incorrect. Further, it is contended that the Workman was not
selected and appointed vide application with effect from 1.3.1996 and it is also denied that salary of the Workman
was Rs.1200/- per month and she worked for 10 to 12 hours per day. Further, Respondent submitted that the
appointment cannot be made by the Superintendent Engineer as the procedure of appointment of staff is decided by
the central office. It is also denied by the Respondent that claimant had worked 10 to 12 hours per day and that she
worked for 240 days uninterruptedly from 1.3.1996 to 10.10. 2003. Respondent contended that claimant was neither
appointed nor terminated and that her salary was Rs.1200/- per month falsifies her contention. Further, the claimant
was never appointed. Hence the question of terminating her services does not arise. Workman has not filed any piece
of paper to establish the claim of her appointment in the Respondent office. The procedure for appointment in the
Respondent organization is governed by the Constitution of India and there cannot be any other mode of appointment.
As such the claim of the claimant has to be rejected. Further, Respondent denies that Petitioner has obtained order
from ALC(C), under name of Smt. B Padma in her representation dated 23.1.2004. But it is suffice to state that the
description of this employee does not tally with the Petitioner.
7. Further, Respondent contended that the claimant has claimed as she was appointed by this Respondent and she
was shown as a contract labour, which is contradictory to her claim, that she has been appointed. Further, Respondent
denies that the contract labour is a sham and that they always work under the Respondent. It is suffice to state that no
documentary evidence has been filed to show that the Respondent has engaged her service and paid wages, which
falsifies the claim of the claimant. Further, Respondent also denies that claimant has rendered service of 25 years.
But as stated supra, the claimant was never employed. Further, it is contended that the Workman is not a Workman of
the Respondent and not entitled to raise the dispute under the I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, prayed that the claim of the
Workman be dismissed with costs.
8. The workman has examined herself as WW1 and also filed the documents in support of claim, i.e., Ex.W1 to W9.
On the other hand, Respondent has filed evidence affidavit of MW1 and MW2, and MW1 was cross examined by the
Counsel for workman and Respondent has also filed the documents i.e., 49 documents. Although the affidavit of
MW2 was filed by the Respondent, along with the aforesaid 49 documents, but as the witness MW2 was not
produced for cross examination, therefore, the evidence of the MW2 is not admissible as per rule of evidence.
9. In view of the submissions and evidence on behalf of rival parties, let us proceed to examine whether the action
of Respondent in terminating the services of the Workman vide order dated 10.10.2003 is justified. The Workman
herein Smt.B. Padma has examined herself as WW1 and in her chief affidavit she has reiterated the averments made
in the claim statement. In cross examination WW1 states:-
“I was appointed through my brother Srinivas Rao who was working as a clerk in BSNL. I cannot say if I can
examine him(Srinivas, my brother). It is not correct to say that I am depositing falsehood and that I know the above
contractors and that I was appointed through my brother i.e., Srinivas. It is true that I have not mentioned in my
claim statement that I was appointed through my brother nor in my evidence affidavit.
It is not true to say that Ex. W5 attendance register is a bogus one and fabricated document. It is not true to say that I
was working under BSNL and that this company has no link with me. It is not true to say that I was working under the
contractor and getting salary from them. My name was there in the attendance register and as well as acquaintance
roll. It is not correct to say that my name was not there in attendance register and payroll register. It is not true to say
that I have not worked from 15.4.1996 to 10.10.2009 under the Respondent. It is not true to say that, I only worked
under the contractor and not under the BSNL management.”
10. In support of her claim, Workman has also filed the documents in evidence. Ex.W1 is the list dated 10.11.1982
of Candidates found suitable for being engaged as a casual Mazdoor in P&T department, and the name of the
Workman herein bears at Sl.No.33. Thus, from Ex.W1 it is established that the Workman was engaged as casual
mazdoor vide order dated 10.10.1982 issued by A. Krishna Rao, Sub -Divisional Officer, Telecom, Anakapalli.
Further, Ex.W2 is the representation dated 23.1.2004 written by Workman, L. Padma to the, TK Panda, Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Visakhapatnam asking for regularization, and regular employment as sweeper cum water
woman in Telecom Civil Wing. Ex.W3 is the memorandum of Settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 on 31.3.2004, before the ALC(C), Visakhapatnam, between the management of M/s. BSNL represented by
Executive Engineer, Civil Division, Visakhapatnam and Smt. L. Padma as sweeper cum water woman in BSNL.
The extract of terms and conditions of settlement are as under:-
398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The management will allow the Workman to join the in duty as a part time sweeper with effect from 2.4.2004.
2. She will be given wages as paid before.
3. The period of her idle employment, i.e., from the date of termination, i.e., 1.10.2003 to the date of reinstatement,
2.4.2004, will be counted towards her seniority.
The settlement reached out of goodwill and volition of the parties.”
Thus, settlement has been signed by all three parties, management, workman and the ALC(C), Sri TK Panda on
31.3.2004. The Ex.W3 memorandum of settlement reveals that the workman was reinstated in the service of the
Respondent management as a part time sweeper with effect from 2nd April 2004. The document Ex.W4 is the
document of birth certificate of the Workman. Ex.W5 contains the photocopies of register of attendance pertaining to
the year 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999. It goes to shows that the Workman Smt. B. Padma along with other
workmen Sri K.G.K. Murthy and Sri M. Srinivasa Rao has attended the duties in all working days in the Respondent
office. Although Respondent has tried to question the genuineness of these documents of attendance register, but the
seal of the Respondent management has been affixed on these attendance registers which prima facie proves that
workman had attended the duties on the days which has been marked in attendance register. Therefore, according to
preponderance of probability, these documents are taken into consideration for establishing the fact that the Workman
Smt. B. Padma had worked in the Respondent office during the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999.
10.
Workman Smt. B Padma claims that she has been terminated from the service by the Respondent with effect
from 1.9.2009 and she had worked uninterruptedly for more than 240 days in a year, in all those years, continuously.
Now, let us examine whether workman herein had worked in the Respondent employment for 240 days continuously
in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination, i.e., 1.9.2009 as per requirement of provision under
Section 25F of the ID Act.
11. However, Respondent has questioned the maintainability of the claim statement/ Petition filed by the workman
in the present matter. From the perusal of evidence of WWI and document Ex.W3, it is established that Petitioner
had worked as a part time sweeper in the Respondent management with effect from 2.4.2004. Ex.W3 is
Memorandum of Settlement dated 31.3.2004 arrived at between the workman and Management before ALC(C) and
as per Memorandum of Settlement-Ex.W3, Respondent has been directed to allow the workman to join the duty as a
part time sweeper w.e.f. 2.4.2004. This settlement dated 31.3.2004 is binding on both parties , the workman as well
as the Respondent Management in view of the provision of Sec.18(3)(a) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, as a Part
time sweeper workman was in the employment of Respondent and she has right to file petition under the provision of
I.D. Act, 1947 for redressal of her grievances of termination. Therefore, the argument of Respondent in this regard is
not tenable.
In this context, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. A. Sankaralingam, AIR 2009 SC page 309 is relevant wherein Hon'ble Court have held,
“12. It will be seen from a perusal of the aforequoted passages that the observations made therein clearly suggest that
a workman employed on a part time basis but under the control and supervision of an employer is a workman in term
of Section 2(s) of the Act, and is entitled to claim the protection of Section 25F thereof, should the need so arise. The
fact that the workman was working under the control and supervision of the appellant employer is admitted on all
sides.
Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the Workman herein who was
employed as a part time employee by Respondent is covered under the definition of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947 and hence have right to file petition under provision of I.D. Act, 1947.
12. Now, we have to examine in the matter at hand whether the workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar
year just preceding from the date of her termination, i.e., 1.9.2009. Before appreciation of the evidence adduced by
the Workman in this regard, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provision pertaining to the retrenchment
under I.D. Act, which are reproduced as under:-
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions 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 such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
399
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service:-
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
In the context, onus of proof to prove the plea of 240 days of continuous working by workman in a Calendar year
just preceding the date of termination, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Essen Deienki Vs. Rajiv Kumar
AIR 2003 SC page 38, have held:-
“The proof of working for 240 days is stated to be on the employee in the event of any denial of such a factum and it
is on this score that this Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25) was pleased to state as
below :
" In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the
basis of cogent evidence that the Respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was
then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient
evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a
year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this
period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. ."
Further, in the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex
Court held:
"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
Therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, the onus of proof lies upon the
shoulder of the Workman herein and she has to prove that she had worked 240 days continuously in a calendar year
just preceding her date of termination, i.e., 1.9.2009, in the employment of Respondent as she had claimed. The
perusal of record reveals that workman herein has not filed any documentary evidence, i.e., any appointment letter,
salary slip or attendance register pertaining to the year 2009 to substantiate her claims that she had worked for 240
days continuously in the employment of Respondent. Therefore, for the want of evidence of 240 days continuous
service in a calendar year, we are unable to accept the plea of the Petitioner that she had worked 240 days in a
calendar year continuously just preceding from her date of termination, i.e., 1.9.2009. In order to claim the
protection against illegal retrenchment under section 25 F of the ID Act, the onus of proof lies on workman to prove
mandatory requirement of continuous working of 240 days in employment of Respondent but the workman has
400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
utterly failed to prove her case on this premise. Thus, in view of the above, I am constrained to hold that the
Workman failed to discharge the onus of proof to establish the claim of continuous working 240 days in a calendar
year just preceding her date of termination, therefore, the claim of the workman that she has been terminated in
contravention of provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947 is not tenable.
13. On the other hand, Respondent has examined MW1 in support of the contention made in counter wherein it has
categorically been stated by MW1 that the witness denies that the Petitioner was working for 10 to 12 hours per day
and had worked for 240 days uninterruptedly in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination from
service. Further, MW1 states that no such appointment of workman was made by the Respondent Corporation.
Further, Respondent contended that a writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court and while disposing the
writ petition, Hon’ble High Court has directed the Tribunal to adjudicate the present ID independently without being
influenced by any of the observation made in the order passed in I.A. for production of the documents and examining
the circumstances stated by the Respondent corporation as to the same is justified or not. Further, MW1 witness
states that as per rules the documents are/were destroyed after 5 years and the documents sought to be produced are
voluminous documents which having no relevance to the case. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner had stated
that they were appointed by the Respondent corporation initially and in their own claim statement they stated that
they were engaged as contract labour. Hence, Respondent corporation cannot produce said documents and the claim
of the claimant itself is speculative. In cross examination MW1 states that, it is not true to suggest that workman
has rendered 13 years service in Respondent management. The Respondent has also filed the photocopy of the
extract page of “P T F.H.B. VOL.I” wherein it is mentioned that period of preservation of the record has been
mentioned in that extract, that provides, registers are maintained for the period of 5 years and muster Roll and
Register of muster rolls are also maintained upto 5 years.
14.
Thus, in view of fore gone discussion and law laid down by Hon’ble Court as discussed above the Workman in
the present matter has failed to establish her claim that her termination vide order dated 1.9.2009 was in violation of
the provisions contained under Section 25 F. Therefore, action of the Respondent management in terminating the
services of Smt. B. Padma is held legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I is decided against the workman accordingly.
15. Point No.II:- In view of the finding arrived at Point No.I, workman failed to establish her claim of illegal
termination, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief.
Thus, Point No.II is decided accordingly.
AWARD
The action of the management of Superintending Engineer, BSNL, Visakhapatnam in terminating the
services of Smt. B. Padma w.e.f. 1.9.2009 is held legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as
prayed for. Petition is dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 9th day of January, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri B. Padma
MW1: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of office memo of the employer notified the list of names sponsored by Employment
Exchange dt. 10.11.1982
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of representation to ACL(C)23.1.2004
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of settlement u/s 12(3) of Act dt.31.3.2004
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of nativity, caste and DOB dt.30.6.1998
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of attendance 1995-99
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of representation to ACL(C) dt.1.9.2009
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of remarks of employer filed before ACL(c) dt.14.10.2009
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
401
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of proceedings relating to the post of workman dt.13.11.95
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of memo of D/o Telecom dt.28.6.2000
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 141.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार मिाप्रिंिक, िीएसएनएल, िूरसंचार जिला, गुंटूर, के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री िे.एस.वी.डी. भास्ट्कर,
कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल - िजिरािाि ृंचाट (संिभव
सं् ा LC 22/2009) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के
सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-40012/29/2009-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 22/2009) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The General Manager, BSNL, Telecom District, Guntur, and Shri J.S.V.D. Bhaskar,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.01.2025.
[No. L-40012/29/2009-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 6th day of January, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 22/2009
Between:
Sri J.S.V.D. Bhaskar,
S/o J. Ramana Babu,
R/o 26-34-16, A.T. Agraharam,
9th Lane, Opp. SKBMH School,
Guntur -4.
….. Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
BSNL, Telecom District,
Guntur.
…. Respondent
402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Vidyasagar, K. Udayasree & P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/29/2009-IR(DU) dated 21.5.2009
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of BSNL and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Guntur in terminating the services of their workman Shri
J.S.V.D. Bhaskar w.e.f. 6.8.2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 22/2009 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner joined the Central Telegraph Office as Telegraphic Messenger on 27.3.2003. He
worked continuously and discharged his duties as Telearaphic Messenger with utmost satisfaction of his superiors. It
is submitted that there were about 8 Telegraphic Messengers working at Guntur circle and they used to work for more
than 10 hours in different shifts as per the allotment of shifts by the Respondent Management. The Respondent used
to pay Rs.20/- per day for the line works and Rs.1/- for each telegram. Now, the workmen are being paid Rs.40/- per
day and Rs.2/ per each Telegram for delivering telegraphic messages. The Petitioner has to take his own cycle and
deliver the same nook and corner villages. Though, the amount paid to the workmen is meager, they are discharging
duties under the fond hope that their services would be regularized and that they would be paid regular scale of pay.
Since workman worked considerable length of time, they made representations to the Respondent requesting for
regularization of the services and also for regular scale of pay. On the ground that the workmen made representation
for regularization and other benefits, they were informed orally that they need not attend for duties w.e.f. 6.8.2008.
Immediately, workman approached the authority requesting to continue the services of the workmen as Telegraphic
Messenger. However, the Respondent has not taken him into service. Therefore, the services were terminated orally
with effect from 06/08/2008 which is wholly illegal arbitrary and unjust. It is submitted that as there was no other
alternative, the BSNL contract casual employees and labour Union, approached the Assistant Commissioner of
Labour(Central) Vijayawada, later the dispute was referred to this Tribunal hence, this ID. It is submitted that
Petitioner worked in the Respondent with the meager salary under the fond hope that his services would be
regularized in future and he will get benefits to which he is entitled to from the date of his appointment. But, till
date, the Respondent has not regularized the services of the Petitioner. When Petitioner along with others formed
Union and made representation with regard to grievances of the workman, the Respondent started victimizing against
the Petitioner and other workmen and ultimately their services were terminated w.e.f. 6.8.2008 without assigning any
reasons. It is submitted that after disengaging the services of the workman, the Respondent has engaged other
workmen viz., Sri K. Nagabhushanam, Sri Subba Rao, and Sri Goverdhan as Telegraphic Messengers, which is
wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Further the Respondent
have called for tenders for delivery of "C" Telegrammes work and work order has been issued to M/s. Rana Man
Power & Placement Services Private Limited, Guntur, to that effect Petitioner herein filing payment bills vide Bill Dt.
11/03/2010 and 11/04/2010. It is submitted that the workman has worked for more than 4 to 5 years of continuously
without any break, and the workman has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. Hence, the workman is
entitled to notice, notice pay before termination from the employment. However, the Respondent has not issued any
notice nor any compensation in lieu of notice as per Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the
Respondent has violated the Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the termination is illegal and the
workman is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in catena of decisions held that the temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. In
the given case, all the workmen have been disengaged by engaging fresh workmen as Telegraphic Messenger, which
is nothing but violation of Section 25 (g) and (h) of Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that as per 25 (G) and (H)
seniority list of employees has to be prepared and no such seniority list is prepared. It is submitted that though the
workman continuously worked more than 240 days in a calendar year, the Respondent used to pay the wages for five
days in factious names in order to avoid regularization and other benefits, to which the workman is entitled to. It is
submitted that the workman did not secure any employment in any other organization on the ground that his services
would be absorbed in the Respondent organization. By virtue of oral termination, the workman was deprived of
livelihood. It is therefore prayed to declare the action on part of the Respondent in terminating the services of the
Petitioner orally w.e.f. 6.8.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently directing the Respondent to reinstate
the Petitioner into service, with continuity of service, full back wages and other attendant benefits.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
403
3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:-
It is further submitted that the BSNL Contract Casual Employees and Labour Union is not having any locus standi to
espouse the cause of Petitioner herein. It is submitted that the Respondent engaged the Petitioner for delivery of
telegrams occasionally on coolie basis and he was paid Rs.2/- per delivery of each telegram vide orders of the General
Manager, Telecom No.A31/ACTTS/MISC2001-02 dated 03.12.2001. The Petitioner was neither recruited nor
appointed as Telegram Messenger in the Respondent organization. There is no privity of contract between the
Petitioner and Respondent. There is no employee employer relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent.
Therefore the Petitioner can not avail the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that, the
Respondent did not appoint the Petitioner and there is no privity of contract and therefore the question of removing
his services by the Respondent does not arise. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 was pleased to held that absorption,
regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or adhoc employee appointed/
recruited dehorns the constitutional scheme or public employment on issuance of directions by court and issuance of
such directions amount to creating another mode of public employment which is not permissible. In the present case
the Respondent engaged the Petitioner only for delivery of telegrams occasionally on coolie basis and he was paid
Rs.2/- for delivery of each telegram and therefore the Petitioner is not having any right to seek employment with the
Respondent. Moreover the Petitioner without intimating to the Respondent stopped coming to deliver the telegrams.
Therefore he can not claim that the Respondent engaged him and terminated his services. Viewed from any angle the
claim of the Petitioner is frivolous and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The contentions of the
Petitioner that he joined Central Telegraph Office as Telegraphic Messenger on 01.01.1999, worked continuously,
discharged his duties as Telegraphic Messenger with utmost satisfaction of his superiors etc., false, baseless and not
tenable and the Petitioner may be put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the Respondent engaged the
Petitioner for delivery of telegrams occasionally and in view of the same the allegations mentioned by the Petitioner
are false and untenable. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner and other personnel engaged by the Respondent for
delivery of telegrams occasionally on coolie basis on payment of Rs.2/- for delivery of each telegram they were
neither recruited nor appointed as telegram messengers in the Respondent organization. Therefore the question of
terminating his services orally w.e.f. 06.08.2008 by the Respondent does not arise. The Petitioner without intimating
to the Respondent stopped coming to deliver the telegrams. The further contention of the Petitioner that the workman
worked considerable length of time, they made representations to the Respondent requesting for regularization of the
services and also for regular pay of scale etc., is untenable. The Petitioner engaged for delivery of telegrams
occasionally on coolie basis by paying Rs.2/ per telegram is not entitled for regularization. The union is not having
any locus standi to represent or espouse the cause of the Petitioner since the Petitioner is not a workman as defined
under Section 2 (s) of the I.D.Act and therefore he can not be represented by the said union. It is submitted that
Respondent never informed the Petitioner that his services will be regularized in future since the Respondent never
recruited or appointed him as Telegram messenger and he was engaged only for delivery of telegrams on piece rate
basis. Therefore when there is no employee employer relationship and Petitioner stopped delivery of messages
without intimation, the question of termination of his services by the Respondent does not arise. It is submitted that a
tender was called for delivery of telegrams and work order has been issued to M/s.Rana Man Power and Placement
Services Private Limited, Guntur since there is no alternative to the Respondent to do the same as the Petitioner and
other similarly situated personnel who were engaged for the purpose of delivery of telegrams stopped delivery of
telegrams without intimation. The other allegations with regard to violation of provisions of I.D.Act etc., are false and
untenable. The question of violation of Section 25 (G) and (H) of the I.D.Act by the Respondent does not arise. The
contentions of the Petitioner that the junior to him was considered for employment is denied for the reason that the
Petitioner is not an employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner was engaged for delivery of telegram occasionally on
coolie basis and he never continuously engaged for 240 days in a calendar year as employee of the Respondent. He
was not paid either daily or monthly wages. The Respondent never informed the Petitioner that his services would be
absorbed in BSNL Organization. He was never recruited, neither appointed nor was terminated and hence the
question of reinstatement does not arise. In view of the above, the petition be dismissed as devoid of merits.
4. Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties as well as perused written arguments.
5. On the basis of rival contentions and pleadings of both the parties, following issues emerge for
determination in the instant matter:-
I.
Whether the action of Respondent Management of BSNL, Guntur in terminating the services of Petitioner Sri
J.S.V.D. Bhaskar with effect from 6.8.2008 is legal and justified?
II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for regularization?
III. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed?
Findings:-
6.
Point No.I:-It is the claim of the Petitioner that he joined the service of the Central Telegraph Office as
telegraphic messenger on 27.3.2003 and he worked for more than 4 to 5 years continuously without any break.
Petitioner submits that he has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year hence, he is entitled to notice, notice
404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
pay before terminating from the employment. However, Respondent did not issue any notice nor paid compensation
in lieu of notice under Section 25F of ID Act and Respondent has terminated Petitioner from service in violation of
the provision contained under section 25 F of ID Act and termination order of Petitioner is illegal and he is entitled
to reinstatement in the service with all consequential benefits. Further, Petitioner submits that Supreme Court in
catena of decisions has held that temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. In the
instant matter all the workers have been disengaged by engaging fresh workmen as telegraphic messengers by the
Respondent in violation of section 25G and H of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Petitioner claims that his termination order
dated 6.8.2008 be set aside and Respondent be directed to reinstate him into service.
7. In support of plea in evidence Petitioner, has filed affidavit of WW1 wherein witness has reiterated the
averments made in the claim statement, WW1 states that his service was terminated orally on 6.8.2008 by the
Respondent in contravention of the provision of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. WW1 was cross examined by the
Respondent counsel and in his cross examination, WW1 states as under:-
“No appointment letter was issued to me for delivery of telegrams. It is not true to suggest that Respondent used to
take work from me as and when required. It is true that as per Ex.W17, I have worked 18 days in the month of April,
2002 and I have worked 22 days in the month of June 2002, I have worked for 22 days in the month of July, 2002 and
20 days in the month of August, 2022. It is not correct to say that I have not worked 240 days in any calendar year.
The Witness volunteers that he has worked 360 days in a year without any holidays. I have not given any complaint
to the Labour Department complaining that Respondent is taking our service in the holidays. I have not given any
complaint that though I have worked under the Respondents but instead of my name, others name have been
mentioned in the record. I have not made any complaint to that effect. It is not true to suggest that management has
not appointed me as telegram messenger. Therefore the question of terminating me on 6/8/2008 does not arise.”
From the above statement of WW1 it manifest that workman did not complete 240 days continuous service in the
year 2002. Further, Petitioner was not issued any appointment letter therefore, it is established that he had worked as
a daily wager in the Respondent office.
8. Further, WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent regarding documents, Ex.W18 the bunch of photo copies,
to which Petitioner claims that it pertains to the allotment of duty charts and work chart, details of messengers,
timings of duty hours and payment of bills pertaining to Petitioner for the period from 27.3.2003 to till date of
termination i.e., 6.8.2008. WW1 in his cross examination states:-
“ It is true that Ex. W18 pertains to only for the years 2006 and 2007. It is not true to suggest that Ex.W18 dates are
not continuously appearing. I have obtained the Xerox copies of Ex.W18 from one Mr Anand Rao, Attendar in the
year 2007. It is not true to suggest you that I have prepared Ex. W18 and filed before this Court. The Ex.W18
contains the signature of Sr. Assistant and rubber stamp pertains to Sub Divisional Engineer. It is not true to suggest
to that Ex.W18 does not disclose that I have worked for 240 days in the Respondent. It is not true to suggest that I
have fabricated the document Ex.W18 for the purpose of this case.”
It manifest from the above statement of WW1 that he has not filed any document of duty chart and timings of duty
hours and payment of bill pertaining to year 2008 in which he was terminated. These photocopies pertains to the yea
2006 and 2007 only. Now, we proceed to examine the evidence lead by the Petitioner on record in support of his
claim.
9. It is settled law that for taking a plea about retrenchment in violation of provision of Section 25 F of ID Act,
the workman has to establish that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year or 240 days
continuously in service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination, under that employer who
has retrenched him from service.
Before evaluating evidence on record in support of claim of Petitioner, it would be relevant to reproduce here the
provision of Section 25 B of ID Act which defines the term continuous service of Workman, that reads as under:-
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
405
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its number of decisions has elaborated the concept of continuous service in a
calendar year u/s 25F of I.D. Act as required for valid retrenchment under I.D. Act, 1947 and few decision are
discussed as follows:-
In the case of Sur Enamel and Stamping works Private Limited Vs. their workmen, referring to Section 25 B,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term continuous service as under:-
"The position therefore is that during a period of employment for less than 11 calendar months these two persons
worked for more than 240 days. In our opinion that would not satisfy the requirement of section 25B. Before a
workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an industry it must be shown first
that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 calendar months and, next that during those 12 calendar months
had worked for not less than 240 days. Where, as in the present case, the workmen have not at all been employed for
a period of 12 calendar months it becomes unnecessary to examine whether the actual days of work numbered 240
days or more. For, in any case, the requirements of section 25B would not be satisfied by the mere fact of the number
of working days being not less than 240 days."
In Mohan Lal Vs. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics, dated 21.4.1981AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1253, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court have held,
It was, however, urged that section 25F is not attracted in this case for an entirely different reason. Mr. Markendaya
contended that before section 25F is invoked, the condition of eligibility for a workman to complain of invalid
retrenchment must be satisfied. According to him unless the workman has put in continuous service for not less than
one year his case would not be governed by section 25F. That is substantially correct because the relevant provision
of section 25F provides as under:
"25F. "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 such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for
the termination of service;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent of fifteen days'
average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate government by notification in the Official Gazette)."
Reverting to the facts of this case, admittedly the appellant was employed and was on duty from December 8, 1973 to
October 19, 1974 when his service was terminated. The relevant date will be the date of termination of service, i.e.
October 19, 1974 Commencing from that date and counting backwards, admittedly he had rendered service for a
period of 240 days within a period of 12 months and, indisputably, therefore, his case falls within section 25B(2) (a)
and he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of Chapter VA.”
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
In the case of Mohan Lal vs. Management, BEL 1981 SCC P. 225, Hon'ble Apex Court held, "Before a
workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act. he has to show that he has
been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from service."
406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 B of I D Act and Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as discussed above, we have to examine whether the retrenchment of Workman by Respondent vide order
dated 6.8.2008 was in contravention of the provision contained under section 25 F. As per provision contained in
Section 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947, the workmen has to prove the fact of continuous service of 240 days in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of termination i.e., 6.8.2008. As claimed by Petitioner the date of
termination in the present case is 6.8.2008. The relevant date of reckoning continuous 240 days of service will be
the date of termination, i.e., 6.8.2008. However, record reveals that Petitioner has not filed any document in evidence
to establish the fact that he had rendered continuous service for a period of 240 days in the Respondent office in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 6.8.2008, WW1 has admitted in his cross
examination that the Respondent has not issued any appointment letter for delivery of the telegram. The document
Ex.W17, goes to show that workman had worked for 18 days in the month of April, 2002, worked 22 days in the
month of June 2002, 22 days in the month of July, 2002 and 20 days in the month of August, 2002. Apart from these
documents, Petitioner has filed Ex.W18 which contains photocopies of allotted duty chart of the Petitioner along with
other workmen which pertains to the year 2006 and 2007 only. Whereas, Petitioner has not filed any document in
evidence of the year 2008 in order to establish the fact of continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year just
preceding from the date of his termination, i.e., 6.8.2008. Further, perusal of document Ex.W18 goes to show that
these are alleged duty charts pertains to year 2006 and 2007 and not legible. Petitioner has not filed any documents to
prove that he had worked 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination.
WW1 has not disclosed the source of obtaining this bunch of documents Ex.W18 or whether these documents has
been issued by the authorised authority or obtained from legal sources. However, Respondent has also challenged
genuineness of documents annexed with the Ex.W18 alleging that these are forged documents as the witness MW1
states that these documents are forged documents. However, Petitioner has not rebutted or contradicted this
allegation by producing any cogent evidence.
10. Thus, ongoing documentary and oral evidence on record, I am of the view that Petitioner utterly failed to
establish his claim that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his
termination i.e., 6.8.2008 and hence, provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947 which pertains to legal retrenchment,
do not apply to his case. Thus, for the want of evidence, documents pertaining to attendance sheet, salary slip of the
workman of the year 2008. We are unable to hold that workman has completed 240 days of continuous service in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 6.8.2008.
11. Once Petitioner failed to establish and prove his case of legal and valid retrenchment u/s.25F of I.D. Act, 1947,
then the claim of the Petitioner for re-employment in the employment o0f Respondent u/s 25G and 25H is not
tenable.
12. `On the other hand, the Respondent has examined the witness MW1. Since MW1 was not produced for cross
examination, therefore, his evidence can not be read. Respondent has examined MW2 and in the chief statement
MW2 has stated that,
“ I submit that the Respondent engaged the Petitioner for delivery of telegrams occasionally on daily basis and he
was paid Rs.2/- per delivery of each telegram on 3.12.2001. I submit that the Petitioner was neither recruited nor
appointed as telegram messenger in the Respondent organization and there is no privity of contract between the
Petitioner and Respondent and there is no employee employer relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent.
I submit that contentions of the Petitioner that he joined Central Telegraph Office as telegraphic messenger on
27.3.2003 and worked continuously and discharged his duties as Telegraphic messenger with utmost satisfaction of
his superiors is absolutely false as mentioned above. The Respondent engaged the Petitioner for delivery of
telegrams occasionally whenever there is a work. Therefore, the question of this Respondent terminating his services
from 6.8.2008 does not arise. I submit that the Petitioner himself stopped coming to deliver the telegrams without any
intimation to this Respondent.”
Although MW2 was cross examined by the Respondent but nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to
discredit the testimony of this witness. However, the version of MW2 finds support from the oral testimony of
Petitioner witness.
Thus, this Point No.I is answered against the Petitioner.
13. Point No.II:- As per record, admittedly, Petitioner was not issued any appointment letter for employment by
Respondent and Respondent used to take the work from him as and when required. Thus, it is established that
Petitioner had worked as daily wage workman in Respondent organization. Respondent submitted that the Petitioner
was engaged for delivery of telegram, on piece rate wages and no question of terminating the services of the
Petitioner from 6.8.2008 arise. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner himself stopped delivering telegrams
without intimating Respondent. Respondent submits that the Petitioner was never informed that his services will be
regularised in future, since the Respondent never recruited or appointed him as a Telegraph Messenger and he was
engaged only for delivering the telegram on piece rate basis. Therefore, there was no employer and employee
relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is admitted fact that Petitioner was engaged for delivery of
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
407
telegrams at piece rate @Rs.2/- per each delivery of the telegram and the Petitioner was never recruited nor
appointed by Respondent in employment under recruitment regulation. Respondent has not issued any appointment
letter to the Petitioner. The Respondent management being instrumentality of the Government, bound by rules and
regulations for recruitment of employees for the organization.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision has laid down principles and guidelines for regularization of casual
workman, In the case of ONGC Vs. Krishan Gopal 2020(3) Scale 272,Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have
laid down the principle regarding regularization of the casual workman and have held:-
“23 The following propositions would emerge upon analyzing the above decisions:
(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in
Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.”
But in the instant matter, Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence that he was appointed by Respondent by following
recruitment procedure or he was working against any sanctioned post in the Respondent management. Petitioner
failed to adduce any evidence on record that the Respondent was indulged in any unfair labour practice by not filling
the permanent post even though such post was available and by calling to employ workman as temporary or daily
wages employees despite performing the same work as regular workman on lower wages. Therefore, for the want of
such plea and evidence, the claim of the Petitioner for regularization in the Respondent service is not acceptable.
Further, in Hari Nandan Prasad v Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India20 (“FCI”),
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have held:
“34. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when there
are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction for
regularisation only because a worker has continued as daily- wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of
years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impermissible. In the
aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularise such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by
such a worker as daily-wager, etc. may amount to back door entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14
of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the worker concerned does not meet the
eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the recruitment rules. However, wherever it is found that
similarly situated workmen are regularised by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen
in question who have approached the Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of regularisation in
such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularisation of the left-over workers itself would amount to
invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the
industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than violating this
constitutional provision.”
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the
claim of the Petitioner for regularization is not tenable.
Thus, Point No.II is decided against the Petitioner accordingly.
14.
Point No.III: In view of the finding given at Points No. I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief
claimed and his petition is found to be baseless, devoid of merit and hence, liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, Point No.III is decided accordingly.
408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The action of the management of BSNL, Guntur in terminating the services of workman Shri J.S.V.D.
Bhaskar w.e.f. 6.8.2008 is held legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Petition is
dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 6th day of January, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri J.S.V.D. Bhaskar
MW1: Sri P. Rami Reddy
MW2: Sri Kota N.V. Prasanna Kumar
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of authorization lr by Respondent dt.17.6.2008
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of minutes of discussion dt.18.6.2008
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of representation dt.16.7.2008
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of representation dt. 2.9.2008
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of representation dt.2.12..2008
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of Notice from ALC
Ex.W7: Photostat copy of notice from ACL dt.23.1.2009
Ex.W8: Photostat copy of minutes of meeting dt.16.12.2008
Ex.W9: Photostat copy of notices from ACL
Ex.W10: Photostat copy Minutes of discussion dt.4.2.2009
Ex.W11: Photostat copy of minutes of meeting dt.4.2.2009
Ex.W12: Photostat copy of failure report dt.12.2.2009
Ex.W13: Photostat copy of of reference of govt. dt.21.5.2009
Ex.W14: Photostat copy of affidavit by Petitioner dt.6.6.2009
Ex.W15: Photostat copy of inf. With regard to delivery of telegrams
Ex.W16: Photostat copy of inf. With regard to delivery of telegrams
Ex.W17: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams
Ex.W18:Photostat copy of bunch of papers (1 to 65) of duty charts of work chart, details of messengers etc..
Ex.W19: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams
Ex.W20: Photostat copy of payment sheet
Ex.W21: Photostat copy of Union resolution
Ex.W22: Photostat copy of strike notice
Ex.W23: Photostat copy of demands of union
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
409
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 142.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार मिाप्रिंिक, िीएसएनएल, िूरसंचार जिला, गुंटूर, के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री िाला कोटेश्वर राव,
कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल - िजिरािाि ृंचाट (संिभव
सं् ा LC 21/2009) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के
सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-40012/30/2009-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 21/2009) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The General Manager ,BSNL, Telecom District, Guntur, and Shri Bala Koteswara Rao,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.01.2025.
[No. L-40012/30/2009-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 6th day of January, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2009
Between:
Sri Bala Koteswara Rao,
S/o K. Sambaiah,
R/o Thokavaripalem, Mallavaram,
Pedapalakaluru Post,
Guntur Rurla, Guntur District.
….. Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
BSNL, Telecom District,
Guntur.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Vidyasagar, K. Udayasree & P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/30/2009-IR(DU) dated 21.5.2009
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of BSNL and their workman. The reference is,
410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Guntur in terminating the services of their workman Shri
K. Bala Koteswara Rao w.e.f. 15.9.2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 21/2009 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner joined the Central Telegraph Office as Telegraphic Messenger on 1.1.1999. He
worked continuously and discharged his duties as Telearaphic Messenger with utmost satisfaction of his superiors. It
is submitted that there were about 8 Telegraphic Messengers working at Guntur circle and they used to work for more
than 10 hours in different shifts as per the allotment of shifts by the Respondent Management. The Respondent used
to pay Rs.20/- per day for the line works and Rs.1/- for each telegram. Now, the workmen are being paid Rs.40/- per
day and Rs.2/ per each Telegram for delivering telegraphic messages. The Petitioner has to take his own cycle and
deliver the same nook and corner villages. Though, the amount paid to the workmen is meager, they are discharging
duties under the fond hope that their services would be regularized and that they would be paid regular scale of pay.
Since workman worked considerable length of time, they made representations to the Respondent requesting for
regularization of the services and also for regular scale of pay. On the ground that the workmen made representation
for regularization and other benefits, they were informed orally that they need not attend for duties w.e.f.15.9.2008.
Immediately, workman approached the authority requesting to continue the services of the workmen as Telegraphic
Messenger. However, the Respondent has not taken him into service. Therefore, the services were terminated orally
with effect from 06/08/2008 which is wholly illegal arbitrary and unjust. It is submitted that as there was no other
alternative, the BSNL contract casual employees and labour Union, approached the Assistant Commissioner of
Labour(Central) Vijayawada, later the dispute was referred to this Tribunal hence, this ID. It is submitted that
Petitioner worked in the Respondent with the meager salary under the fond hope that his services would be
regularized in future and he will get benefits to which he is entitled to from the date of his appointment. But, till
date, the Respondent has not regularized the services of the Petitioner. When Petitioner along with others formed
Union and made representation with regard to grievances of the workman, the Respondent started victimizing against
the Petitioner and other workmen and ultimately their services were terminated w.e.f.15.9.2008 without assigning any
reasons. It is submitted that after disengaging the services of the workman, the Respondent has engaged other
workmen viz., Sri K. Nagabhushanam Sri Subba Rao, and Sri Goverdhan as Telegraphic Messengers, which is wholly
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Further the Respondent have
called for tenders for delivery of "C" Telegrammes work and work order has been issued to M/s. Rana Man Power &
Placement Services Private Limited, Guntur, to that effect Petitioner herein filing payment bills vide Bill Dt.
11/03/2010 and 11/04/2010. It is submitted that the workman has worked for more than 4 to 5 years of continuously
without any break, and the workman has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. Hence, the workman is
entitled to notice, notice pay before termination from the employment. However, the Respondent has not issued any
notice nor any compensation in lieu of notice as per Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the
Respondent has violated the Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the termination is illegal and the
workman is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in catena of decisions it is held that the temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary
employee. In the given case, all the workmen have been disengaged by engaging fresh workmen as Telegraphic
Messenger, which is nothing but violation of Section 25 (g) and (h) of Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that as
per 25 (G) and (H) seniority list of employees has to be prepared and no such seniority list is prepared. It is
submitted that though the workman continuously worked more than 240 days in a calendar year, the Respondent used
to pay the wages for five days in factious names in order to avoid regularization and other benefits, to which the
workman is entitled to. It is submitted that the workman did not secure any employment in any other organization on
the ground that his services would be absorbed in the Respondent organization. By virtue of oral termination, the
workman was deprived of livelihood. It is therefore prayed to declare the action on part of the Respondent in
terminating the services of the Petitioner orally w.e.f.15.9.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently
directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service, with continuity of service, full back wages and other
attendant benefits.
3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:-
It is further submitted that the BSNL Contract Casual Employees and Labour Union is not having any locus standi to
espouse the cause of Petitioner herein. It is submitted that the Respondent engaged the Petitioner for delivery of
telegrams occasionally on coolie basis and he was paid Rs.2/- per delivery of each telegram vide orders of the General
Manager, Telecom No.A31/ACTTS/MISC2001-02 dated 03.12.2001. The Petitioner was neither recruited nor
appointed as Telegram Messenger in the Respondent organization. There is no privity of contract between the
Petitioner and Respondent. There is no employee employer relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent.
Therefore the Petitioner can not avail the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that, the
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
411
Respondent did not appoint the Petitioner and there is no privity of contract and therefore the question of removing
his services by the Respondent does not arise. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 was pleased to held that absorption,
regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or adhoc employee appointed/
recruited dehorns the constitutional scheme or public employment on issuance of directions by court and issuance of
such directions amount to creating another mode of public employment which is not permissible. In the present case
the Respondent engaged the Petitioner only for delivery of telegrams occasionally on coolie basis and he was paid
Rs.2/- for delivery of each telegram and therefore the Petitioner is not having any right to seek employment with the
Respondent. Moreover the Petitioner without intimating to the Respondent stopped coming to deliver the telegrams.
Therefore he can not claim that the Respondent engaged him and terminated his services. Viewed from any angle the
claim of the Petitioner is frivolous and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The contentions of the
Petitioner that he joined Central Telegraph Office as Telegraphic Messenger on 01.01.1999, worked continuously,
discharged his duties as Telegraphic Messenger with utmost satisfaction of his superiors etc., false, baseless and not
tenable and the Petitioner may be put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the Respondent engaged the
Petitioner for delivery of telegrams occasionally and in view of the same the allegations mentioned by the Petitioner
are false and untenable. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner and other personnel engaged by the Respondent for
delivery of telegrams occasionally on coolie basis on payment of Rs.2/- for delivery of each telegram they were
neither recruited nor appointed as telegram messengers in the Respondent organization. Therefore the question of
terminating his services orally w.e.f. 06.08.2008 by the Respondent does not arise. The Petitioner without intimating
to the Respondent stopped coming to deliver the telegrams. The further contention of the Petitioner that the workman
worked considerable length of time, they made representations to the Respondent requesting for regularization of the
services and also for regular pay of scale etc., is untenable. The Petitioner engaged for delivery of telegrams
occasionally on coolie basis by paying Rs.2/-per telegram is not entitled for regularization. The union is not having
any locus standi to represent or espouse the cause of the Petitioner since the Petitioner is not a workman as defined
under Section 2 (s) of the I.D.Act and therefore he can not be represented by the said union. It is submitted that
Respondent never informed the Petitioner that his services will be regularized in future since the Respondent never
recruited or appointed him as Telegram messenger and he was engaged only for delivery of telegrams on piece rate
basis. Therefore when there is no employee employer relationship and Petitioner stopped delivery of messages
without intimation, the question of termination of his services by the Respondent does not arise. It is submitted that a
tender was called for delivery of telegrams and work order has been issued to M/s.Rana Man Power and Placement
Services Private Limited, Guntur since there is no alternative to the Respondent to do the same as the Petitioner and
other similarly situated personnel who were engaged for the purpose of delivery of telegrams stopped delivery of
telegrams without intimation. The other allegations with regard to violation of provisions of I.D.Act etc ., are false
and untenable. The question of violation of Section 25 (G) and (H) of the I.D.Act by the Respondent does not arise.
The contentions of the Petitioner that the junior to him was considered for employment is denied for the reason that
the Petitioner is not an employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner was engaged for delivery of telegram
occasionally on coolie basis and he never continuously engaged for 240 days in a calendar year as employee of the
Respondent. He was not paid either daily or monthly wages. The Respondent never informed the Petitioner that his
services would be absorbed in BSNL Organization. He was never recruited, neither appointed nor was terminated and
hence the question of reinstatement does not arise. In view of the above, the petition be dismissed as devoid of
merits.
4. Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties as well as perused written arguments.
5. On the basis of rival contentions and pleadings of both the parties, following issues emerge for
determination in the instant matter:-
I.
Whether the action of Respondent Management of BSNL, Guntur in terminating the services of Petitioner Sri K.
Bala Koteswara Rao with effect from 15.9.2008 is legal and justified?
II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for regularization?
III. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed?
Findings:-
6.
Point No.I:- It is the claim of the Petitioner that he joined the service of the Central Telegraph Office as
telegraphic messenger on 1.1.1999 and he worked for more than 4 to 5 years continuously without any break.
Petitioner submits that he has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year hence, he is entitled to notice, notice
pay before terminating from the employment. However, Respondent did not issue any notice nor paid compensation
in lieu of notice under Section 25F of ID Act and Respondent has terminated Petitioner from service in violation of
the provision contained under section 25 F of ID Act and termination order of Petitioner is illegal and he is entitled
to reinstatement in the service with all consequential benefits. Further, Petitioner submits that Supreme Court in
catena of decisions has held that temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. In the
instant matter all the workers have been disengaged by engaging fresh workmen as telegraphic messengers by the
412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Respondent in violation of section 25G and 25H of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Petitioner claims that his termination order
dated 15.9.2008 be set aside and Respondent be directed to reinstate him into service.
7. In support of plea in evidence Petitioner, has filed affidavit of WW1 wherein witness has reiterated the
averments made in the claim statement, WW1 states that his service was terminated orally on15.9.2008 by the
Respondent in contravention of the provision of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. WW1 was cross examined by the
Respondent counsel and in his cross examination, WW1 states as under:-
“No appointment letter was issued to me for delivery of telegrams. It is not true to suggest that Respondent used to
take work from me as and when required. It is true that as per Ex. W18, I have worked 4 days in the month of March,
2002 and 8 days in the month of May, 2002. It is not correct to say that I have not worked 240 days in any calendar
year. The Witness volunteers that he has worked 360 days in a year without any holidays. I have not given any
complaint to the Labour Department complaining that Respondent is taking our service in the holidays. I have not
given any complaint that though I have worked under the Respondents but instead of my name, others name have
been mentioned in the record. I have not made any complaint to that effect. It is not true to suggest that
management has not appointed me as telegram messenger. Therefore the question of terminating me on 15.9.2008
does not arise.”
From the above statement of WW1 it manifest that workman did not complete 240 days continuous service in the
year 2002. Further, Petitioner was not issued any appointment letter therefore, it is established that he had worked as
a daily wager in the Respondent office.
8. Further, WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent regarding documents, Ex.W24 the bunch of photo copies,
to which Petitioner claims that it pertains to the allotment of duty charts and work chart, details of messengers,
timings of duty hours and payment of bills pertaining to Petitioner for the period from 1.1.99 to till date of
termination i.e.,15.9.2008. WW1 in his cross examination states:-
“ It is true that Ex. W24 pertains to only for the years 2006 and 2007. It is not true to suggest that Ex.W24 dates are
not continuously appearing. I have obtained the Xerox copies of Ex. W24 from one Mr Anand Rao, Attendar in the
year 2007. It is not true to suggest you that I have prepared Ex. W24 and filed before this Court. The Ex.W24
contains the signature of Sr. Assistant and rubber stamp pertains to Sub Divisional Engineer. It is not true to suggest
to that Ex.W24 does not disclose that I have worked for 240 days in the Respondent. It is not true to suggest that I
have fabricated the document Ex.W24 for the purpose of this case.”
It manifest from the above statement of WW1 that he has not filed any document of duty chart and timings of duty
hours and payment of bill pertaining to year 2008 in which he was terminated. These photocopies pertains to the yea
2006 and 2007 only. Now, we proceed to examine the evidence lead by the Petitioner on record in support of his
claim.
9. It is settled law that for taking a plea about retrenchment in violation of provision of Section 25 F of ID Act,
the workman has to establish that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year or 240 days
continuously in service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination, under that employer who
has retrenched him from service.
Before evaluating evidence on record in support of claim of Petitioner, it would be relevant to reproduce here the
provision of Section 25 B of ID Act which defines the term continuous service of Workman, that reads as under:-
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its number of decisions has elaborated the concept of continuous service in a
calendar year u/s 25F of I.D. Act as required for valid retrenchment under I.D. Act, 1947 and few decision are
discussed as follows:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
413
In the case of Sur Enamel and Stamping works Private Limited Vs. their workmen, referring to Section 25 B,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term continuous service as under:-
"The position therefore is that during a period of employment for less than 11 calendar months these two persons
worked for more than 240 days. In our opinion that would not satisfy the requirement of section 25B. Before a
workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an industry it must be shown first
that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 calendar months and, next that during those 12 calendar months
had worked for not less than 240 days. Where, as in the present case, the workmen have not at all been employed for
a period of 12 calendar months it becomes unnecessary to examine whether the actual days of work numbered 240
days or more. For, in any case, the requirements of section 25B would not be satisfied by the mere fact of the number
of working days being not less than 240 days."
In Mohan Lal Vs. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics, dated 21.4.1981AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1253, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court have held,
It was, however, urged that section 25F is not attracted in this case for an entirely different reason. Mr. Markendaya
contended that before section 25F is invoked, the condition of eligibility for a workman to complain of invalid
retrenchment must be satisfied. According to him unless the workman has put in continuous service for not less than
one year his case would not be governed by section 25F. That is substantially correct because the relevant provision
of section 25F provides as under:
"25F. "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 such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for
the termination of service;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent of fifteen days'
average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate government by notification in the Official Gazette)."
Reverting to the facts of this case, admittedly the appellant was employed and was on duty from December 8, 1973 to
October 19, 1974 when his service was terminated. The relevant date will be the date of termination of service, i.e.
October 19, 1974 Commencing from that date and counting backwards, admittedly he had rendered service for a
period of 240 days within a period of 12 months and, indisputably, therefore, his case falls within section 25B(2) (a)
and he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of Chapter VA.”
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
In the case of Mohan Lal vs. Management, BEL 1981 SCC P. 225, Hon'ble Apex Court held, "Before a
workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act. he has to show that he has
been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from service."
414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 B of I D Act and Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as discussed above, we have to examine whether the retrenchment of Workman by Respondent vide order
dated15.9.2008 was in contravention of the provision contained under section 25F. As per provision contained in
Section 25 B of the I.D. Act, 1947, the workmen has to prove the fact of continuous service of 240 days in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of termination i.e.,15.9.2008. As claimed by Petitioner the date of
termination in the present case is 15.9.2008. The relevant date of reckoning continuous 240 days of service will be
the date of termination, i.e.,15.9.2008. However, record reveals that Petitioner has not filed any document in
evidence to establish the fact that he had rendered continuous service for a period of 240 days in the Respondent
office in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e.,15.9.2008, WW1 has admitted in his
cross examination that the Respondent has not issued any appointment letter for delivery of the telegram. The
document Ex.W18 goes to show that workman had worked 4 days in the month of March, 2002 and 8 days in the
month of May, 2002. Apart from these documents, Petitioner has filed Ex.W24 which contains photocopies of
allotted duty chart of the Petitioner along with other workmen which pertains to the year 2006 and 2007 only.
Whereas, Petitioner has not filed any document in evidence of the year 2008 in order to establish the fact of
continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination, i.e.,15.9.2008.
Further, perusal of document Ex.W24 goes to show that these are alleged duty charts pertains to year 2006 and 2007
and not legible. Petitioner has not filed any documents to prove that he had worked 240 days continuously in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination. WW1 has not disclosed the source of obtaining this
bunch of documents Ex.W24 or whether these documents has been issued by the authorised authority or obtained
from legal sources. However, Respondent has also challenged genuineness of documents annexed with the Ex.W24
alleging that these are forged documents as the witness MW1 states that these documents are forged documents.
However, Petitioner has not rebutted or contradicted this allegation by producing any cogent evidence.
10. Thus, ongoing documentary and oral evidence on record, I am of the view that Petitioner utterly failed to
establish his claim that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his
termination i.e.,15.9.2008 and hence, provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947 which pertains to legal retrenchment,
do not apply to his case. Thus, for the want of evidence, documents pertaining to attendance sheet, salary slip of the
workman of the year 2008, we are unable to hold that workman has completed 240 days of continuous service in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e.,15.9.2008.
11. Once Petitioner failed to establish and prove his case of legal and valid retrenchment u/s.25F of I.D. Act, 1947,
then the claim of the Petitioner for re-employment in the employment o0f Respondent u/s 25G and 25H is not
tenable.
12. `On the other hand, the Respondent has examined the witness MW1. Since MW1 was not produced for cross
examination, therefore, his evidence can not be read. Respondent has examined MW2 and in the chief statement
MW2 has stated that,
“ I submit that the Respondent engaged the Petitioner for delivery of telegrams occasionally on daily basis and he
was paid Rs.2/- per delivery of each telegram on 3.12.2001. I submit that the Petitioner was neither recruited nor
appointed as telegram messenger in the Respondent organization and there is no privity of contract between the
Petitioner and Respondent and there is no employee employer relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent.
I submit that contentions of the Petitioner that he joined Central Telegraph Office as telegraphic messenger on
1/1/1999 and worked continuously and discharged his duties as Telegraphic messenger with utmost satisfaction of his
superiors is absolutely false as mentioned above. The Respondent engaged the Petitioner for delivery of telegrams
occasionally whenever there is a work. Therefore, the question of this Respondent terminating his services
from15.9.2008 does not arise. I submit that the Petitioner himself stopped coming to deliver the telegrams without
any intimation to this Respondent.”
Although MW2 was cross examined by the Respondent but nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to
discredit the testimony of this witness. However, the version of MW2 finds support from the oral testimony of
Petitioner witness.
Thus, this Point No.I is answered against the Petitioner.
13. Point No.II:- As per record, admittedly, Petitioner was not issued any appointment letter for employment by
Respondent and Respondent used to take the work from him as and when required. Thus, it is established that
Petitioner had worked as daily wage workman in Respondent organization. Respondent submitted that the Petitioner
was engaged for delivery of telegram, on piece rate wages and no question of terminating the services of the
Petitioner from15.9.2008 arise. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner himself stopped delivering telegrams
without intimating Respondent. Respondent submits that the Petitioner was never informed that his services will be
regularised in future, since the Respondent never recruited or appointed him as a Telegraph Messenger and he was
engaged only for delivering the telegram on piece rate basis. Therefore, there was no employer and employee
relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is admitted fact that Petitioner was engaged for delivery of
telegrams at piece rate @Rs.2/- per each delivery of the telegram and the Petitioner was never recruited nor
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
415
appointed by Respondent in employment under recruitment regulation. Respondent has not issued any appointment
letter to the Petitioner. The Respondent management being instrumentality of the Government, bound by rules and
regulations for recruitment of employees for the organization.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision has laid down principles and guidelines for regularization of casual
workman, In the case of ONGC Vs. Krishan Gopal 2020(3) Scale 272,Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have
laid down the principle regarding regularization of the casual workman and have held:-
“23 The following propositions would emerge upon analyzing the above decisions:
(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in
Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.”
But in the instant matter, Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence that he was appointed by Respondent by following
recruitment procedure or he was working against any sanctioned post in the Respondent management. Petitioner
failed to adduce any evidence on record that the Respondent was indulged in any unfair labour practice by not filling
the permanent post even though such post was available and by calling to employ workman as temporary or daily
wages employees despite performing the same work as regular workman on lower wages. Therefore, for the want of
such plea and evidence, the claim of the Petitioner for regularization in the Respondent service is not acceptable.
Further, in Hari Nandan Prasad v Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India20 (“FCI”),
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have held:
“34. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when there
are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction for
regularisation only because a worker has continued as daily- wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of
years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impermissible. In the
aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularise such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by
such a worker as daily-wager, etc. may amount to back door entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14
of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the worker concerned does not meet the
eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the recruitment rules. However, wherever it is found that
similarly situated workmen are regularised by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen
in question who have approached the Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of regularisation in
such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularisation of the left-over workers itself would amount to
invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the
industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than violating this
constitutional provision.”
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the
claim of the Petitioner for regularization is not tenable.
Thus, Point No.II is decided against the Petitioner accordingly.
14.
Point No.III: In view of the finding given at Points No. I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief
claimed and his petition is found to be baseless, devoid of merit and hence, liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, Point No.III is decided accordingly.
AWARD
The action of the management of BSNL, Guntur in terminating the services of workman Shri K. Bala
Koteswara Rao w.e.f.15.9.2008 is held legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Petition is dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 6th day of January, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri K. Bala Koteswara Rao
MW1: Sri P. Rami Reddy
MW2: Sri Kota N.V. Prasanna Kumar
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of minutes of meeting dt.6.10.2008
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of authorization lr by Respondent dt.17.6.2008
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of minutes of discussion dt.18.6.2008
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of representation dt.16.7.2008
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of representation of Petitioner 4.11.2008
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of notice from ACL dt.7.11.2008
Ex.W7: Photostat copy of representation dt.2.12.2008
Ex.W8: Photostat copy of notice from ACL
Ex.W9: Photostat copy of minutes of meeting dt.16.12.2008
Ex.W10: Photostat copy of no0tice f rom ACL
Ex.W11: Photostat copy of Minutes of discussion before ALC(C)
Ex.W12: Photostat copy of internal office order
Ex.W13: Photostat copy of failure report dt.12.2.2009
Ex.W14: Photostat copy of reference of govt. dt.21.5.2009
Ex.W15: Photostat copy of affidavit by Petitioner
Ex.W16: Photostat copy of information with regard to delivery of telegrams
Ex.W17: Photostat copy of information with regard to delivery of telegrams
Ex.W18: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams
Ex.W19: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams
Ex.W20: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams
Ex.W21: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams
Ex.W22: Photostat copy of strike notice
Ex.W23: Photostat copy of demands of union
Ex.W24: Photostat copies of bunch of papers (1 to 65) for allotment of duty charts of work chart, details of
messengers, timings etc. of Petitioner from 1.1.99 to till date
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 143.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार मिाप्रिंिक, िीएसएनएल, िूरसंचार जिला, गुंटूर, के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री मोिम्मि ज़िीर,
कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल - िजिरािाि ृंचाट (संिभव
सं् ा LC 20/2009) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के
सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-40012/34/2009-आईआर (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
417
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 20/2009) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The General Manager, BSNL, Telecom District, Guntur, and Shri Md. Zaheer, Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.01.2025.
[No. L-40012/34/2009-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 2nd day of January, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 20/2009
Between:
Shri Md. Zaheer,
S/o Shri Aabdul Sattar,
D.No.15-3-90, 2nd Lane,
Isrealpet, Guntur A.P.
….. Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
BSNL, Telecom District,
Guntur.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Vidyasagar, K. Udayasree & P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/34/2009-IR(DU) dated 21.5.2009
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of BSNL and their workman. The reference is,
THE SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Guntur in terminating the services of their workman Shri
Md. Zaheer w.e.f. 6.8.2008 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 20/2009 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner joined the Central Telegraph Office as Telegraphic Messenger on 1.1.1999. He
worked continuously and discharged his duties as Telearaphic Messenger with utmost satisfaction of his superiors. It
is submitted that there were about 8 Telegraphic Messengers working at Guntur circle and they used to work for more
than 10 hours in different shifts as per the allotment of shifts by the Respondent Management. The Respondent used
to pay Rs.20/- per day for the line works and Rs.1/- for each telegram. Now, the workmen are being paid Rs.40/- per
day and Rs.2/ per each Telegram for delivering telegraphic messages. The Petitioner has to take his own cycle and
deliver the same nook and corner villages. Though, the amount paid to the workmen is meager, they are discharging
duties under the fond hope that their services would be regularized and that they would be paid regular scale of pay.
Since workman worked considerable length of time, they made representations to the Respondent requesting for
regularization of the services and also for regular scale of pay. On the ground that the workmen made representation
418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for regularization and other benefits, they were informed orally that they need not attend for duties w.e.f. 6.8.2008.
Immediately, workman approached the authority requesting to continue the services of the workmen as Telegraphic
Messenger. However, the Respondent has not taken him into service. Therefore, the services were terminated orally
with effect from 06/08/2008 which is wholly illegal arbitrary and unjust. It is submitted that as there was no other
alternative, the BSNL contract casual employees and labour Union, approached the Assistant Commissioner of
Labour(Central) Vijayawada, later the dispute was referred to this Tribunal hence, this ID. It is submitted that
Petitioner worked in the Respondent with the meager salary under the fond hope that his services would be
regularized in future and he will get benefits to which he is entitled to from the date of his appointment. But, till
date, the Respondent has not regularized the services of the Petitioner. When Petitioner along with others formed
Union and made representation with regard to grievances of the workman, the Respondent started victimizing against
the Petitioner and other workmen and ultimately their services were terminated w.e.f. 6.8.2008 without assigning any
reasons. It is submitted that after disengaging the services of the workman, the Respondent has engaged other
workmen viz., Sri K. Nagabhushanam Sri Subba Rao, and Sri Goverdhan as Telegraphic Messengers, which is wholly
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Further the Respondent have
called for tenders for delivery of "C" Telegrammes work and work order has been issued to M/s. Rana Man Power &
Placement Services Private Limited, Guntur, to that effect Petitioner herein filing payment bills vide Bill Dt.
11/03/2010 and 11/04/2010. before this Hon'ble Court for adjudicate the issue. It is submitted that the workman has
worked for more than 4 to 5 years of continuously without any break, and the workman has completed more than 240
days in a calendar year. Hence, the workman is entitled to notice, notice pay before termination from the
employment. However, the Respondent has not issued any notice nor any compensation in lieu of notice as per
Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the Respondent has violated the Section 25 of Industrial Disputes
Act, therefore, the termination is illegal and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions it is held that the temporary employee
cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. In the given case, all the workmen have been disengaged by
engaging fresh workmen as Telegraphic Messenger, which is nothing but violation of Section 25 (g) and (h) of
Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that as per 25 (G) and (H) seniority list of employees has to be prepared and
no such seniority list is prepared. It is submitted that though the workman continuously worked more than 240 days
in a calendar year, the Respondent used to pay the wages for five days in factious names in order to avoid
regularization and other benefits, to which the workman is entitled to. It is submitted that the workman did not
secure any employment in any other organization on the ground that his services would be absorbed in the
Respondent organization. By virtue of oral termination, the workman was deprived of livelihood. It is therefore
prayed to declare the action on part of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner orally w.e.f.
6.8.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into
service, with continuity of service, full back wages and other attendant benefits.
3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:-
It is further submitted that the BSNL Contract Casual Employees and Labour Union is not having any locus standi to
espouse the cause of Petitioner herein. It is submitted that the Respondent engaged the Petitioner for delivery of
telegrams occasionally on coolie basis and he was paid Rs.2/- per delivery of each telegram vide orders of the General
Manager, Telecom No.A31/ACTTS/MISC2001-02 dated 03.12.2001. The Petitioner was neither recruited nor
appointed as Telegram Messenger in the Respondent organization. There is no privity of contract between the
Petitioner and Respondent. There is no employee employer relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent.
Therefore the Petitioner can not avail the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that, the
Respondent did not appoint the Petitioner and there is no privity of contract and therefore the question of removing
his services by the Respondent does not arise. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 was pleased to held that absorption,
regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or adhoc employee appointed/
recruited dehorns the constitutional scheme or public employment on issuance of directions by court and issuance of
such directions amount to creating another mode of public employment which is not permissible. In the present case
the Respondent engaged the Petitioner only for delivery of telegrams occasionally on coolie basis and he was paid
Rs.2/- for delivery of each telegram and therefore the Petitioner is not having any right to seek employment with the
Respondent. Moreover the Petitioner without intimating to the Respondent stopped coming to deliver the telegrams.
Therefore he can not claim that the Respondent engaged him and terminated his services. Viewed from any angle the
claim of the Petitioner is frivolous and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The contentions of the
Petitioner that he joined Central Telegraph Office as Telegraphic Messenger on 01.01.1999, worked continuously,
discharged his duties as Telegraphic Messenger with utmost satisfaction of his superiors etc., false, basseless and not
tenable and the Petitioner may be put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the Respondent engaged the
Petitioner for delivery of telegrams occasionally and in view of the same the allegations mentioned by the Petitioner
are false and untenable. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner and other personnel engaged by the Respondent for
delivery of telegrams occasionally on coolie basis on payment of Rs.2/- for delivery of each telegram they were
neither recruited nor appointed as telegram messengers in the Respondent organization. Therefore the question of
terminating his services orally w.e.f. 06.08.2008 by the Respondent does not arise. The Petitioner without intimating
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
419
to the Respondent stopped coming to deliver the telegrams. The further contention of the Petitioner that the workman
worked considerable length of time, they made representations to the Respondent requesting for regularization of the
services and also for regular pay of scale etc., is untenable. The Petitioner engaged for delivery of telegrams
occasionally on coolie basis by paying Rs.2/ per telegram is not entitled for regularization. The union is not having
any locus standi to represent or espouse the cause of the Petitioner since the Petitioner is not a workman as defined
under Section 2 (s) of the I.D.Act and therefore he can not be represented by the said union. It is submitted that
Respondent never informed the Petitioner that his services will be regularized in future since the Respondent never
recruited or appointed him as Telegram messenger and he was engaged only for delivery of telegrams on piece rate
basis. Therefore when there is no employee employer relationship and Petitioner stopped delivery of messages
without intimation, the question of termination of his services by the Respondent does not arise. It is submitted that a
tender was called for delivery of telegrams and work order has been issued to M/s.Rana Man Power and Placement
Services Private Limited, Guntur since there is no alternative to the Respondent to do the same as the Petitioner and
other similarly situated personnel who were engaged for the purpose of delivery of telegrams stopped delivery of
telegrams without intimation. The other allegations with regard to violation of provisions of I.D.Act etc ., are false
and untenable. The question of violation of Section 25 (G) and (H) of the I.D.Act by the Respondent does not arise.
The contentions of the Petitioner that the junior to him was considered for employment is denied for the reason that
the Petitioner is not an employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner was engaged for delivery of telegram
occasionally on coolie basis and he never continuously engaged for 240 days in a calendar year as employee of the
Respondent. He was not paid either daily or monthly wages. The Respondent never informed the Petitioner that his
services would be absorbed in BSNL Organization. He was never recruited, neither appointed nor was terminated and
hence the question of reinstatement does not arise. In view of the above, the petition be dismissed as devoid of
merits.
4. Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties as well as perused written arguments.
5. On the basis of rival contentions and pleadings of both the parties, following issues emerge for
determination in the instant matter:-
I.
Whether the action of Respondent Management of BSNL, Guntur in terminating the services of Petitioner Sri
Md. Zaheer with effect from 6.8.2008 is legal and justified?
II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for regularization?
III. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed?
Findings:-
6. Point No.I:- It is the claim of the Petitioner that he joined the service of the Central Telegraph Office as
telegraphic messenger on 1.1.1999 and he worked for more than 4 to 5 years continuously without any break.
Petitioner submits that he has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year hence, he is entitled to notice, notice
pay before terminating from the employment. However, Respondent did not issue any notice nor paid compensation
in lieu of notice under Section 25F of ID Act and Respondent has terminated Petitioner from service in violation of
the provision contained under section 25 F of ID Act and termination order of Petitioner is illegal and he is entitled
to reinstatement in the service with all consequential benefits. Further, Petitioner submits that Supreme Court in
catena of decisions has held that temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee. In the
instant matter all the workers have been disengaged by engaging fresh workmen as telegraphic messengers by the
Respondent in violation of section 25G and H of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, Petitioner claims that his termination order
dated 6.8.2008 be set aside and Respondent be directed to reinstate him into service.
7. In support of plea in evidence Petitioner, has filed affidavit of WW1 wherein witness has reiterated the
averments made in the claim statement, WW1 states that his service was terminated orally on 6.8.2008 by the
Respondent in contravention of the provision of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. WW1 was cross examined by the
Respondent counsel and in his cross examination, WW1 states as under:-
“No appointment letter was issued to me for delivery of telegrams. It is not true to suggest that Respondent used to
take work from me as and when required. It is true that as per Ex.W14 and W15, I have worked 19 days in the month
of May 2002. Likewise, as per Exhibit W 17, I have worked 9 days in the month of June 2002. It is not correct to
say that I have not worked 240 days in any calendar year. The Witness volunteers that he has worked 360 days in a
year without any holidays. I have not given any complaint to the Labour Department complaining that Respondent is
taking our service in the holidays. I have not given any complaint that though I have worked under the Respondents
but instead of my name, others name have been mentioned in the record. I have not made any complaint to that
effect. It is not true to suggest that management has not appointed me as telegram messenger. Therefore the
question of terminating me on 6/8/2008 does not arise.”
From the above statement of WW1 it manifest that workman did not complete 240 days continuous service in the
year 2002. Further, Petitioner was not issued any appointment letter therefore, it is established that he had worked as
a daily wager in the Respondent office.
420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. Further, WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent regarding documents, Ex.W24 the bunch of photo copies,
to which Petitioner claims that it pertains to the allotment of duty charts and work chart, details of messengers,
timings of duty hours and payment of bills pertaining to Petitioner for the period from 1.1.99 to till date of
termination i.e., 6.8.2008. WW1 in his cross examination states:-
“ It is true that Ex. W24 pertains to only for the years 2006 and 2007. It is not true to suggest that Ex.W24 dates are
not continuously appearing. I have obtained the Xerox copies of Ex. W24 from one Mr Anand Rao, Attendar in the
year 2007. It is not true to suggest you that I have prepared Ex. W24 and filed before this Court. The Ex.W24
contains the signature of Sr. Assistant and rubber stamp pertains to Sub Divisional Engineer. It is not true to suggest
to that Ex.W24 does not disclose that I have worked for 240 days in the Respondent. It is not true to suggest that I
have fabricated the document Ex.W24 for the purpose of this case.”
It manifest from the above statement of WW1 that he has not filed any document of duty chart and timings of duty
hours and payment of bill pertaining to year 2008 in which he was terminated. These photocopies pertains to the yea
200 and 2007 only. Now, we proceed to examine the evidence lead by the Petitioner on record in support of his
claim.
9. It is settled law that for taking a plea about retrenchment in violation of provision of Section 25 F of ID Act,
the workman has to establish that he has been in continuous service for not less than one year or 240 days
continuously in service in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination, under that employer who
has retrenched him from service.
Before evaluating evidence on record in support of claim of Petitioner, it would be relevant to reproduce here the
provision of Section 25 B of ID Act which defines the term continuous service of Workman, that reads as under:-
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its number of decisions has elaborated the concept of continuous service in a
calendar year u/s 25F of I.D. Act as required for valid retrenchment under I.D. Act, 1947 and few decision are
discussed as follows:-
In the case of Sur Enamel and Stamping works Private Limited Vs. their workmen, referring to Section 25 B,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the term continuous service as under:-
"The position therefore is that during a period of employment for less than 11 calendar months these two persons
worked for more than 240 days. In our opinion that would not satisfy the requirement of section 25B. Before a
workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an industry it must be shown first
that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 calendar months and, next that during those 12 calendar months
had worked for not less than 240 days. Where, as in the present case, the workmen have not at all been employed for
a period of 12 calendar months it becomes unnecessary to examine whether the actual days of work numbered 240
days or more. For, in any case, the requirements of section 25B would not be satisfied by the mere fact of the number
of working days being not less than 240 days."
In Mohan Lal Vs. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics, dated 21.4.1981AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1253, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court have held,
It was, however, urged that section 25F is not attracted in this case for an entirely different reason. Mr. Markendaya
contended that before section 25F is invoked, the condition of eligibility for a workman to complain of invalid
retrenchment must be satisfied. According to him unless the workman has put in continuous service for not less than
one year his case would not be governed by section 25F. That is substantially correct because the relevant provision
of section 25F provides as under:
"25F. "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:-
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
421
(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 such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for
the termination of service;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent of fifteen days'
average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate government by notification in the Official Gazette)."
Reverting to the facts of this case, admittedly the appellant was employed and was on duty from December 8, 1973 to
October 19, 1974 when his service was terminated. The relevant date will be the date of termination of service, i.e.
October 19, 1974 Commencing from that date and counting backwards, admittedly he had rendered service for a
period of 240 days within a period of 12 months and, indisputably, therefore, his case falls within section 25B(2) (a)
and he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purpose of Chapter VA.”
In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be
regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the workman to
show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In
M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial
Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn
erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."
In the case of Mohan Lal vs. Management, BEL 1981 SCC P. 225, Hon'ble Apex Court held, "Before a workman
can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act. he has to show that he has been in
continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from service."
Now, in view of the provision contained under Section 25 B of I D Act and Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as discussed above, we have to examine whether the retrenchment of Workman by Respondent vide order
dated 6.8.2008 was in contravention of the provision contained under section 25 F. As per provision contained in
Section 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947, the workmen has to prove the fact of continuous service of 240 days in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of termination i.e., 6.8.2008. As claimed by Petitioner the date of
termination in the present case is 6.8.2008. The relevant date of reckoning continuous 240 days of service will be
the date of termination, i.e., 6.8.2008. However, record reveals that Petitioner has not filed any document in evidence
to establish the fact that he had rendered continuous service for a period of 240 days in the Respondent office in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 6.8.2008, WW1 has admitted in his cross
examination that the Respondent has not issued any appointment letter for delivery of the telegram. The documents
Ex.W14 and 15, goes to show that workman had worked for 19 days in the month of May 2002 and have worked 9
days in the month of June 2002. Apart from these documents, Petitioner has filed Ex.W24 which contains
photocopies of allotted duty chart of the Petitioner along with other workmen which pertains to the year 2006 and
2007 only. Whereas, Petitioner has not filed any document in evidence of the year 2008 in order to establish the
fact of continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination, i.e., 6.8.2008.
Further, perusal of document Ex.W24 goes to show that these are alleged duty charts pertains to year 2006 and 2007
and not legible. Petitioner has not filed any documents to prove that he had worked 240 days continuously in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination. WW1 has not disclosed the source of obtaining this
bunch of documents Ex.W24 or whether these documents has been issued by the authorised authority or obtained
from legal sources. However, Respondent has also challenged genuineness of documents annexed with the Ex.W24
alleging that these are forged documents as the witness MW1 states that these documents are forged documents.
However, Petitioner has not rebutted or contradicted this allegation by producing any cogent evidence.
422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. Thus, ongoing documentary and oral evidence on record, I am of the view that Petitioner utterly failed to
establish his claim that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his
termination i.e., 6.8.2008 and hence, provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947 which pertains to legal retrenchment,
do not apply to his case. Thus, for the want of evidence, documents pertaining to attendance sheet, salary slip of the
workman of the year 2008. We are unable to hold that workman has completed 240 days of continuous service in a
calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination i.e., 6.8.2008.
11. Once Petitioner failed to establish and prove his case of legal and valid retrenchment u/s.25F of I.D. Act, 1947,
then the claim of the Petitioner for re-employment in the employment o0f Respondent u/s 25G and 25H is not
tenable.
12. `On the other hand, the Respondent has examined the witness MW1. Since MW1 was not produced for cross
examination, therefore, his evidence can not be read. Respondent has examined MW2 and in the chief statement
MW2 has stated that,
“ I submit that the Respondent engaged the Petitioner for delivery of telegrams occasionally on daily basis and he
was paid Rs.2/- per delivery of each telegram on 3.12. 2001. I submit that the Petitioner was neither recruited nor
appointed as telegram messenger in the Respondent organization and there is no privity of contract between the
Petitioner and Respondent and there is no employee employer relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent.
I submit that contentions of the Petitioner that he joined Central Telegraph Office as telegraphic messenger on
1/1/1999 and worked continuously and discharged his duties as Telegraphic messenger with utmost satisfaction of his
superiors is absolutely false as mentioned above. The Respondent engaged the Petitioner for delivery of telegrams
occasionally whenever there is a work. Therefore, the question of this Respondent terminating his services from
6.8.2008 does not arise. I submit that the Petitioner himself stopped coming to deliver the telegrams without any
intimation to this Respondent.”
Although MW2 was cross examined by the Respondent but nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to
discredit the testimony of this witness. However, the version of MW2 finds support from the oral testimony of
Petitioner witness.
Thus, this Point No.I is answered against the Petitioner.
13. Point No.II:- As per record, admittedly, Petitioner was not issued any appointment letter for employment by
Respondent and Respondent used to take the work from him as and when required. Thus, it is established that
Petitioner had worked as daily wage workman in Respondent organization. Respondent submitted that the Petitioner
was engaged for delivery of telegram, on piece rate wages and no question of terminating the services of the
Petitioner from 6.8.2008 arise. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner himself stopped delivering telegrams
without intimating Respondent. Respondent submits that the Petitioner was never informed that his services will be
regularised in future, since the Respondent never recruited or appointed him as a Telegraph Messenger and he was
engaged only for delivering the telegram on piece rate basis. Therefore, there was no employer and employee
relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is admitted fact that Petitioner was engaged for delivery of
telegrams at piece rate @Rs.2/- per each delivery of the telegram and the Petitioner was never recruited nor
appointed by Respondent in employment under recruitment regulation. Respondent has not issued any appointment
letter to the Petitioner. The Respondent management being instrumentality of the Government, bound by rules and
regulations for recruitment of employees for the organization.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision has laid down principles and guidelines for regularization of casual
workman, In the case of ONGC Vs. Krishan Gopal 2020(3) Scale 272,Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have
laid down the principle regarding regularization of the casual workman and have held:-
“23 The following propositions would emerge upon analyzing the above decisions:
(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order
regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in
Article 14 of the Constitution;
(ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of
permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not
filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary
or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages;
(iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are
available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of
service;
(iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open
to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
423
a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of
Article 14; and
(v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the
ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years,
with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.”
But in the instant matter, Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence that he was appointed by Respondent by following
recruitment procedure or he was working against any sanctioned post in the Respondent management. Petitioner
failed to adduce any evidence on record that the Respondent was indulged in any unfair labour practice by not filling
the permanent post even though such post was available and by calling to employ workman as temporary or daily
wages employees despite performing the same work as regular workman on lower wages. Therefore, for the want of
such plea and evidence, the claim of the Petitioner for regularization in the Respondent service is not acceptable.
Further, in Hari Nandan Prasad v Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India20 (“FCI”),
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have held:
“34. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when there
are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction for
regularisation only because a worker has continued as daily- wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of
years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impermissible. In the
aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularise such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by
such a worker as daily-wager, etc. may amount to back door entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14
of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the worker concerned does not meet the
eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the recruitment rules. However, wherever it is found that
similarly situated workmen are regularised by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen
in question who have approached the Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of regularisation in
such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularisation of the left-over workers itself would amount to
invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the
industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than violating this
constitutional provision.”
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the
claim of the Petitioner for regularization is not tenable.
Thus, Point No.II is decided against the Petitioner accordingly.
14.
Point No.III: In view of the finding given at Points No. I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief
claimed and his petition is found to be baseless, devoid of merit and hence, liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, Point No.III is decided accordingly.
AWARD
The action of the management of BSNL, Guntur in terminating the services of workman Shri Md. Zaheer
w.e.f. 6.8.2008 is held legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Petition is
dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 2nd day of January, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Md. Zaheer
MW1: Sri P. Rami Reddy
MW2: Sri Kota N.V. Prasanna Kumar
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of authorization lr by Respondent dt.17.6.2008
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of minutes of discussion dt.18.6.2008
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of representation dt.16.7.2008
424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of minutes of meeting dt.6.10.2008
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of notice from ACL dt.7.11.2008
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of minutes of meeting dt.16.12.2008
Ex.W7: Photostat copy of notice from ACL dt.23.1.2009
Ex.W8: Photostat copy of minutes of discussion dt.4.2.2009
Ex.W9: Photostat copy of failure report dt.12.2.2009
Ex.W10: Photostat copy of reference of govt. dt.21.5.2009
Ex.W11: Photostat copy of affidavit by Petitioner dt.6.6.2009
Ex.W12: Photostat copy of information reg. delivery of telgramme dt.11.3.2010
Ex.W13: Photostat copy of reg. bill payment to delivery of telegrammedt.7.4.2010
Ex.W14: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams from 1.5.02 to 10.5.02
Ex.W15: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams from21.5.202 to 31.5.02
Ex.W16: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams from1.6.02 to 10.6.02
Ex.W17: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams from 11.6.02 to 20.6.02
Ex.W18: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams
Ex.W19: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams
Ex.W20: Photostat copy of cooly charges for delivery of telegrams
Ex.W21: Photostat copy of Union resolution
Ex.W22: Photostat copy of strike notice
Ex.W23: Photostat copy of demands of union
Ex.W24:Photostat copies of bunch of papers (1 to 65) for allotment of duty charts of work chart, details of
messengers, timings etc. of Petitioner from 1.1.99 to till date
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 144.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj डब्ल् ू.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] ििलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी-55/2013+) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@01@2025 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/264/2012-vkbZ vkj (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/55/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of W.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/264/2012-IR(CM-II]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
425
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/2013
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Zonal Mahamantri,
Coal Mines, Engg. Works Association,
Ward No. 10, Gude PO,
Distt. Palachorai, Chhindwara
Workman
Vs
Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfield Limited,
Kanhan region, PO Dungria,
Chhindwara
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 2nd day of January-2025)
As per letter dated 05/03/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per Notification
No. L-22012/264/2012-IR (CM-II) dt. 05/03/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
अनुसूची
“क्या श्रम संघ कोल माइन्स इंजीननयर ंग वककसक एसोनसयेशन नजला निदवाडा प्रबंधतंत्र, मुख्य
महाप्रबंधक, वेस्टनक कोलफील्डस नलनमटेड, कन्हान क्षेत्र पोस्ट डुंगर या नजला निदवाडा म०प्र० के प्रबंधन से
मृतक कमक
ा श्री अमरूनतया आत्मज स्व० अम लाल (ज० म०) डीपीआ अम्बाडा काल ी की मृत्यु नदनांक
01/06/2001 के पश्चात उनके आनश्रत पुत्र श्री असाडू को 18 वर्क की आयु 01.05.2006 को पूर्क होने पश्चात
अनुकम्पा ननयुक्ति प्रदान क ने की मांग न्यायोनचत है? यनद नहीं तो संबंनधत श्रम संघ/कमक
ा नकस अनुतोर्
का हकदा है?”
After receiving the reference, notices were send to the parties, which were served. The parties filed their
respective statements of claim and defense.
Admitted between the parties in their pleadings are the facts that the Workman Amrutia died while under
Employment of Management on 09.06.2001, he was survived by his Widow Smt. Premavti, son Asadu and three
Daughters. Also not disputed between the parties are the facts that the Widow of the Workman requested for
Compassionate Appointment of Son Asadu who was minor at that time being about 13 years hence, he could not be
considered for compassionate appointment as per rules. The Management informed the Widow that claim of Asadu
has been registered in the Live Register maintained by Management with respect to candidates to be considered for
Compassionate Appointment and his case will be considered after Asadu attaining age of 18 years. This information
was served on the Widow of the deceased Workman vide letter of the Superintendent Mines dated 05/02/2002. It is
the case of the applicants that after attaining 18 years of age, the Widow of the deceased Workman requested for
Compassionate Appointment of Son Asadu, vide her communication to Management dated 18/01/2006 addressed to
Mines Manager and vide Remainders dated 08/09/2006 and 19/09/2006. Further, according to the Applicants,
Management informed them vide their communication dated 07/04/2007, 05/06/2007, and 19/02/2008 informing the
Widow that her case was pending before Senior Management and decision in this respect would be informed after it is
taken. It is further the case of the applicants that Management refused to offer Compassionate Appointment to Asadu
on the ground that there was a difference in his date of birth which was 10/05/1987 in the Educational Records of the
Asadu and 10/05/1988 in the Service Records of the Workman. According to the applicant side, this action of
Management is arbitrary, illegal and unjust. Applicants side has thus prayed that, Asadu is entitled to Compassionate
Appointment as per rules after he attained age of 18 years on 01/05/2006, Management be directed accordingly.
426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management, in their pleadings, has taken a case that Compassionate Appointment to Asadu was not
considered because his Educational Records showed his date of birth 10.05.1988; whereas his date of birth declared
by the Deceased Workman in his Service Records was 10.05.1987. Another ground taken by Management for refusing
of Compassionate Appointment is that the Workman died in year 2000, whereas the Compassionate Appointment was
sought in 2006 which was delayed. Further, according to Management the Widow of the Deceased Workman was not
granted any Monetary Compensation on death of her husband due to discrepancy with respect to her age in different
records maintained by Management. According to Management, her age was mentioned 35 years as on 13.06.1987 in
the service records of the Workman. It was mentioned 40 years as on 28.09.1998 in the LTC and it was 49 years
mentioned in the Certificate of Dependants issued by the Gram Panchayat on 06.07.2001.
In evidence, the applicant side has filed copy of service excerpts of the deceased Workman, Death
Certificate, letter of Superintendant Mines to Manager Personnel dated 22.07.2001, Office order dated 05.02.2002.
Application filed by Widow of the Deceased Workman was 18.01.2006 before Mines Manager informing him that her
dependant Son Asadu has not completed 18 years and he will be given a Compassionate Appointment after he attains
the age of 18 years. Remainder dated 19.09.2006, 02.11.2009 and 22.02.2011 sent by the Widow of Deceased to
Management which are Exhibit W-6 to W-8. School Certificate, Mark-sheet which are Exhibit W-9 and W-10. Letter
of Mines Manager 08.09.2006 sent to the Widow informing her that her matter has been referred to Headquarter and
another letter of Mines Superintendent dated 07.04.2007 informing the Widow about status of her representation,
another letter of Management dated 15.06.2007 and 19.02.2008 informing the Widow about the status of her
Application which are Exhibit W-13 and W-14 as well another Letter of Management dated 19.01.2009 sent to the
Widow regarding status of her application which is Exhibit-15. The applicant’s side has also filed Affidavits of the
Widow and Asadu as their examination-in-chief. They have been cross-examined by Management.
The Management has filed affidavit of its Manager Yogendra Kumar Singh as his examination-in-chief, it
is filed and proved. The original first application of the Widow filed by her before the Management on 07.07.2001
seeking Compassionate Appointment of her Son. Letter of Management dated 25.07.2001 informing the Widow that
name of her Son has been recorded in the Live Register and he will be offered Compassionate Appointment after he
attains 18 years of age, also informing the Widow that till Asadu attains 18 years of age, she may seek Monetary
Compensation as per rules. Another Letter of Management sent to the Deputy Chief Medical Officer on 31.12.2002
which shows that the Widow has been sanctioned Monetary Compensation on Monthly basis from 01.08.2001 and her
case has been referred to the Age Determination Committee for determination of her age due to discrepancy (as
mentioned earlier) in different documents available with the Management.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for Applicant Shri Praveen Yadav and Learned Counsel for
Management Shri Neeraj Kevat. Applicant side has filed written submissions also which is part of record. I have gone
through the record in the light of oral and written submissions.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the issue which arises for determination is as
follows:
1. Whether, the action of Management in refusing Compassionate Appointment to the dependant son
Asadu, only on the ground of discrepancy regarding his date of birth in the service record of the
deceased Workman and educational qualification records of son Asadu is justified in law?
2. Whether, the action of Management in not granting Monetary benefit to the Widow of the
Workman only on the ground of discrepancy regarding her age in different documents is justified
in law?
Since, these two issues are interrelated, they are been taken together.
Clause 9.3.0, 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 of National Coal Wage agreement are being reproduced as follows:-
9.3.0., 9.4.0 & 9.5.0 Provision of Employment/payment of monthly monetary compensation to
Dependant.
(i)
The Clauses 9.3.0, 9.4.0 & 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI will be operative in NCWA-VIII till a revised
scheme is jointly prepared keeping in view the various verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court at
the earliest.
(ii)
A Sub-committee of JBCCI will formulate a scheme keeping in view various directives of
Supreme Court on the subject within three months of signing of the Agreement.
(iii)
Meanwhile provision of employment as mentioned at (i) above, shall be on basic wage of Cat-I
as trainee for a period of 6 months. During the training period they will have the status of
permanent employee. On completion of training they shall be regularized as Cat-I employee.
However, those dependants in possession of Technical/professional qualification will be
considered for appointment in higher category, keeping in view their qualification, suitability
and vacancy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
427
(iv)
The monthly monetary compensation payable to the female dependant in case of death either
in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness of the employee shall be @
Rs.6000/- with effect from 1.5.2008.
(v)
In case of death either in mine accident or due to other reasons or medical unfitness, if no
employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years
and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment
commensurate with his skill and when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the
male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as
given in (iv) above.
A perusal of the provisions referred to above clearly reflects that in case of death of a Workman while in
Service in Mines due to accident or other reasons, compassionate appointment will be offered to his male dependant
and that if no employment has been offered and a male dependant is of 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on
Live Roaster and will be provided employment under compassionate commensurate with his qualifications when he
attains age of 18 years. Also that, during this period of male dependant being on Life Roaster, the widow of deceased
workman shall be paid monetary compensation. It implies that for being registered in the Live Register also, the age
of the male dependant son should be more than 12 years or above. The Workman admittedly died on 01.06.2001.
Whatever we take the date of the birth of Asadu, on the basis of both the dates of births, his age on death of his father
on 01.06.2001 comes more than 12 years. Hence, irrespective of discrepancy of his date of birth he was undoubtedly
eligible to be registered into the Live Register maintained for Compassionate Appointment with respect to such cases.
The first ground taken by Management for refusal of Compassionate Appointment is not the financial Condition of
the family nor is it educational qualification of claimant or non availability of post. The only ground taken is
discrepancy with respect to dates of birth of Asadu(claimant) which is 10.05.1987 in service record of the Workman
and 10.05.1988 in Educational Certificates of Asadu. According, to the Rules above mentioned, for submission of
prayer after a claimant whose name is in the Live Register/Roaster for appointment after he attains 18 years of age, no
time limit is provided. So, the first application of the Widow filed by her before the Management after Asadu became
18 years of age according to her cannot be held barred by any limitation because no such limitation is provided in the
rules. On facts also, there is no delay on the part of the widow as she put her claim just after death of the workman,
her husband and just after her son Asadu attained 18 years of age
Also it is established that the for offering Compassionate Appointment, the Educational Qualification
records will be more reliable as compared to declaration made by father with respect to date of birth of his son in his
service record made. Management has always an option to get the age/date of birth of a person who has been
proposed appointment decided as per Rules. Management did not adopt this procedure. Hence, action of
Management in refusing Compassionate Appointment to Asadu only on the ground of discrepancy regarding
date of his birth as mentioned above is held nothing short of illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
The second ground taken by Management is that death occurred in 2001 and claim for Compassionate
Appointment was put in 2006 this is a base row ground. The Rules mentioned above, itself provide that in case
complainant is less than 18 years but more than 12 years, his claim shall be registered in the Life Roaster and he will
be offered Compassionate Appointment after he attains 18 years of age, hence refusal of Compassionate
Appointment to Asadu on this ground is also held arbitrary, illegal and unjust.
As regards, the claim of Monetary Compensation, to the Widow of the deceased Workman, she is held
entitled to Monetary Compensation from the date of death of the Deceased Workman till date of appointment of
Asadu on compassionate basis or she attains age of 60, years whichever is earlier, on the rates prevalent time to time.
As regards discrepancy with respect to her ageais claimed by Management, I.I.76 is not applicable in her case because
she is not an employee of Management at the time she put her claim. Secondly, to Documents Service Records of the
Workman in which age of his wife (now his Widow) is mentioned as 35 years in 1987 and 49 years in the Certificate
issued by Panchayat 2001 corresponds to the age shown in service records. Her age mentioned in the LTC document
of deceased Workman is liable to be ignored.
On the basis of above discussion the Widow of the deceased Workman is held entitled to Monetary
Compensation on rates prevalent from time to time from date of death of her husband till date of appointment of
Asadu on compassionate basis or she attains age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, on the rates prevalent time to time
and also held entitled to interest @ of 10% per annum on this amount.
Further, Asadu is held entitled to employment on Compassionate basis which is commensurate to his
educational qualification and suitability within 60 days from the date of publication of Award. The applicants are also
held entitled to litigation cost Rs. 50,000/- from Management to to be paid to him within 60 days from the date of
publication of Award failing with interest @ 10% per annum.
Reference stands answered accordingly.
DATE:- 02/01/2025
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 145.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj डब्ल् ू.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa
dsUnzh;
ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k–
सि
–
Je
U;k;ky;]
ििलृुर
ds
iapkV
(एलसी- आर/64/2016,32/2016,69/2016, आर-70/2016) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
09@01@2025 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/26/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
[सं. ,y-22012/16/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
[सं. ,y-22012/45/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
[सं. ,y-22012/46/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/R/64/2016,32/2016,69/2016,R-70/2016)of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the Management of W.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/01/2025.
[F. No. L-22012/26/2016 – IR (CM-II)]
[F. No. L-22012/16/2014 – IR (CM-II)]
[F. No. L-22012/45/2016 – IR (CM-II)]
[F. No. L-22012/46/2016 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
1. No. CGIT/LC/R/64/2016
Md. Naseem Siddiqui,
Zonal Mahamantri,
Coal Mines Engg. Workers Association,
Ward No. 10, Gudhi, Palachauri
Chhindwara (MP) - 480449
Vs
The Regional General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Pench Area, Po : Parasia,
Distt. Chhindwara(MP)- 480441
……Leading Case
2. No. CGIT/LC/R/32/2016
Zonal Mahamantri,
Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association,
Ward No. 10, Gudi, PO : Palachauri
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
429
Vs
The Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Kanhan Area,
Dungaria PO: Dungaria
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
3. No. CGIT/LC/R/69/2016
Mohd. Naseem Siddki,
Zonal Mahamantri,
Coal Mines Engg. Workers Association
Ward No.10, Guddi, Palachouri.
Distt. Chhindwara(MP)
Vs
The Area General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Kanhan Area, Post Dungaria Teh. Junardev,
Distt. Chhindwara(MP)
4. No. CGIT/LC/R/70/2016
Mohd. Naseem Siddki,
Zonal Mahamantri,
Coal Mines Engg. Workers Association
Ward No.10, Guddi, Palachouri.
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
Vs
The Area General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Kanhan Area, Post Dungaria Teh. Junardev,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 5th day of December-2024)
1. In the case NO. CGIT/LC/R/64/2016
As per letter dated 09/06/2016 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per
Notification No. L-22012/26/2016 – IR (CM-II) dt. 09/06/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
“क्या क्षेत्रीय महाप्रबंधक, वैस्टनक कोलफील्डस नलनमटेड, पेंच क्षेत्र, पोस्ट प ानसया, नजला निंदवाडा (मध्य प्रदेश)
द्वा ा एनसीडब्ल्यूए -।। के प्रावधान 10.4.4 व एनसीडब्ल्यूए -।।। के प्रावधान 9.4.4 के अनुसा नदनांक 30.09.2011 को
सेवाननवृत्त हुए पूवक कामगा श्री सु ेश कुमा नपता सीता ाम के आनश्रत पुत्र श्री आशीर् कुमा को ोजगा न देना
न्यायसंगत है? यनद नहीं तो पूवक कामगा क्या अनुतोर् पाने का अनधका ी है?
2. In the case NO. CGIT/LC/R/32/2016
As per letter dated 02/03/2016 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’)
as per Notification No. L-22012/16/2014 - IR (CM-II) dt. 02/03/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"Whether the action of the Manager, WCL, Ambara Colliery, Kanhan Area, PO: Ambara, Distt.
Chhindwara (MP) in denying employment to Shri Reefak Ahmed dependent son of Shri Sher Mohammad, ex-
employee who retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2008 under the provisions of 10.4.4 of NCWA II and provisions of
9.4.4 of NCWA III is justified? If not, to what relief the ex-workman is entitled to?"
3. In the case NO. CGIT/LC/R/69/2016
As per letter dated 08/08/2016 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’)
as per Notification No. L-22012/45/2016 – IR (CM-II) dt. 08/08/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
"क्या क्षेत्रीय महाप्रबंधक, वैस्टनक कोलफील्डस नलनमटेड, कन्हान क्षेत्र, पोस्ट डंगर या, तह0 जुन्ना देव, नजला
निंदवाडा (मध्य प्रदेश) द्वा ा एनसीडब्ल्यूए -।। के प्रावधान 10.4.4 व एनसीडब्ल्यूए –।।। के प्रावधान 9.4.4 के अनुसा
नदनांक 30.06.2012 को सेवाननवृत्त हुए पूवक कामगा श्री गजानंद नपता धुन्नीलाल मालवीय के आनश्रत पुत्र श्री आयुर् को
ोजगा न देना न्यायसंगत है? यनद नहीं तो पूवक कामगा क्या अनुतोर् पाने का अनधका ी है?"
4. In the case NO. CGIT/LC/R/70/2016
As per letter dated 08/08/2016 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’)
as per Notification No. L-22012/46/2016 – IR (CM-II) dt. 08/08/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
"क्या क्षेत्रीय महाप्रबंधक, वैस्टनक कोलफील्डस नलनमटेड, कन्हान क्षेत्र, पोस्ट डंगर या, तह0 जुन्ना देव, नजला
निंदवाडा (मध्य प्रदेश) द्वा ा एनसीडब्ल्यूए ।। के प्रावधान 10.4.4 व एनसीडब्ल्यूए ।।। के प्रावधान 9.4.4 के अनुसा
नदनांक 30.06.2012 को सेवाननवृत्त हुए पूवक कामगा श्री सु ेश कुमा नपता प्रहलाद ाव नपता नत्थू ाव, के आनश्रत पुत्र श्री
प्रवीर् कोल्हे को ोजगा न देना न्यायसंगत है? यनद नहीं तो पूवक कामगा क्या अनुतोर् पाने का अनधका ी है?"
Notices were issued to the parties on the basis of the references received in these cases. They appeared and
filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
In all these cases, it is admitted between parties that Father of the Applicants worked with the Management
and Superannuated on different dates mentioned in the references. The applicants have sought for their
Compassionate Appointment. The applicants have claimed appointment on compassionate basis consequent to
superannuation of their Father as dependent Sons in the light of provisions of Clause 10.4.4 of National Coal Wage
Agreement II (NCWA-II) and Clause 9.4.4 of National Coal Wage Agreement III (NCWA III).
The case of Management is that, the NCWA-II & NCWA-III which contain provisions for Compassionate
Appointment to one dependent of an Employee of the Management consequent to his Superannuation was not in force
at time of Superannuation of the Employees rather NCWA - IV to XI were in force which did not provide such an
appointment. Hence, according to the Management, the claim of the applicants is not suitable.
Parties have adduced their respective evidences on their pleadings as mentioned above in each of the cases.
I have heard argument of the Union representative for Applicants and Learned Counsel for Management
Mr. Neeraj Kewat in the cases and have gone through the record.
Since factual position as stated in pleadings is not disputed. There remains only a point of law whether the
claim of the applicants for Compassionate Appointment is tenable in law or not.
Since, all these cases in facts are similar and one point is involved in all these cases, they are been disposed
by a common judgment.
NCWA-II & III Clause 9.4.4 and 10.4.4 are being reproduced as follows:-
9.4.4- The scheme with respect to appointment of one dependent of an employee after his superannuation
will continue.
Same is the provision in NCWA III.
9.3.0:- Provision of Employment to Dependents:
9.3.2:-
Employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service. In so far as female
dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be
governed by para 9.5.0.
9.4.0:-
Employment to one dependant of worker who id permanently disabled in his place:
(i)
The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent
nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company
concerned.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
431
(ii)
In case of disablement arising out of general physical disability so certified by the Coal company,
the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefits under this clause if he/she is upt the age of
58 years.
The term general physical disability would mean deficiency of a workman due to any disease of
other health reasons leading to his/her disablement to perform his/her duties regularly and/or
efficiently.
(iii)
The dependent for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be unmarried daughter, son
and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is available for employment, brother, widowed
daughter/widowed daughter in law or son in law residing with the employee and almost wholly
dependent on the carning of the employee may be considered.
In son far as female dependents are concerned, their employment would be governed by the
provisions of clause 9.5.8
(iv)
The dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for
employment and aged more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of
female spouse would he 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.8. In so far as male spouse is concerned,
there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.
9.5.0:-
Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependent Provision of employment/monetary
compensation to female dependents of workmen who dies while in service and ho are declared
medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:
(i)
In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either accept
the monetary compensation of Rs.4000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age.
(ii)
In case of death total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical
unfitness under Clause9.4.8, if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have the
option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,900/- per month or employment.
In case the female dependent is above 45years of age she will be entitled only to monetary
compensation and not to employment.
(iii)
In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause
9.4.0 if not employment has been offered and the make dependent of the concerned worker is 12
years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment
commensurate with his sill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the
period the make dependent is en live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary
compensation as per rates at paras(i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1-1-2000.
(iv)
Monetary compensation wherever applicable would be paid till the female dependent attains the
age of 60 years.
(v)
The existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in
the Standardization Committee and finalized.
Perusal of NCWA-IV to NCWA-XI reveals that there is no such provision for appointment of one
dependant an Employee who is superannuated on compassionate ground.
This is also established that the NCWA-III & NCWA-IV were substituted by law NCWA and it was
NCWA VII & IX which were in force at the time of Superannuation of the Workmen in these cases.
Hence, naturally since the NCWA-II & NCWA-III on the basis of which the claim of Compassionate
Appointment has been raised in these cases will not benefit the Applicants because it was not enforce at the time of
Superannuation of their Employees.
Thus, holding the claim of the applicants in the reference not tenable in law, the reference deserves to be
answered against the Applicants as follows.
AWARD
Holding the claim of the applicants of cases R/64/2016, R/32/2016, R/69/2016, R/70/2016 are not
tenable in law, the action of Management of WCL in denying appointment to the applicants on the ground of
being the dependent son of the Workman on his superannuation is held justified in law. The applicants are held
entitled to no benefits.
No order as to cost.
Copy of this award be placed in on the file of all the Cases.
DATE:- 05/12/2024
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 146.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] ििलृुर
ds iapkV (एलसी-146/2012+) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@01@2025 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/195/2012-vkbZ vkj (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/146/2012) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/01/2025
[No. L-22012/195/2012-IR(CM-II]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/146/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
The General Secretary,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),
Qtr. No-M/91, Vikas Nagar, PO-Kusmunda,
Distt. – Korba, Chattisgarh
Workman
Vs
1.
The General Manger,
SECL, Kusmunda Area,
PO :- Kusmunda,
Distt. – Korba, Chattisgarh
2.
General Manager (M),
SECL, Kusmunda Project,
Post – Kusmunda,
District – Korba, Chattisgarh
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 26th day of November-2024)
As per letter dated 30/11/2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per Notification No. L-
22012/195/2012-IR (CM-II) dt. 30/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of (i) the General Manager, SECL Kusmunda Area, Post –
Kusmunda, Dist. – Korba (CG) and (ii) the General Manager (M), SECL Kusmunda Project, Post –
Kusmunda, Dist. – Korba (CG) in not correction the date of birth as well as the date of appointment of
Shri Nirmal Das, Chief Cashier (i) as mentioned in service sheet & CMPF records as 01.05.1957 and
30.04.1977 (ii) on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate as per I.I. No. 76 of NCWA was legal, proper
and justified? What relief the said workman is entitled to and from what date?”
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
433
After registering case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to parties. They appeared and filed their
respective statements of claim and defense.
Case of the workman, as stated by him in his statement of claim, is mainly that he had completed his High
School Examination in 1976 and was registered with Employment Exchange Korba, on 15/07/1976 with registration
No. 10190/76. He was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was appointed as a Casual PR Loader on
30/04/1977 at Banki Colliery under Management, has submitted his High School Certificate in which his date of birth
was recorded as 01/05/1957. His identity card was prepared, mentioning his age as 20 years in 1977 which
corresponds to his actual date of birth 01/05/1957 in his Mandatory Initial Medical Examination under Rule-29 BA-II
of Mines Rules 1955, as date of Birth 01/05/1957 was entered into at the time of preparation of Form B Register,
prepared at time of entry in service on 30/04/1977. His date of birth was recorded 01/05/1957, in the service excerpts
issued by Management on 30/09/1987, his same date of birth 01/05/1957 and date of joining 30/04/1977 was
recorded. Management prepared his new identity card in 1992 mentioning his date of birth 08/05/1953 and date of
joining 01/04/1981 respectively. Since then, he has been approaching Management to correct his date of birth, but no
action was taken by Management. Later, Management issued Superannuation notice dated 24/12/2012 superannuated
him on 31/05/2013 on attaining age of 60 years on the basis of his wrongly recorded date of birth 08/05/2013 and was
superannuated from service on 31/05/2013. It is further the case of Workman that, the action of Management in
changing his date of birth from 01/05/1957 to 08/05/1953 is in violation of Implementation Instructions 76 (I.I. 76),
hence is arbitrary. Accordingly, action of Management superannuated him on basis of his date of birth wrongly
changed by Management is also arbitrary. The Workman has thus sought the relief of his reinstatement with back-
wages and benefits pre & post retrial, holding the action of Management in superannuating him on his changed date
of birth against law.
The case of Management, as taken in its statement of defense, is mainly that firstly the Workman has raised
this dispute at the vague end of his service that is just before his Superannuation. According to Management, the
Workman was initially appointed and regularised in service on 01/04/1981 as General Mazdoor in Banki Colliery of
Korba Area, he had declared his date of birth as 08/05/1953 at the time of his first appointment which was recorded in
the Form B Register, duly engaged by the Workman by putting his signature on the Form. In other registers also, his
same date of birth was recorded. According to Management, the Workman was transferred from Banki Colliery to
Kusmunda Project and in Kusmunda Project. He declared his date of birth as 01/05/1957 for the first time but did
produce any documents to support. Management recorded the date of birth 01/05/1957 declared by him. Subject to
verification from Banki Project and it was on verification found that his date of Birth was recorded as 08/05/1953 in
Form B maintained at Banki Project from where he was transferred to Kusmunda. The entry was corrected. According
to Management, Medical Examination is not for asserting the age of the Workman, rather it is for asserting fitness of
the Workman to work under the mines. Also, it is the case of Management that since then the Workman never raised
any dispute regarding his dates of birth rather has raised dispute just before few months from his superannuation.
Hence, his claim is barred by unexplained delay and latches on his part. Management has thus requested that the
reference to be answered against the Workman.
In evidence, the Workman has filed and proved Exhibit W-1 to W-4 which are his application to Labour
Commissioner raising dispute, reply of Management, rejoinder by Management and report of failure and conciliation.
Exhibit W-7, W-8 are copies of High School Certificate and Mark-sheet. Exhibit W-5 is notice of Superannuation and
W-6 is Copy of I.I. 76, Exhibit W-9 is Copy of Service Exhibits of Workman issued by Management in 1987. The
Workman has filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief; he has been cross-examined by Management.
Management has filed and proved copy of Form B of the Workman in Kusmunda Project. Copy of Service
Register, Copy of Form B in Banki Project which are Exhibit M-1 to M-3 respectively. Management has further filed
affidavit of his witness as his examination-in-chief which has been cross-examined by Workman side. The Workman
has also filed and proved copies of his representation to Management in 2007, 2009, 2010 which are Exhibit-10 (1 to
2), 10 (3).
None was present at the time of argument, no written arguments has been field by any of the parties. I have
gone through the record.
The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand
Both the sides have corroborated their case in their statements. According to the Workman he was first
appointed in 1977 were as according to the Management he was first appointed in 1981. Management has filed
photocopy of Form B of Banka Sub-area were the Workman first joined. The date of birth of the Workman is recorded
08/05/1953 and date of his employment is recorded as 01/04/1981 in this document which is Exhibit M-3. The entry
in the Service Register, Exhibit M-2 supports these entries. The case of the Workman is that in Banki sub-area his date
of birth as 01/05/1957 was recorded in Form B. The Workman has neither filed nor proved such Form B of Banki
Area as claimed by him. The Copy of Form B of Banki sub-area filed by Management and proved; goes against the
case of Workman. The stand of the Workman is that after correctly recording his date of birth in Form B, it was
recorded wrongly by Management without any order. According to Management, the date of birth was correct in
434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Form B maintained at Kusmunda sub-area where the Workman joined on transfer from Banki sub-area on the basis of
information received by way of Form B maintained in Banki sub-area where the Workman has first joined.
According to I.I. 76 in case of Matriculated Workman, the date of birth recorded in Matriculation
Certificate will be taken to be final in case of dispute in his age.
IMPLEMENTATION INSTRUCTION NO. 76
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION/ VERIFICATION OF AGE OF EMPLOYEES
(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment
(i)
Matriculates.
In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth
recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered
under any circumstances.
Case of Management is that the Workman raised dispute just few months before his superannuation whereas the
Workman has stated that he has been raising this dispute since before when he came to know about the discrepancy.
He has filed and proved Exhibit W-10(1) to W-10(3) which are different representations filed by him seeking
correction in date of birth. Hence, the case of Management that dispute was raised at fag end of his service by the
Workman does not hold water. Rather from evidence as mentioned above, it is proved that the Workman did agitate
against the wrong entry recording his date of birth much before the date of his superannuation. The Workman has
filed and proved a photocopy of service exhibits issued by Management in 1987, to the Workman which is exhibit W-
9. In this document his date of birth is recorded as 01/05/1957. This document contains signature of the Welfare
Officer. The date of preparation of this document is not mentioned but since there is a signature of Personnel Officer
of Management on 02/02/1993, it implies that this document was served on the Workman after 02.02.1993. Since
there is no discrepancy regarding date of his birth in this document, the Workman did not have any occasion to
represent for correction of his date of birth on basis of this document. It appears that the date of birth of the Workman
was changed at any time after 02/02/1993 by Management in its records.
Since, it is proved from record that, the Management filed different representations as different times as
mentioned above rising dispute regarding date of his birth, it was in competent on Management to address the
grievances mentioned in his representations and fix the dispute in the light of I.I. 76 which is for determination of age
disputes of the Workman. As referred in I.I. 76 in case of matriculated Workman, the date of birth recorded in the
Matriculation Certificate will be taken to be final, keeping in view the fact that the Matriculation Certificate is of 1976
that is before the Workman entered in service of Management for the first time, and there is nothing on record to show
that this Matriculation is not genuine. Also keeping in view the fact that in the 1987 document which are service
records of the Workman Exhibit W-9 the fact that the Workman is matriculated is mentioned, it was incumbent on
Management to correct his date of birth on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate. The action of Management in
not correcting the date of birth of the workman Nirmal Das in the light of his matriculation certificate, the
Management is acted in violation of Clause 5 of I.I. 76. Hence, this action of Management is held arbitrary and
unjust in law.
In consequence, the action of Management in superannuating the Workman on the basis of his date of birth
08/05/1953 is held against law. Consequently, the workman is held entitled to be deemed in service till the date
of his superannuation based on his Matriculation Certificate which is 01/05/1957 and also held entitled to back-
wages as well the in service and post retrial benefits.
The reference is answered accordingly.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 26/11/2024
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 147.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] ििलृुर ds iapkV(एलसी-30/2016+) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@01@2025 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/129/2011-vkbZ vkj (सीएम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
435
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/30/2016) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/01/2025
[No. L-22012/129/2011-IR(CM-II]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/30/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
1. Shri Sudama, S/O Shri Ramvachan
R/O Ekta Nagar, Post: Khongapani,
PS: South Jhagrakhand,
Ditt. Korea (C.G.)- 497446
2.
Shri Amar Vishvas, S/O Late N. Vishvas
R/O LCH Qtr. NO. 9,
PS: South Jhagrakhand,
Distt. Korea(C.G.) – 497446
3.
Shri Rajendra Prasad, S/O Late Ramparikhan
Qtr. No. 124, Bisim Colony
Vill. & Post: Khongapani,
PS: South Jhagrakhand,
Distt. Korea (C.G.) - 497446
Workman
Vs
The General Manger,
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,
Hasdeo Area,
P.O. South Jhagrakhand,
Distt. – Korea (C.G.)-497446
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 26th day of December-2024)
As per letter dated 26/02/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per Notification
No. L-22012/129/2011-IR (CM-II) dt. 26/02/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager of Hasdeo Area of SECL in not regularizing Category-I
Mazdoor in the post of Security Guard working since last 18 years w.e.f. 1997 in respect of Shri Sudama and legal
heirs of Late Rajendra Prasad and Late Amar Vishvas to the post of Security Guard and not protecting their wages
as per with that of the regular Security Personnel is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief Shri Sudama
and legal heirs of late Rajendra Prasad and late Amar Vishvas are entitled to?”
436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
After registering case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to parties. They appeared and filed their
respective statements of claim and defense.
Case of the workmen, is mainly that these three applicant workmen were initially appointed as General
Mazdoor in the Hasdeo Area of Management of SECL and were placed at different times to work in the Security
Establishment of Management as Security Guard. The applicant Rajendra Prasad was initially appointed as Loader
w.e.f. 18/08/1976 and was posted in the Security Department of Management as Security Guard on 09/07/1997. The
Second Workman, Sudama Prasad was initially appointed as PR Tramar. He received injury on job and on his
request on Medical Grounds, he was allotted Surface Light Duty and was posted in the Security Department of
Management as Security Guard in 1995 vide order dated 26/10/1995. The third applicant, Amar Vishvas was
initially appointed as General Mazdoor on 24/01/1975 and was allotted Surface Light Duty by way of his posting in
Security Department as Security Guard and worked as Security Guard till his superannuation. According to these
workmen, they worked as Security Guard for years till their death/superannuation but were not paid wages admissible
to Security Guard nor were they made permanent also not regularized as Security Guard which is discriminatory and
illegal on the part of Management. These workmen have prayed that they be held entitled to be regularized and to
permanent status as Security Guard and also being held entitled to the Wages and in-service benefits admissible to the
Security Guards.
Management has taken the case that, these three Workmen were appointed as a General Mazdoor and on
their request they were attached with the Security Establishment on the same Grade/Scale/Post which they were
earlier working as they had themselves opted for it for various reasons. According to Management, they were never
appointed as Security Guards, they were General Mazdoors and given benefits admissible to the Cadre of General
Mazdoors. It is further the case of Management that, the Security establishment is governed by a Separate Cadre that
is scheme requiring separate eligibility criteria and considerations. The Management has thus prayed that the
reference be answered against the Workman.
During pendency, the Workman No.2 Rajendra Prasad and No.3 Amar Vishvas died and their legal
representatives were brought on record.
The Workmen side filed affidavits of its witness Ashish Vishvas, Amit Vishvas, Anoop Vishvas, Rajesh
Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Sudama out of which witness Sudama, Rakesh Kumar and Amit Vishvas of workmen side has
filed and proved documents Exhibit W-1 to W-25, to be referred to as and when required. These documents are
mainly relating to different office orders regarding their appointment, transfer and posting.
Management has filed affidavit of its witness Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Manager Security, who has
been cross-examined by Workmen. Management has also filed and proved documents Exhibit M-1 to M-8 to be
referred as and when required. These documents also are in relation to the appointment and transfer orders with
respect to the applicant workmen.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for Workman Shri Arun Patel and Learned Senior Counsel Shri
Anoop Nair assisted by Neeraj Kevat, Learned Counsel for Management and have gone through the record.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the main issued for determination which arises is as
follows:
“Whether the applicant workmen were transferred and posted as Security Guard in the Service
Establishment of Management.”
The pleadings of both the sides have been elaborated earlier on this issue. The Workman side witness have
stated in their statement on oath that they were transferred from Underground Duty, where they were working as
General Mazdoor to the Security Department of the Management and were posted as Security Guards. Management
witness has stated that in fact they were not posted as Security Guard rather they were allotted Light Duty on Surface
on their request due to various Medical and none-Medical reasons as detailed above, and were placed in the Security
Establishment in the same capacity/crave which they were working earlier before their placement in the Security
Establishment of Management.
The office orders field by the Workmen which are Exhibit W-1 to W-5 show that Workman Sudama was
recommended Light Duty by Medical Officer hence, he was granted Surface Light Duty and was associated to report
to the Junior Security Officer. The other two Workmen were also placed in the same way and in the same manner in
the Security Establishment on their request. The other documents proved by Workmen as mentioned above also reflect
the same facts. The documents filed by Management in this respect are also the same which show that these workmen
were working as General Mazdoor in underground duty and they were attached to Security Establishment of the
Management on their request for being granted Light Work on Surface in the same capacity/grade. None of these
documents goes to show that they were appointed as Security Guards at any period of time as claimed by them.
Hence, the claim of the Workmen that they were appointed as Security Guards is held not proved. On the basis of
these findings, these workmen are held not entitled to the relief claimed.
In the light of above discussion and findings the reference is answered as follows.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
437
AWARD
Holding the action of General Mazdoor Manager of Hasdeo Area of SECL in not regularizing and not
protecting the wages of Category-I Applicant Workmen on the post of Security Guard is proper, legal and
justified. The applicants are held entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 26/12/2024
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 148.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार मिाप्रिंिक और जििनेस ूजनट प्रमु , एनएसृीसीएल, राउरकेला, के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष,
एनएसृीसीएल श्रजमक संघ राउरकेला,के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण ,oa Je U;k;ky;] भुवनेश्वर ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा 33/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 25/01/2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-42011/280/2022-vkbZ vkj (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour–Bhubaneswar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
General Manager & Business Unit Head, NSPCL, Rourkela, and The President, NSPCL Shramik Sangh
Rourkela, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25/01/2025.
[No. L-42011/280/2022- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 33/2022
Date of Passing Order – 28th October 2024
Between:
The General Manager & Business Unit Head,
NSPCL, CPP – II, Administrative Building, RSP Complex,
Rourkela – 769 011.
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
The President, NSPCL Shramik Sangh, D/81,
Sector – 18, Rourkela – 769 003.
…
2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
In the present case, a reference was received from the Deputy Director to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour New Delhi vide order No. L-42011/280/2022 – IR(DU), dated 22.08.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the
following schedule:-
“Whether the transfer of Shri Pabitra Kumar Behera, Asst. Grade-VI by the management of NTPC SAIL
Power Company Limited (NSPCL), Rourkela from NSPCL, Rourkela to NSPCL, Durgapur, as raised by
NSPCL Shramik Sangha Rourkela vide letter dated 24.06.2022, is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the disputant is entitled to and what direction(s) if any is necessary in the matter?”
2. In the reference order, the Deputy Director, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi commanded the parties raising the
dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal
within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to each one of the
opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3. Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-Union.
4. On receipt of the above reference, notices were sent to the 2nd Party-Union on 05.12.2022 and on dated
24.11.2023 through Regd. Post for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to
the 2nd Party-Union, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services
remained unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the
above notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Union opted to
abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-
Union is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
5. Since the 2nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its cause
against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6. In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7. Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 149.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार प्राचा व, केन्द्री जवद्याल , गोलकुंडा, िजिरािाि; मजससव जसट ोररटी ऑनलाइन, रािेंद्र नगर, िजिरािाि, के
प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती ू. प ृाणाल, कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल - िजिरािाि ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा LC 09/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,
प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-42011/115/2016-vkbZ vkj (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 09/2017) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Golconda, Hyderabad; M/s Security Online,
Rajender Nagar, Hyderabad,, and Smt. U. Rooparanl, Smt. U. Rooparanl, Worker, which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.01.2025.
[No. L-42011/115/2016- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 3rd day of January, 2025
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
439
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 9/2017
Between:
Smt. U. Rooparanl,
W/o U. Pandari Nath,
H.No. 13-3-652/16/A,
Bheem Nagar, Jiyaguda,
Asifnagar, Hyderabad-
..….Petitioner
AND
1. The Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1,
Langar House, Golconda,
Hyderabad-500008.
2. M/s Security Online,
Plot No. 40, New friends Colony,
Upperpally, Pillar No. 176,
Rajender Nagar, Hyderabad-500048.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent: B. Narasimha Sharma & K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate of R2
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-42012/115/2016 (IR(DU) dated 27.03.2017
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. Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Langar House, Golconda, Hyderabad
and the Contractor M/s Security Online, Rajender Nagar, Hyderabad in terminating the services of
Smt. U. Roopa Rani is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? ‘
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 9/2017 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded to
him, the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner
has not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 3rd day of
January, 2025.
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
440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 150.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार
जनिेिक, राष्ट्री ृोषण संस्ट् ान, िमाई ओरमाजन ा, तरनाका, िजिरािाि, के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री ृी. साईिािा, कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -
िजिरािाि ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा LC 145/2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-42025-07-2025-36-vkbZ vkj (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 145/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Jamai Ormania, Tarnaka, Hyderabad,
and Shri P. Saibaba, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 27.01.2025.
[No. L-42025-07-2025-36- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 31st day of December, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.145/2013
Between:
P. Saibaba, S/o Kondaiah,
Aged about 26 years,
Occ: Casual Labourer,
National Institute of Nutrition,
Jamai Osmania, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad.
..….Petitioner
AND
National Institute of Nutrition,
Rep by its Director,
Jamai Ormania, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad-07.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner:
B. Pavan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Narasimha Sharma, Advocate of R1
Dr K K H M Syam Sundar, Advocate of R4
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
441
AWARD
Sri P. Saibaba, who worked as Contract Labourer (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents to declare the so-called
Contract invoked by the respondents as bogus, sham, ruse and camouflage only to deny the rightful benefits to the
petitioners both in terms of payment of minimum wages and in terms of their eligibility for grant of regularization,
while declaring the oral termination of the services of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act and that their actions are unfair labour practices as defined under the I.D Act and
Section 25-T, U and Schedule-V of the ID Act and as such consequently declare that the petitioner is the casual
labourer of the respondent organization and the termination of the petitioner is bad in law, arbitrary and violative of
Section 25-F of the ID Act and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages
and eligible for grant of regularization and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit.
2. On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient
opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, a ‘No claim’ award is
passed for want of evidence.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 31st day of
December, 2024.
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, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 151.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार जनिेिक, राष्ट्री ृोषण संस्ट् ान, िमाई ओरमाजन ा, तरनाका, िजिरािाि, के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री टी. जिविंकर, कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -
िजिरािाि ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा LC 146/2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ
[सं. ,y-42025-07-2025-35-vkbZ vkj (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 146/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Jamai Ormania, Tarnaka, Hyderabad,
and Shri T. Shivashankar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 27.01.2025.
[No. L-42025-07-2025-35- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[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 31st day of December, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 146/2013
Between:
T. Shivashankar, S/o Siddiraju,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Casual Labourer,
National Institute of Nutrition,
Jamai Osmania, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad.
..….Petitioner
AND
National Institute of Nutrition,
Rep by its Director,
Jamai Ormania, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad-07.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner:
T. Poorrna Chanderr Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Narasimha Sharma, Advocate of R1
Dr K K H M Syam Sundar, Advocate of R4
AWARD
Sri T. Shivashankar, who worked as Contract Labourer (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed
this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents to declare the so-called
Contract invoked by the respondents as bogus, sham, ruse and camouflage only to deny the rightful benefits to the
petitioners both in terms of payment of minimum wages and in terms of their eligibility for grant of regularization,
while declaring the oral termination of the services of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act and that their actions are unfair labour practices as defined under the I.D Act and
Section 25-T, U and Schedule-V of the ID Act and as such consequently declare that the petitioner is the casual
labourer of the respondent organization and the termination of the petitioner is bad in law, arbitrary and violative of
Section 25-F of the ID Act and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages
and eligible for grant of regularization and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit.
2. On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient
opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, a ‘No claim’ award is
passed for want of evidence.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 31st day of
December, 2024.
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
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
443
नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 152.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री
सरकार जनिेिक, राष्ट्री ृोषण संस्ट् ान, िमाई ओरमाजन ा, तरनाका, िजिरािाि, के प्रिंितंत्र के संिद्ध जन ोिकों और
श्री िे. स्ट्वामी, कामगार, के िीच अनुिंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल - िजिरािाि
ृंचाट (संिभव सं् ा LC 148/2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. ,y-42025-07-2025-34-vkbZ vkj (डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025
S.O. 152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 148/2013) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Jamai Ormania, Tarnaka, Hyderabad,
and Shri J. Swamy, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 27.01.2025.
[No. L-42025-07-2025-34- IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 31st day of December, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.148/2013
Between:
J. Swamy, S/o Late Narsaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
Occ: Casual Labourer,
National Institute of Nutrition,
Jamai Osmania, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad.
..….Petitioner
AND
National Institute of Nutrition,
Rep by its Director,
Jamai Ormania, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad-07.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner:
T. Poorrna Chanderr Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Narasimha Sharma, Advocate of R1
Dr K K H M Syam Sundar, Advocate of R4
444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Sri J. Swamy, who worked as Contract Labourer (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents to declare the so-called
Contract invoked by the respondents as bogus, sham, ruse and camouflage only to deny the rightful benefits to the
petitioners both in terms of payment of minimum wages and in terms of their eligibility for grant of regularization,
while declaring the oral termination of the services of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act and that their actions are unfair labour practices as defined under the I.D Act and
Section 25-T, U and Schedule-V of the ID Act and as such consequently declare that the petitioner is the casual
labourer of the respondent organization and the termination of the petitioner is bad in law, arbitrary and violative of
Section 25-F of the ID Act and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages
and eligible for grant of regularization and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit.
2. On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient
opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, a ‘No claim’ award is
passed for want of evidence.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 31st day of
December, 2024.
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, 28 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 153.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारती ाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky; नं. II] नई दिल्ली ds iapkV
(आई डी नम्िर 188/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@01@2025 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. ,y-22011/39/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2025
S.O. 153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 188/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court N0.II, New Delhi 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 27/01/2025.
[No. L-22011/39/2019 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
445
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
ID.No. 188/2019
The Vice-President,
FCI Handling Worker Union,
8651, Arakashan Road Phar Ganj, New Delhi-110055.
VERSUS
The Area Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
R.K. Tower, 3rd Floor, Pilibhit Bypass,
Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243001.
Appearance
For claimants: None.
For respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Proxy counsel.
AWARD
The appropriate Government has sent the reference refer dated 28.06.2019 to this tribunal for adjudication in
the following words:
“Whether the action of the Area Manager, FCI, Bareilly is not implementing the order of gang formation
issued in year 2014 and issued another order dated 2016 is fair and justified, if not, than what remedy lies
with the Union and what other Directions are necessary with.”
After receiving the said reference, notice was issued to both the parties. Both the parties have appeared.
Claimant has filed his claim statement, stating that he was Sh. Ram Ikbal Singh and Sh. Sunil Prasad Singh were
sardars in the gangs formed by Divisional Manager, FCI in CB Ganj depot Bareilly, U.P. on 19.06.2004. The rival
union challenged the action of Divisional Manager on the ground that gang formation was discriminatory and other
senior workers are left out. The District Manager vide letter dated 24.06.2004 issued to Assistant Manager, FCI
ordered that formation of four gangs may be kept in abeyance till further orders. The Area Manager, FCI, Bareilly
vide order dated 07.01.2006 formed a three member committee to investigate the dispute and submit
recommendations. After hearing other union and considering relevant documents the committee submits its report on
10.01.2006. On the basis of recommendations of three-member committee and considering all representations four
gangs were formed by Area Manager in the CB Ganj depot vide order dated 29.01.2007 restoring the gangs formed
earlier on 19.06.2004. However, the Area Manager vide order datd 03.02.2007 again kept the above order dated
29.01.2007 in abeyance. Meanwhile the affected workers and also depot manager time and again made submissions
for restoring the gangs formed earlier in larger public interest. A letter of local representatives of this union submitted
a detailed list of workers of the CB Ganj Depot vide representation dated 16.01.2014 in the meeting held on
17.01.2014 in Regional Office, FCI, Lucknow. The General Manager (Region), FCI, Lucknow forwarding
representation dated 16.01.2014 vide letter dated 07.02.2014 to Area Manager, FCI, Bareilly directed for
reorganization of gangs as per FCI Headquarters’directions. Four gangs were accordingly formed and Area Manager
was informed vide Asstt. General Manager letter dated 28.05.2014. The reorganization of four gangs and order dated
07.02.2014 and dated 28.05.2014 were not implemented by the Area Manager without any reason. FCI management
delayed formation of gangs by way of various tactics depriving our members the financial benefits and causing
injustice and agony. Hence, he has filed the present claim with the prayer that direct to Area Manager to implement
order dated 07.02.2014 and dated 28.05.2014 from FCI Headquarters for restoration of gangs which were kept in
abeyance.
WS has been filed by the management. He denies the averment made in his claim statement. He also submits
that the prayer made in statement of claim is misconceived and travels beyond the schedule/reference and is devoid of
merit and deserves to be dismissed.
After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 23.03.2021:-
1. If the proceeding is maintainable.
2. If the action of the management in not implementing the order of Gang formation issued in the year 2014 is
legal and proper.
446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. If the order of management issued in this regard in 2016 in suppression of the earlier order is justified.
4. To what relief the claimant/union is entitled to.
Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. Claimant is not appearing since long to substantiate his
claim, inspite of providing a number of opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the claimant has not been appearing since long to substantiate his claim, it
appears that he is not interested to pursue his case. His claim stands dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly. A
copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
Date: 25.11.2024
नई दिल्ली, 28 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 154.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारती ाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] ि ृुर ds iapkV (ृिचान
la[;k 2/2007) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27@01@2025 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/177/2005-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 28th January, 2025
S.O. 154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 2/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur 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 27/01/2025.
[No. L-22012/177/2005– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
vuqyXud
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 2@2007
Reference No. L-22012/177/2005-IR (CM-II) Dated:11.07.2006
vkseizdk'k lSuh iq= Jh nsoh lgk; lSuh] fuoklh& cj[ksMk] rglhy o ftyk& vyoj jkt-
---------izkFkhZ
cuke
{ks=h; izca/kd] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] usg: Iysl] Vksad jksM] t;iqj ¼jkt-½
-----vizkFkhZ@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh lqjsUnz flag ¼ukyksV½] vfHkHkk"kdA
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
447
% vf/kfu.kZ; %
fnukad % 08-08-2024
1- Je ,oa fu;kstu ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 11-07-2006 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947
¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ ,oa 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa
fuEukfdr vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of Shri
Om Prakash Saini w.e.f. 16.12.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?’’
2- fnukad 17-08-2007 dks izkFkhZ us vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd foi{kh us fnukad 08-
06-2002 dks izkFkhZ dks fngkMh etnwjh ij fu;qfDr nh Fkh vkSj rc ls gh prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh in dk iw.kZ dkyhu
dk;Z fy;k tkus yxkA izkFkhZ us fnukad 08-06-2002 ls 16-12-2003 rd viuh lsok;s nhA fnukad 16-12-2003 dks
foi{kh us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dks 60@&:- nSfud dh nj ls ekfld Hkqxrku
fd;k tkrk FkkA lsok i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru ,oa uksfVl eqvkots dk Hkqxrku ugha
fd;k x;kA foi{kh dk ;g d`R; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F dk mYya?ku gSA izkFkhZ us vius dk;Zdky esa 240 fnu
ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;kA foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd djus ds ckn mlls dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dks fu;qDr fd;k tks
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 H ds foijhr gSA vr% okn Lohdkj dj foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ ekSf[kd lsok lekfIr dh
dk;Zokgh dks voS/k ?kksf"kr dj lsok esa fujarjrk vkSj foxr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr izkFkhZ dks lsok esa cgky fd;k
tkosA
3- fnukad 21-12-2009 dks foi{kh dh vksj ls oknksRrj izLrqr fd;k x;kA foi{kh dk dFku gS fd u rks mUgksusa izkFkhZ
dks fu;qfDr nh] u gh lsokeqDr fd;kA blfy, izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds e/; deZdkj vkSj fu;ksDrk dk laca/k ugha gSA
foi{kh ds v/khu izkFkhZ }kjk lsokeqfDr dh frfFk ls iwoZorhZ 12 eghuksa dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k tkuk fl}
djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij gSA foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks dksbZ osru Hkqxrku ugha fd;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 25 F ds
izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu djus dk iz’u mRiUu gh ugha gksrkA izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr dks fu;qDr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ
volj mRiUu ugha gqvk D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks gh fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
4- fnukad 21-05-2010 dks izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds oknksRrj dk [k.Mu djrs gq;s vfrfjDr dFku izLrqr fd;s gaS] vkSj okn
Lohdkj djus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA
5- rRi’pkr fnukad 10-12-2015 dks foi{kh us vius oknksRrj esa la'kks/ku djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr
dfri; izys[k ewy :Ik esa izLrqr ugha gq;s gS vkSj bu i=ksa dks izkFkhZ us Lo;a gh dwV jfpr fd;k gSA bu izys[kks
ls ;g izdV ugha gksrk fd izkFkhZ fuxe dk deZpkjh gSA fnukad 30-01-2002 ls 29-01-2004 rd foi{kh laLFkku ds
xksnke esa yksfMx@vuyksfMx dke ds fy;s ohjcy uke ds Bsdsnkj dk Bsdk jgk gSA mDr Bsdsnkj dk izkFkhZ
deZpkjh jgk gks vkSj mlus Hkfo"; fuf/k ;kstuk esa va'knku fd;k gks] ;g laHko gSA
6- izkFkhZ us la’kksf/kr oknksRrj dk Hkh la’kksf/kr vfrfjDr dFku izLrqr fd;k gS] vkSj ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ dk Hkfo"; fuf/k
va’knku foi{kh }kjk gh dkVk x;kA
7- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ vkseizdk'k lSuh dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ& 1 ls 3 rd
izys[k iznf'kZr fd;sA
8- foi{kh us vius lk{; esa Jh egsUnz flag] e.My izca/kd dk lk{; 'kiFk i= fnukad 16-07-2019 dk izLrqr fd;kA
izys[kh; lk{; esa izn’kZ M&1] iznf'kZr fd;kA mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh lk{kh egsUnz flag ls izkFkhZ i{k us fnukad
16-07-2019 ds mijkar 12-10-2021 rd volj fn;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh izfrijh{kk ugha dhA fnukad 12-10-2021 dks
pwafd izkFkhZ dks vafre volj Hkh iwoZ esa fn;s tk pqds Fks] foi{kh lk{kh egsUnz flag ls izkFkhZ }kjk izfrijh{kk dk
volj lekIr dj fn;k x;kA rnqijkar izkFkhZ bl izdj.k esa yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jgkA varr% fnukad 25-07-2024
dks foi{kh ds vfHkHkk"kd ds ekSf[kd rdZ bl izdj.k esa lqus x;s vkSj lk{; dk ifj’khyu fd;k x;kA vfHkHkk"kd
foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh laLFkku ds e/; fu;kstd vkSj deZdkj dk laca/k ugha gSA izkFkhZ vius
lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd foi{kh laLFkku us mls fdlh izdkj fu;qDr fd;k gks rFkk lsokeqfDr ds
iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA izn'kZ M&1] lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ t;iqj
}kjk tkjh vuqKk i= dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V djrs gq;s mudk ;g rdZ gS fd ohjcy uke ds Bsdsnkj dks foi{kh
laLFkku us dk;Z djus gsrq fnukad 30-01-2002 dks ;g vuqKk i= tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls 2-01-2004 rd
uohuhd`r fd;k x;kA blh Bsdsnkj ds v/khu laHkor% izkFkhZ us dk;Z fd;k gksxk] ftlds Hkfo"; fuf/k ds vafre
Hkqxrku gsrq foi{kh us iz/kku fu;kstd gksus ds dkj.k izkFkZuk i= dks Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu dks vxzsf"kr fd;k gSA bl
i= ds lkFk layXu izn'kZ&2] izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= esa izkFkhZ Lo;a us ;g fy[kk gS fd lsok NksMus dk dkj.k
LoSfPNd vk/kkj ij NksM+uk gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ ;g ugha dg ldrk fd mls foi{kh laLFkku us fnukad 16-12-2003
dks lsokeqDr fd;k gksA izkFkhZ us viuh izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus mifLFkfr dk dksbZ fjdkMZ ;k osru
izkIr djus dk dksbZ izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k ugha ik ldrkA vr% okn
fujLr fd;k tkosA
448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9- mUgkasus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukfdar U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s%&
1- lqjsUnz uxj fMLVªfjDV iapk;r cuke xaxkcsu ykyth HkkbZ o vU; ¼2006½ 9 SSC 132A
2- lsdzsVjh LVSV vkWQ dukZVd o vU; cuke mek nsoh ¼2006½ 4 SSC 1A
3- E;qfulhiy dksiksZjs'ku Qjhnkckn cuke Jhfuokl flfoy vihy la- 1851@2002 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ fu.kZ; frfFk
06-09-2004A
4- LVsV vkWQ fgekpy izns'k cuke lqjs'k dqekj oekZ o vU; 1996 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 562A
5- jsat QksjsLV vkWQhlj cuke ,l- Vh- gknheuh flfoy vihy la- 1283@2002 fu.kZ; frfFk 15-02-2002 ¼lqizhe
dksVZ½A
10- eSaus vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh ds rdZ] lk{; ,oa U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa ikfjr fof/k ij /;ku iwoZd fopkj fd;kA
11- bl fookn esa fuEufyf[kr fopkj.kh; fcUnq fofu’p; gsrq mRiUu gq;s gS%&
1- D;k izkFkhZ dks foi{kh us fnukad 08-06-2002 dks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa fu;qDr fd;k vkSj
fnukad 16-12-2003 dks ekSf[kd :Ik ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kuksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq;s voS/k :Ik
ls lsokeqDr dj fn;k\
-------------------izkFkhZ
2- D;k foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ds mijkar mlls dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dks fu;qDr fd;k vkSj izkFkhZ dks
ojh;rk ugha nh\
------------------izkFkhZ
3- vuqrks"k%&
12- fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij dzfed fofu’p; bl izdkj gS%&
13- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&1
14- izkFkhZ vkseizdk'k lSuh us vius lk{; ds 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd foi{kh us 08-06-2002 ls izkFkhZ dks fngkMh
etnwjh ij vyoj esa fu;qfDr nh vkSj mlls prqFkZ Js.kh in dk iw.kZdkfyd dk;Z fy;kA fnuakd 16-12-2003 dks
foi{kh us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s izkFkhZ dh lsok;s lekIr dj nhA lsok lekIr djus ds iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ;k
uksfVl osru ugha fn;kA izkFkhZ vkxs dgrk gS fd fnukad 08-06-2002 ls 16-12-2003 rd ds fu;kstu dky esa
mlus 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ dks mlds lsok dky ds nkSjku osru Hkqxrku fd;k x;k vkSj Hkfo";
fuf/k ;kstuk ds varxZr va’knku Hkh dkVk x;kA izkFkhZ viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g dgrk gS fd mls dksbZ fu;qfDr i=
ugha feykA fnukad 08-06-2002 ls 16-12-2003 rd mifLFkfr dk dksbZ fjdkMZ mlus is'k ugha fd;k gSA fdarq
vk’p;Ztud :Ik ls izkFkhZ dgrk gS fd mifLFkfr dk fjdkMZ QksVks izfr;ksa ds :Ik esa mlds ikl gSA lk{kh us
izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku dfri; QksVksizfr;kWa izLrqr djuk pkgk tks vuqizekf.kr izfr ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk Hkh
lR;kfir ugha gSA blfy;s mUgsa vfHkys[k ij Lohdkj ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mls osru fn;s
tkus dk dksbZ izys[k ;k izek.k ugha gSA uxn Hkqxrku djrs Fks ftldh dksbZ jlhn ugha gksrh FkhA lk{kh bl rF;
dks vLohdkj u djrs gq;s vufHkKrk O;Dr djrk gS fd mlds dk;Z dky ds nkSjku chjoy uke ds Bsdsnkj dk
Bsdk gksA lk{; dh bl fLFkfr esa ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us Lo;a ds 'kiFk i= ds vfrfjDr mifLFkfr ,oa osru
Hkqxrku laca/kh dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gSA tks dqN izys[k izn'kZ& 1 o 2 ds :Ik esa izLrqr fd;s gaS]
muds vk/kkj ij Hkh ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 08-06-2002 ls 16-12-2003 rd foi{kh ds v/khu
dk;Z fd;k gksA izn’kZ& 2 izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Hkfo"; fuf/k dk nkok izLrqr djus dk izi= gS tks pkj i`"Bks esa gS] vkSj
blesa dbZ LFkkuksa ij izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj Hkh gSaA bl izi= ds dkye 6 esa lsok NksMusa dk dkj.k vkSj frfFk of.kZr
djrs gq;s izkFkhZ us ,d LFkku ij rks fnukad 16-12-2003 vafdr fd;k gS vkSj nwljs LFkku ij 01-12-2003 fy[kk gSA
lokZf/kd egRoiw.kZ ;g gS fd lsok NksMusa dk dkj.k LpsfPNd vk/kkj ij lsok NksMuk izkFkhZ Lo;a us fy[kk gSA bl
izdkj izkFkhZ Lo;a viuh LohdkjksfDr dks fdlh Hkh izdkj [kf.Mr ugha dj ldrk gSA izkFkhZ Lo;a us viuh bPNk ls
ukSdjh NksMuk of.kZr fd;k gSA
15- bl vf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 30-07-2010 dks izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= ij vkns’k nsrs gq;s foi{kh dks ;g funsZ'k fn;k gS
fd mifLFkfr iaftdk vkSj Hkfo"; fuf/k va’knku laca/kh vfHkys[k tks fd izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr gkas] lqlaxr gSa ;fn ;g
vfHkys[k foi{kh ds vf/kiR; vkSj 'kfDr esa u gks ;k vfLrRo esa u gks rks foi{kh bl laca/k esa viuk 'kiFk i=
izLrqr djsA bl vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 21-12-2010 dks foi{kh dh vksj ls {ks=h; izca/kd Jh lq[kjke eh.kk
dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl 'kiFk i= esa ;g of.kZr gS fd pwfda izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk dHkh fu;qfDr
iznku ugha dh xbZ] u gh lsokeqDr fd;k x;k blfy, izkFkhZ dh ukSdjh ls lacaf/kr nLrkost foi{kh ds ikl
miyC/k ugha gSA bl 'kiFk i= ds mijkar izkFkhZ ls ;g vis{kk jgh fd og osru Hkqxrku ds ;k mifLFkfr ds laca/k
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
449
esa dksbZ vU; izys[kh; lk{; ;k foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa fdlh O;fDr dh ekSf[kd lk{; vius
dFku ds leFkZu esa izLrqr djrk] ysfdu izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds v/khu fu;qDr gksus vkSj 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z
djus ds laca/k esa dksbZ fo’oluh; izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr ugha dh] u gh osru Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk izekf.kr fd;kA
tcfd izn’kZ&3] jktLFkku xzkeh.k cSad dh iklcqd ds vuqlkj og cSad esa viuk [kkrk Hkh la/kkfjr djrk FkkA
16- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ;ksa lqjsUnz uxj fMLVªfjDV iapk;r cuke xaxkcsu ykyth HkkbZ o vU;] jsat
QksjsLV vkWQhlj cuke ,l- Vh- gknheuh rFkk E;qfulhiy dksiksZjs'ku Qjhnkckn cuke Jhfuokl esa ;g ekxZn'kZu
fn;k gS fd fu;kstd ds v/khu ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z djus ds rF; dks izekf.kr djus dk
fl}hHkkj deZdkj ij gh gSA mls Lo;a dks ijhf{kr djus ds vfrfjDr fu;kstu dk rF; izekf.kr djus ds fy,
fo'oluh; lk{; izLrqr djuh gksxh] ek= Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= bl gsrq Ik;kZIr ugha gSA osru Hkqxrku izkIr djus
laca/kh dksbZ vfHkys[k izLrqr u fd;k tkuk izkFkhZ ds i{k dks fucZy djrk gSA bl fof/k ds izdk’k esa ;g Li"V gS
fd izkFkhZ ml ij vkjksfir fl}hHkkj dk mUekspu djus esa foQy jgk gSA
17- ;gk ;g mYys[k fd;k tkuk lqlaxr gS fd foi{kh lk{kh egsUnz flag ls dksbZ izfrijh{kk izkFkhZ }kjk u fd;s tkus ds
dkj.k egsUnz flag ds dFku izfrijh{kk ds vHkko esa v[kf.Mr lk{; ds :Ik esa fo|eku gSA egsUnz flag us Li"V :Ik
ls dgk gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh }kjk u rks fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj u gh lsokeqDrA izkFkhZ foi{kh laLFkku dk deZpkjh
ugha Fkk u gh mls osru Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ ohjcyjke Bsdsnkj dk deZpkjh laHkor% jgk gS] vkSj mlh ds
v/khu mlh ds }kjk Hkfo"; fuf/k va’knku dkVk x;k gksxkA ftldk fu;kstu izkFkhZ us LosPNk ls NksMkA
18- Lkk{; ds bl lexz foospu ds mijkar izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu fnukad 08-06-2002 nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa
fu;qDr fd;k tkuk vkSj foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z djus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA
blfy;s ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
19- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&2
20- izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ds okn] ckn esa j[ks x;s Jfedksa dks foi{kh us
dk;Z ij j[kk fdarq izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedksa dks foi{kh }kjk ukSdjh esa j[kk x;k gks bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ us mlls
dfu"B Jfedksa dks foi{kh }kjk fu;qDr fd;s tkus laca/kh dksbZ lk{; ;Fkk mu Jfedksa ds uke ,oa fu;qfDr frfFk
of.kZr gh ugha dh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ds
mijkar izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dks foi{kh }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k ;k lsokjr j[kk gksA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds
fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
21- vuqrks"k%&
22- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1 o 2 ij izkIr fu"d"kZ ds izdk’k esa ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu
fnukad 08-06-2002 dks fu;qDr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ o foi{kh ds e/; fu;kstd o
deZdkj dk laca/k LFkkfir ugha gqvk gSA blfy;s foi{kh dfFkr lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ izkFkhZ ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu djus dks fdlh izdkj ck/; ugha gSA izkFkhZ] foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus
dk vf/kdkjh izekf.kr ughas gksrk gSA
23- lanfHkZr fookn dk blh izdkj U;k;fu.kZ;u fd;k tkrk gSA
24- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa izdk'kukFkZ izsf'kr dh
tkosaA
25- U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 08-08-2024 dks lquk;k x;kA
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 29 िनवरी, 2025
का.आ. 155.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
केनरा िैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कमवकार श्री जविाल मान ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] चंडीगढ़ -2 ds iapkV (102/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-39025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch- II)-50]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 29th January, 2025
S.O. 155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 102/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Chandigarh-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara
Bank and Sh. Vishal Mann.
[No. L-39025/01/2024-IR(B-II)-50]
SALONI, Dy. Director
450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 1, 2025/MAGHA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-II, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No. 102/2018
Registered on:-17.01.2019
Sh. Vishal Mann S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh Mann, R/o VPO Gogripur, District Karnal.
........Workman
Versus
1. Canara Bank, Head Office at Plot No.112, J.C. Road, Town Hall Junction, Bangalore, Karnataka
through its General Manger(HR).
2. The Deputy General manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Bay No.17-18, Sector 12, Karnal 132001.
3. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, AT & Post Gonder, District Karnal-132052.
...... Respondents/Management
AWARD
Passed On:-29.07.2024
1. The workman Vishal Mann has directly filed the present claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called as ‘Act’) with the averment that he was employed as Clerk in the Bank and he
was posted at Village Gonder(Karnal) Branch from 31.01.2014. The workman was placed under suspension vide
order dated 19.12.2014 on account of various irregularities as leveled in the charge-sheet. The workman was issued
the charge-sheet on 16.07.2015 levelling the various charges on account of irregularities which are fully mentioned in
para 2 of the claim.
2. The workman filed reply to the alleged charges submitting therein that he has not committed any misconduct or
any unauthorized act and the allegations that the workman has committed fraud on the bank and customers is without
basis. A regular enquiry was held into the charges leveled against the workman. Accordingly, Sri Shanker Lal, Chief
Manager(IR), NIRC, RO Delhi was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 15.09.2015. The Enquiry Officer
so appointed has conducted an enquiry on 17.11.2015 and 18.03.2016 in which the workman participated with his
defence representative. The Enquiry Officer vide his Enquiry Report dated 22.04.2016 submitted his findings, copy of
which was received by the workman. The punishing authority i.e. Deputy General Manager, Regional Office,
Chandigarh on the basis of enquiry report served a show cause notice on 28.07.2016(Annexure A-2) vide which the
punishment of “Dismissal without Notice” to the workman alleging the misconduct causing loss to the bank and fraud
by him. The punishing authority vide order dated 25.10.2016 dismissed the services of workman(Annexure A-3). The
workman filed an appeal dated 14.12.2016(Annexure A-4) against the dismissal order dated 25.10.2016(Annexure A-
3) before the appellate-authority i.e. General Manager. The said appeal was decided by the appellate-authority vide
order dated 07.06.2017(Annexure A-5). The appellate-authority without discussing the points raised by the workman
and without considering the submissions and contention made by the workman dismissed the appeal of the workman.
The workman served a demand notice to the respondent-bank under Section 2-A of the Act(Annexure A-6). During
the conciliation proceeding before the ALC(C)Karnal, the respondent-bank filed the reply on 13.02.2018(Annexure
A-7). It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the order dated 25.10.2016(Annexure A-3) and order passed by the
appellate-authority dated 07.06.2017(Annexure A-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the workman be
reinstated in service with full back wages along with consequential benefits.
3. The management filed written statement, alleging therein that the workman was involved in fraudulent
unauthorized acts and have committed fraud on the bank as well as customers and tarnishing the image of the bank.
He was served with a charge-sheet to this effect and a proper inquiry was held after hearing the workman. The
enquiry officer gave its finding and thereafter the disciplinary authority dismissed the services of the workman on
25.10.2016(Annexure A-3) and the workman filed an appeal on 14.12.2016(Annexure A-4) against the said order
which was also dismissed by the appellate-authority vide order dated 07.06.2017(Annexure A-5). In view of
submission made above, it is maintained that the claim of the workman may be dismissed with costs.
4. The case was fixed for evidence of workman by my Ld. Predecessor on 04.05.2021 and case remained pending
for filing affidavit by the workman on various dates since 15.07.2021, 10.09.2021, 29.10.2021/02.11.2021,
27.12.2021, 17.05.2022, 20,07.2022, 25.01.2023, 22.03.2023, 10.07.2023, 01.09.2023, 07.11.2023, 31.01.2024,
26.04.2024 and 25.07.2024. However, workman did not appear on any date. Therefore, last opportunity was granted
to the workman on 26.04.2024 and on that date also workman did not appear which makes out that the workman was
not serious and interested to contest his case on merit.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र :फरवरी 1, 2025/माघ 12, 1946
451
5. Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause against
the management and 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 the workman.
6. 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
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. GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Date: 2025.02.13 15:25:41 +05'30'