THE
JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
Vol. 129] Srinagar, Thu., the 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [ No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
REGD NO. JK––33
CONTENTS
English
Pages
Vernacu-
lar pages
PART I-A— Appointments, promotions, transfers and
leave of absence sanctioned by the Governor,
Government and the Ministers
....
PART
I-B– Notifications, Communiques and General Orders
by the Government and the Ministers ....
PART 11-A– Appointments, promotions, transfers and
leave of absence sanctioned by Heads of
Departments....
PART II- B– Notifications, Notices and Orders by Heads
of
Departments,
Provincial
Heads,
Magistrates and other officers competent to
issue public notices under any law or rule ....
PART II-C– Notifications, Notices and Orders by Election
Commission of India, Chief Electoral Officer,
Jammu and Kashmir and other Officers of the
Department,
Election
Petitions
and
Judgements of Election Tribunal ....
PART
III- Laws, Regulations and Rules passed
thereunder
....
PART
IV– Reprints from the Government of India Gazette
or Gazettes of others Governments....
PART
V– Information and Statistics ....
(a) Rates and prices in the State....
(b) Rates and wages ....
(c) Crop Report and Forecasts ....
(d) Whether Observations
....
(e) Vital Statistics
....
SUPPLEMENT-A–Trade
Monthly Imports and Exports from
the State ....
SUPPLEMENT-B–Police
....
SUPPLEMENT-C–Advertisements
....
Printed at the Government Press, Srinagar.
208-210
241-248
39-40
279-292
89-92
77-80
PART I-A
Jammu & Kashmir Government–Orders
––––––––
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.
Notification
No. 36 Dated 07-04-2016.
It is hereby notified that vide High Court Order dated 06-04-2016
Mr. Bhushan Kumar Gupta S/o Mr. Dina Nath Mahajan R/o House
No. 102, Shalamar Road, Jammu has been admitted and enrolled as an
Advocate on the Roll of Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council provisionally for
a period of one year from the date of issuance of this notification, subject
to the verification of his provisional/LL.B Degree Certificate and verification
of his character and antecedent from the concerned agency. His name
has been entered under Serial No. JK-184/16 in the Roll of Advocates
maintained by this Registry.
The renewal/extension of provisional license/enrolment must be sought
before the date of expiry unless the absolute/final enrolment as an Advocate
is ordered therebefore.
By order.
––––––––
Notification
No. 37 Dated 07-04-2016.
It is hereby notified that vide High Court Order dated 06-04-2016
Mr. Akshaydeep Singh S/o Mr. Anoop Singh Jasrotia R/o H. No. 25/2,
Sector-C, Sainik Colony, Jammu has been admitted and enrolled as an
Advocate on the Roll of Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council provisionally for
a period of one year from the date of issuance of this notification, subject to
208 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [ No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––————
the verification of his provisional/LL.B Degree Certificate and verification
of his character and antecedent from the concerned agency. His name has
been entered under Serial No. JK-183/16 in the Roll of Advocates
maintained by this Registry.
The renewal/extension of provisional license/enrolment must be sought
before the date of expiry unless the absolute/final enrolment as an Advocate
is ordered therebefore.
By order.
––––––––
Notification
No. 38 Dated 07-04-2016.
It is hereby notified that vide High Court Order dated 06-04-2016
Mr. Angad Singh S/o Mr. Karanjit Singh R/o Plot No. 46, Sector-10,
Nanak Nagar, Jammu has been admitted and enrolled as an Advocate on
the Roll of Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council provisionally for a period of
one year from the date of issuance of this notification, subject to the
verification of his provisional/LL.B Degree Certificate and verification of
his character and antecedent from the concerned agency. His name has
been entered under Serial No. JK-182/16 in the Roll of Advocates
maintained by this Registry.
The renewal/extension of provisional license/enrolment must be sought
before the date of expiry unless the absolute/final enrolment as an Advocate
is ordered therebefore.
By order.
––––––––
Notification
No. 39 Dated 07-04-2016.
It is hereby notified that vide High Court Order dated 06-04-2016
Mr. Ajaz Ahmad Najar S/o Kh. Abdul Khaliq Nazar R/o Baghat Barzulla,
Rawthpora, Tehsil Chanapora, District Srinagar has been admitted and
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938.209
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
enrolled as an Advocate on the Roll of Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council
provisionally for a period of one year from the date of issuance of this
notification, subject to the verification of his provisional/LL.B
Degree Certificate and verification of his character and antecedent
from the concerned agency. His name has been entered under Serial
No. JK-210/16 in the Roll of Advocates maintained by this Registry.
The renewal/extension of provisional license/enrolment must be sought
before the date of expiry unless the absolute/final enrolment as an Advocate
is ordered therebefore.
By order.
––––––––
Notification
No. 40 Dated 11-04-2016.
Provisional admission granted under Advocates Act, 1961 in
favour of Ms. Nahida Altaf D/o Mr. Altaf Hussain R/o Lassana
Mohalla, Batangi, Tehsil Surankote, District Poonch vide notification
No. 568 dated 15-10-2014 for a period of one year has been extended till
03-09-2016 subject to the verification of Certificates/Degrees.
The renewal/extension of provisional license/enrolment must be sought
before the date of expiry unless the absolute/final enrolment as an Advocate
is ordered therebefore.
By order.
(Sd.) MOHAMMAD YASIN BEIGH,
Joint Registrar (Admn.).
210 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [ No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––————
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
CIVIL SECRETARIAT—REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
Notification No. 14-Rev (LAJ) of 2016
Dated 10-03-2016.
Whereas, the land, specifications whereof are given in
Annexure “A” to this notification, is required for construction of road
from Mahore to Sildhar under PMGSY Scheme ; and
Whereas, on the basis of an indent placed by Executive Engineer,
PMGSY Division, Udhampur-II, Reasi vide No. PMGSY-Udh/II/R/
2007-08/1955 dated 08-12-2007, a notification under section 4 (1) was
issued by Collector, Land Acquisition (SDM), Mahore vide No. SDM/
M/CLA/2015-16/141-147 dated 13-09-2015 for land measuring 314
Kanals16 Marlas situated in Village Bathoie, Tehsil Mahore, District
Reasi for construction of Road form Mahore to Sildhar under PMGSY
Scheme ; and
Whereas, the notification issued by the Collector, Land Acquisition
(SDM), Mahore under section 4 (1) of the J&K State Land Acquisition
Act, was served upon the interested persons for filing objections ; and
THE
JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Vol. 129] Srinagar, Thu., the 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Separate paging is given to this part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
PART I––B
Jammu and Kashmir Government––Notifications.
———–
Whereas, the Collector, Land Acquisition (SDM), Mahore vide
his letter No. SDM/M/CLA/15-16/153-54 dated 05-10-2015 has
informed that no objection was received within the stipulated period
under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act ; and
Whereas, the report furnished by the Collector, Land Acquisition
(SDM), Mahore vide letter referred to above, duly endorse by Deputy
Commissioner, Reasi vide No. DC/RSI/15-16/2079-80/SQ dated
20-10-2015, Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide letter No. 502/2514/
Acq/PMGSY/Bathoie/Mahore/Reasi/2015/2385-86 dated 19-12-2015
and Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K vide his No. FC-LS/
LA-4439/2015 dated 28-01-2016, has been examined and it has been
found that the land owners did not file any objection to the proposed
acquisition ; and
Whereas, the Government is satisfied that the land particulars
whereof are mentioned in Annexure “A” to this notification, is required
for public purposes i. e. for construction of Road from Mahore to Sildhar
under PMGSY Scheme.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 6 of the J&K State Land
Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990, it is declared that the land measuring
314 Kanals, 16 Marlas situated in Village Bathoie, Tehsil Mahore,
District Reasi details whreeof are indicated in Annexure “A” to this
notification is required for a public purpose viz. for construction of Road
from Mahore to Sildhar under PMGSY Scheme. Further, the Collector,
Land Acquisition (SDM), Mahore is directed under section 7 of the
said Act to take order for acquisition of the said land after giving
prescribed notice to the interested person(s) as required under the Land
Acquisition Act/Rules.
However, the Collector concerned shall be personally responsible
for proper title verification of all types of land involved in the case,
identification of all the interested persons/rightful claimants and
apportionment of compensation thereof in accordance with the relevant
laws/rules in force, while making the award.
(Sd.)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL, IAS,
Secretary to the Government,
Revenue Department.
–––––––
242 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Annexure “A” to Notification No. 14-Rev (LAJ) of 2016
dated 10-03-2016.
District
Tehsil
Village
Khasra Nos.
Area
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
2
3
4
5
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
Reasi
Mahore
Bathoie
762/524
02–17
805/524
04–19
1059/874/524
06–03
1059/874/524
01–11
879/872//524&760/524
06–11
758/524
01–15
1059/874/524
04–01
902/874/524
01–11
953/876/524
03–04
1059/876/524
05–10
756/524 & 754/560
05–03
756/524
05–11
753/560
02–01
753/560
03–13
753/560
04–15
753/560
01–11
753/560
06–05
753/560
04–10
1058/843/560
01–13
934/843/560
02–02
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938.
243
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1042/843/560
08–19
1042/843/560
03–00
747/560
02–01
747/560
01–02
747/560
00–06
746/560
07–06
733/560
03–15
739/560
02–02
1058/843/560
03–13
568
02–12
567 & 732/560
07–16
731/560 & 730/560
07–13
798/560 & 806/561
04–16
806/561
03–09
806/561
01–01
1073/1040/633/403
02–07
838/715/340/1
02–06
838/715/340/1
05–02
856/696/370
03–17
344
04–14
1079/838/340/1
01–06
343
03–02
342
00–18
342
03–16
1
2
3
4
5
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
244 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
701/340
02–11
1097/856/340
02–01
326
02–08
323
01–05
1092/322 & 325
05–05
1092/322
05–03
318
06–08
315
01–09
314
00–10
313
06–01
312
02–03
1346/312
05–04
`786/687/321
01–19
1210/687/321
02–06
786/687/321
02–12
254
05–18
264
03–18
264
00–09
264
00–13
264
02–07
264
00–04
264
00–04
261
05–11
1
2
3
4
5
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938.
245
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
2
3
4
5
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
273
03–07
271
03–03
275
02–07
283
03–02
939/282
01–04
281
03–13
1033/287
01–18
290
04–12
1064/938/121
02–10
1064/938/121
03–09
1064/938/121
02–00
1376/1064/938/121
05–01
1162/617/121
05–12
1383/1064/938/121
05–11
1064/938/121
01–08
396
01–15
1064/338/121
03–01
1064/338/121
01–00
133
01–17
128
01–01
128
00–13
128 &131
03–00
126
02–11
246 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
2
3
4
5
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
126
01–10
126
02–11
126
02–00
648/121
00–11
648/121
03–16
648/121
02–02
1308/48/2
03–04
1308/48/2
01–00
1308/48/2
01–00
879/818/48/2
02–00
879/818/48/2
02–18
––––––
Total
314–16
––––––
––––––
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
CIVIL SECRETARIAT—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT.
Subject :—Promotion of Senior Private Secretaries as Principal
Private Secretaries.
Reference :—State Administrative Council Decision No. 63/8/2016
dated 02-04-2016.
––––––
Government Order No. 303-GAD of 2016
Dated 02-04-2016.
Sanction is hereby accorded to the promotion of Mr. Vinod Kumar
Malhotra and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Senior Private Secretaries of the
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938.
247
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Jammu and Kashmir Private Secretaries to Head of Departments
(Gazetted) Service as Principal Private Secretaries, in the Pay Band
of Rs. 15,600-39,100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-, with immediate
effect.
By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
(Sd.)
IMTEEAZ KACHO,
Under Secretary to the Government.
248 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
THE
JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Vol. 129] Srinagar, Thu., the 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [ No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Separate paging is given to this part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
PART II––A
Orders by Heads of Departments.
––––––
CHARGE REPORTS
Certified that we have at forenoon/afternoon of this day
respectively made over and received charge of the Office of Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, J&K, Srinagar, vide Government Order
No. 2313-LD (A) of 2016 dated 05-08-2016.
(Sd.) NIGHAT SULTANA,
Presiding Officer
(District and Sessions Judge).
Relieved Officer.
(Sd.) KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI
Presiding Officer
(District and Sessions Judge).
Relieving Officer.
–––––––
I, Rashpaul Verma S/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal R/o Chhan Motioni,
Ghagwal, Samba hereby assume the charge of the Office of Vice-Chairman,
J&K State Advisory Board for the Welfare and Development of the Other
Backward Classes (OBCs) today on 05-08-2016 F. N.
This is in pursuance of the Government Order No. 843-GAD of 2016
dated 02-08-2016.
(Sd.) RASHPAUL VERMA.
40 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION
(ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER),
KISHTWAR.
Subject:–– Acquisition of land for Reservoir of Pakal Dool H. E. Power
Projects at Village Sounder, Tehsil Dachan, District Kishtwar.
––––––
Notice
In exercise of powers conferred upon me under sections
9 & 9A of the J&K State Land Acquisition Act, I, Kishori Lal
Sharma (KAS), Collector, Land Acquisition (Additional Deputy
Commissioner), Kishtwar, hereby require all the interested persons
THE
JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
Vol. 129] Srinagar, Thu., the 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
Separate paging is given to this part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation.
PART II––B
Notifications, Notices and Orders by Heads of Departments.
_______
i. e. land owners and lndenting Department to appear personally
or through an agent to file objections, if any, regarding the amount
of compensation to be assessed, interested in land as well as objection
to the measurement of land within 15 days from the date of publication/
issuance of this notice. The particulars of land are as under :–
District
Tehsil
Village
Kharsa
Area
Nos.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
2
3
4
5
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
Kishtwar
Dachan
Sounder
147 min
00–11
147 min
02–12
149
01–08
150 min
04–08
151 min
03–19
152
05–00
153
03–12
154
00–07
155
02–03
156
01–05
157 min
01–04
158
01–16
177 min
77–10
1808/706 min
02–02
713 min
01–18
730
04–13
280 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
731 min
00–06
732 min
01–12
734
04–04
735
01–16
736
02–16
737
01–05
738
09–08
739 min
04–00
739 min
01–09
740
04–10
741
02–11
742
01–02
743
00–15
745
02–15
744
03–12
746
01–07
747
00–15
748
00–10
749
02–12
750
00–17
751 min
00–03
1
2
3
4
5
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. 281
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———–––––––––
751 min
02–03
751 min
01–10
751 min
00–13
751 min
00–12
753
02–02
754
00–05
755
03–09
756
00–18
757
00–07
758
00–10
759
00–06
760
00–09
761
00–17
762
01–00
763
00–12
764
01–06
765
00–09
766
00–08
767
00–06
768
00–13
769
01–01
770
00–04
1
2
3
4
5
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
282 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
771
00–07
772
00–10
773
00–05
774
00–18
775
00–15
776
00–03
777
01–10
778
00–07
779
00–14
780
01–05
781
00–12
782
00–02
783
00–11
784
00–09
785
00–10
786
04–12
787
00–15
788
00–12
789
01–02
790 min
01–00
790 min
01–00
790 min
00–16
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. 283
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———–––––––––
791
00–15
792
01–14
793
00–14
794
00–11
795
00–07
796
00–05
797
00–11
798
01–05
799
02–13
800
01–01
801
00–10
802 min
00–13
802 min
01–13
803
00–03
803/1
00–17
804
00–11
805
01–08
806
00–01
807
00–02
808
00–17
809
00–16
2059/810
00–15
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
284 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
2060/810
00–13
811
06–02
812
00–01
813
00–02
814
00–02
817
00–01
818
00–01
819
00–01
822 min
07–17
823 min
01–14
823 min
01–00
1036 min
00–05
1037 min
00–04
1043 min
00–03
1706/1063 min
03–19
1706/1063 min
00–04
2164/1065 min
00–14
2164/1065 min
01–19
2457/1067 min
01–00
2458/1067 min
01–15
1717/1070
01–12
1718/1070
08–06
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. 285
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———–––––––––
1074
02–18
1075
00–06
1076
01–19
1077 min
02–03
1077 min
00–10
1078
00–06
1079
00–05
1080
01–05
1081
01–00
1082
01–02
1083
00–13
1084
01–02
1085
01–06
2420/1086
00–03
2421/1086
00–07
1087
00–07
1088
00–03
1089
01–09
2361/1090
00–04
2362/1090
00–08
1091
00–07
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
286 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
1092
00–16
2422/1093
00–13
1023/1093
03–05
1094
03–06
1095
06–14
1096
00–16
2424/1097
00–03
2425/1097
00–04
1098
00–09
2435/1099
02–15
1100
01–18
2426/1101
00–02
2427/1101
00–04
1102 min
05–03
1102 min
05–04
2428/1103
02–13
2429/1103
05–06
1104
02–00
2119/1105
02–00
2120/1105
06–09
2363/1106
03–12
2364/1106
04–00
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. 287
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———–––––––––
1106 min
03–09
2365/1107
00–09
2366/1107
02–08
1712/1108
00–16
1713/1108
05–09
1109
04–13
1711/1110
00–19
1719/1111
02–06
1720/1111
00–02
1721/1111
00–07
1722/1111
02–04
1200/1114
12–04
1940/1625/1114
04–18
1941/1625/1114 min
01–18
1941/1625/1114 min
21–06
1203 min
01–03
1933/1914/1204
02–13
2215/1934/1204 min
01–03
1874/1204
02–16
2217/1934/1204
03–10
2216/1934/1204 min
00–14
2206/2218/1934/1204 min
05–16
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
288 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
2310/2307/1218/
1934/1204 min
03–14
1210 min
02–02
2383/1211 min
00–19
2384/1211 min
01–04
1212 min
00–04
2440/1217 min
02–07
1881/1790/1227
01–16
1965/1882/1227
01–00
2032/1966/1227
15–16
2408/2037/1966/1227
00–19
2409/2037/1966/1227
00–18
2038/1966/1227
05–00
2040/1966/1227
04–00
2041/1966/1227
00–10
1789/1227
05–05
1964/1812/1227
00–08
2033/1966/1227
01–00
2034/1966/1227
03–19
2035/1966/1227
01–08
2056/1966/1227
01–18
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. 289
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———–––––––––
2039/1966/1227
01–18
2044/1966/1227
02–15
2044/1966/1227
01–04
2045/1957/1227
04–18
2043/1966/1227
53–12
2045/1957/1227
10–11
1228
20–02
1229
03–12
1230
06–05
1231
08–07
1232
00–07
1233
01–04
1280/1234
02–15
1281/1234
09–03
1235
00–05
1236
12–17
1237 min
05–00
1237 min
04–07
1238
03–15
1239
00–05
1240
09–15
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
290 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
1241
01–11
1242 min
06–06
1242 min
06–05
1243
01–12
1244 min
03–08
1244 min
03–07
1245
00–12
1246
03–12
1247
06–15
1249
03–14
1250 min
02–00
1251
01–17
1252 min
07–09
1252 min
00–02
1253
00–02
1254
09–01
1255
12–03
1256
01–13
1257
21–02
1258
00–07
1259
01–14
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
No. 20] The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. 291
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———–––––––––
1
2
3
4
5
6
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
K. M.
1858/1260
00–02
1857/1260 min
05–10
1857/1260 min
01–05
1857/1260 min
00–04
––––––
Total
733–00
––––––
(Sd.) KISHORI LAL SHARMA, KAS,
Collector, Land Acquisition
(Additional Deputy Commissioner),
Kishtwar.
292 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
THE
JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Vol. 129] Srinagar, Thu., the 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938. [ No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Separate paging is given to this part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ADVERTISEMENTS–C
––––––
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, RANBIR
GOVERNMENT PRESS, JAMMU (TAWI)––180005.
Auction Notice
An open auction of the Unserviceable, outdated/obsolete
Machinery/Equipments, Type Metal and Electric Motors lying in the
premises of Ranbir Government Press, Jammu will be held on 21-09-2016
at 10.00 A. M. The rules and regulations are as under :–
1. All the interested bidders on publication of this auction notice can
inspect the material of old obsolete/outdated unserviceable
Machinery and Equipments in the premises of Ranbir Government
Press, Jammu on any working day up to 19-09-2016 till
2.00 P. M.
2. The Auction of Unserviceable, outdated/obsolete Mechinery and
Equipments will be conducted on the basis of “AS IT IS WHERE
IT IS AND WHAT SO EVER CONDITION IT IS”.
3. The auction of obsolete/outdated Machinery and Equipments will
be auctioned on the basis of per Kg.
4. Auction will be conducted in presence of Auction Committee.
5. The earnest money shall be deposited by the interested bidders in
the shape of CDR of Rs. 2.00 lacs only pledged to the General
Manager, Ranbir Government Press, Jammu up to 20-09-2016 till
2.00 P. M.
6. Full payment shall have to be deposited by successful bidder in
the manner as mentioned below :–
(a) 25% of total bid amount shall have to be deposited by the
highest bidders at the fall of hammer.
(b) 75% of the bid amount shall have to be deposited by the bidders
before lifting the material.
7. The successful bidder shall have to pay himself VAT/TAX etc., if
any, admissible under rules, and copy of the same deposit to this
office for office record.
8. Successful bidders will have to lift the auctioned material within
20 days.
9. The successful bidders shall himself be responsible for watch and
guard of the material owned by him.
10. The interesting bidders are requested to inspect the material
thoroughly before bid offer and can also download/accessed
Auction Notice on our official website rgp.jk.gov.in.
11. In case of any further terms and conditions as to be put for the
said auction, the same shall be announced on spot on the date of
auction by the Auction Committee.
90 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938.
[No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
12. The Auction Committee reserve the right of accept/reject any bid
without assigning any reasons thereof.
(Sd.) F. H. QADRI,
General Manager.
––––––
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, RANBIR
GOVERNMENT PRESS, JAMMU (TAWI)––180005.
Extension e-Tender Notice No. 66 of 2016-17
Dated 23-05-2016.
Due to poor response and disturbance of internet facility in the State,
the date of receipt of the tenders invited vide e-Tender Notice No. 66 of
2016-17 dated 23-05-2016 followed by extension No. RGPJ/71-77 dated
28-06-2016 and RGPJ/4459-64 dated 19-07-2016 for supply of Press Material
for the year 2016-17, is hereby further extend up to 01-09-2016 and shall
be opened on 12-09-2016 at 11.00 A. M. The others terms and conditions
remain unchanged.
(Sd.) F. H. QADRI,
General Manager.
––––––
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
DIRECTORATE GENERAL, FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES,
J&K, SRINAGAR.
GIST of e-NIT No. 08 of 2016
Dated 18-08-2016.
For and on behalf of the Governor of J&K State, e-Tenders for Supply
of Hard Coke “A” Grade, Dust free/Moisture free are invited from the
No. 20]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938.
91
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
registered/authorized distributors/dealers for supply of Hard Coke as per
the details given below for the year 2016-17 :–
S.
Particulars
Tentative
Earnest
Cost of tender
No.
Quantity
Money
documents
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1 Hard Coke “A” Grade,
2500 Qtls.
` 50,000.00
` 3000.00
Dust free/Moisture free
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
Date of publishing of Tender Notice
20-08-2016
2
Period of downloading of documents
From 22-08-2016 to
12-09-2016
3
Date if submission of online
22-08-2016 to 12-09-2016
documents
up to 4.00 pm
4
Date of submission of Hard Copy
16-09-2016 up to 4.00 pm
5
Date of opening tender
17-09-2016 at 11.00 am or
any subsequent convenient
date
The tender documents along with other Terms and Conditions of the
NIT and relevant documents can be downloaded from the departmental
website jktenders.gov. in. The tender shall be uploaded in electronic format
on the departmental website jktenders.gov.in. The bidders shall have to
upload scanned copy of all necessary documents like CDR/PAN/TIN/
Demand Draft (Tender Fee) registration certificate duly renewed and hard
copies thereof physically to tender receipting authority well before the date
of opening of the bid. The cost of tender documents shall be in the form of
Bank Draft drawn in favour of Accounts Officer, Fire and Emergency
Services, J&K payable at Srinagar/Jammu and Earnest Money shall be
pledged to Director General, Fire and Emergency Services, J&K. Cost of
tender documents is non-refundable, whileas the Earnest Money is
refundable.
(Sd.).............................
Accounts Officer,
Fire and Emergency Services,
J&K, Srinagar.
92 The J&K Govt. Gazette, 18th August, 2016/27th Srav., 1938.
[No. 20
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
CIVIL SECRETARIAT––FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Notification
Srinagar, the 29th June, 2016.
SRO-209.––In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the
Jammu and Kashmir Levy of Tolls Act, Smvt. 1995 (Act No. VIII of 1995)
and in supersession of notification SRO-160 dated 30th May, 2016 read
with notification SRO-177 dated 1st June, 2016, the Government hereby
direct that in notification SRO-22 dated 31-01-2004 read with notification
EXTRAORDINARY
REGD. NO. JK—33
THE
JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
Vol. 129] Srinagar, Wed., the 29th June, 2016/8th Asad., 1938.[No. 12-o
Separate paging is given to this part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation.
PART I––B
Jammu and Kashmir Government––Notifications.
———–
SRO-112 dated 01-04-2015, the existing Annexure ‘A’ and Annexure ‘B’
shall be substituted by Annexure ‘A’ and Annexure ‘B’ respectively as
appended to this notification”.
This Notification shall come into force w. e. f. 01-07-2016.
By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
(Sd.) NAVIN K. CHOUDHARY, IAS,
Commissioner/Secretary to Government,
Finance Department.
–––––––
2
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 28th June, 2016/7th Asad., 1938.
[No. 12-o
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
Annexure 'A' of Notification SRO-209 dated 29-06-2016
Incoming Raw material
1.
Food Items/Eatables that includes Spices, Salt (except non-
Iodized salt Imported as raw material by Salt-processing units
manufacturing iodized salt), Maida, Sugar, Vanaspati required for
bakery and confectionery items manufactured by non-mechanised
units, All kinds of pulses, nuts including grams, Dry milk powder,
All kinds of oils (edible and non-edible) excluding oil seeds.
2.
Building Materials that includes Marble in any form like. slabs,
powder, chips, crazy tiles excluding Marble Blocks weighing
1.5 tons and above per piece, Cement of all types and brands,
Stones excluding quartz, magnesite, Ore Chrornite, Dolomite and
Limestone and blocks of Kota Stone weighing 1 qtl and above
per piece, Plywood, Sunmica Sheets, Timber all types, Ply-board,
Glass of all types, All type of tiles.
3.
Iron/Metal Goods that includes MS Tor, MS rounds and MS
Tor of modified make, Untwisted ribbed bars for manufacture of
twisted ribbed bars, Scrap sheets and circles of Copper for
mechanized utensil making units, G. P. Sheets, G.C. Sheets,
MS Sheets, B. P. Sheets, CR/HR coils and sheets.
4.
Packing Materials including Empty bottles (except empty beer
bottles), Crown Corks.
5.
Fodder/Poultry and feed thereof that includes Oil cakes,
De-Oiled cakes, Bran of Wheat, Maize and Rice, Molasses
(other than the one when imported as a raw material by Industrial
units engaged in the manufacture of Poultry and Animal Feed for
manufacture of such feed) and Chicken.
6.
Fuels that includes LPG, Coal (steam and slack).
3.
Glazed crockery and CKD for bicycles and Tricycles.
––––––
No. 12-o]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 28th June, 2016/7th Asad., 1938.
3
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
Annexure '‘B’ of Notification SRO-209 dated 29-06-2016
1.
Arms, their accessories and ammunition.
2.
Rectified spirit and Methylated spirit.
3.
Oleo-resin.
4.
Twisted ribbed bars manufactured out of untwisted ribbed bars.
4
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 28th June, 2016/7th Asad., 1938.
[No. 12-o
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, J&K.
––––––
Present : Kossar Ahmad Qureshi, Presiding Officer.
File No. 636-A/LC/1999.
Date of Institution : 26-04-1999.
Date of Decision : 09-06-2016.
––––––
Uri Civil Employees Union
(Applicant)
Versus
Management of Uri Civil, Contractor AB Gingal, Uri.
(Non-Applicant)
––––––
THE
JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Vol. 129] Srinagar, Tue., the 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938. [No. 13-2
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Separate paging is given to this part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
PART II––B
Notifications, Notices and Orders by Heads of Departments.
———–
EXTRAORDINARY
REGD. NO. JK—33
In the Matter of :––
Claim for “closure compensation” in terms of
section 25-FFF and its recovery under section 33-C
(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Appearance :––
1.
M. A. Saraf, Representative for (Applicant/
Union).
2. G. N. Monga, Advocate for (Non-Applicant/
Management).
––––––
ORDER/AWARD
The National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC Ltd.),
a Central Government undertaking allotted the construction of Hydroelectric
Power Project to Uri Civil Contractor AB in the year 1988. The construction
was started in the year 1989 and the project was completed in the
May, 1997. The said construction company employed personnel including
locals, non-locals and foreigners for execution of the said contract and
4500 employees were at work and were working daily at various sites.
The applicants Union with 1719 members were working in the Project
during the period of construction of the Uri Hydel Electric Power Project
at Uri. After the completion of the said power project the said Union
claimed closure compensation in terms of section 25-FFF (2) through an
application dated 26-04-1999 from the respondent Company.
To facilitate the said provision of law as contained under
section 25-FFF (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is reproduced as
under :––
“Where any Undertaking set up for the construction of buildings,
bridges, roads, canals, dams, or other construction work is closed
down on account of the completion of the work within two years
from the date on which the Undertaking has been set up, no
workman employed therein shall be entitled to any compensation
2
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-2
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
under clause ‘b’ of section 25-F, but if the construction work is not
so completed within two years, he shall be entitled to notice and
compensation under that section for every completed year of
continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months”.
From the plain reading of the above quoted provision of law it is
understood that if the undertaking is set up for the construction of building,
bridges, roads, canals, dams or similar such construction work is closed
down on account of the completion of the work beyond two years then
the workmen employed in it shall be entitled to compensation under
section 25-FFF (2) in terms of the rate mentioned under section 25-F (b) of
the I. D. Act.
Accordingly, the applicant’s Union filed an application on 26-04-1999
claiming their compensation under section 25-FFF(2) on account of closing
down of the project which is recoverable under section 33-C (2) of Industrial
Disputes Act.
The non-applicant, Company namely ; Uri Civil Contractor AB, is a
company registered under the Indian Companies’ Act, 1956, has framed
standing orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946,
which are certified by the competent authority (Certifying Officer) of the
J&K State and has attained the force of law after certification. The copy
of the standing orders applicable to the employees of Uri Civil Contractor
AB is available and is part of the case file. The standing orders mainly
describes the terms and conditions of the contract of employment.
Among other orders mentioned in the standing orders of the respondent
Company the order 15 reads as under :––
“Closure means the permanent closing down of the establishment
or any part thereof before the completion of the entire Uri Hydro
Electric Power Project. The employees recognize the exclusive
rights of the Management to close down the establishment or any
part thereof for any reason whatsoever. In the event of closure of
the establishment or any part thereof, the concerned employees
No. 13-2]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
3
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”.
It is, therefore, established that under Order 15 of its Standing Order,
the non-applicant has recognized and admitted the right and entitlement of
closure compensation under section 25- FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act
of its workmen in the event of the closure of the establishment or any part
thereof. Thus, in the light of clear provision under Order 15 of Standing
Orders, there is no scope for any dispute or difference on the part of the
non-applicant for application and entitlement of closure compensation under
section 25-FFF of Industrial Disputes Act, which is computable and
recoverable under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Section 33-C (2) contains legislative recognition of the right of the
workman to a speedy remedy to enforce their existing right without having
to seek recourse to the time consuming process under section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
Sub-clause (2) of section 33-C of the I. D. Act, 1947 is of wider
amplitude than sub-clause (1) which confirms entitlement of the workmen
to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of
being computed in terms of money due or as to the amount at which the
benefit should be computed, the question has to be decided by this Court.
The decision of the Court has to be forwarded to appropriate Government
in terms of clause (4) of the said section who in turn are empowered to
recover it in the manner as provided under section 33-C (1) of the said Act.
In the light of the observations made above the proceeding before the
Court on the subject is in the nature of the execution and to determine and
decides the amount due or make the computation.
Therefore, whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his
employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in
terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and
is denied of such benefit, he can approach Labour Court under section 33-C
4
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-2
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
of Industrial Disputes Act. The benefit sought to be enforced under
section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The present claim of the petitioners is not disputable but an existing
right provided under Statute.
Now, the question of the management (non-applicant) raised in their
objections that the petitioners are estopped to claim closure compensation
under section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, when they have
received the sums in full and final settlement are nullified as there cannot
be estoppels against a statutory provision.
In this connection the Supreme Court has taken a view that if a
workman has received the sums paid to him in full and final settlement of
his accounts, he would still be entitled to challenge the order of retrenchment
for non-compliance of the statutory requirements because there cannot be
an estoppels against a statute (Workmen of Subong Tea Estate versus
Subong Tea Estate, 1961-LLJ-333).
In another case titled Bennett Coleman and Co. (P) Ltd. versus
Punyo-Priya Dass Gupta (AIR 1970-SC 426), the Apex Court has held
that,––
“After resignation, an employee joined another concern and
required written acceptance of resignation, which was held up
until he gave the receipt in full and final settlement, the receipt
obtained under stress of circumstances cannot affect his other
claims. Since, employee signed the receipt in full and final
settlement, but made no representation that he had waived off the
claim for leave period or the company did any act or representation,
which otherwise it would not have done, the rule of estoppels
cannot be invoked”.
Further in the same (above quoted) judgement, the Apex Court has
held,––
“That there are decisions which express doubt whether the
technical pleas such as acquiescente, estoppels and waiver suitably
apply to
No. 13-2]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
5
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
industrial adjudication. The rule of estoppels contained in
section 115 of the Evidence Act is a rule of evidence only and
does not create any substantiative right or confers any cause of
action on the other”.
In the case of Umesh Chandra Pandey and others V/s. State of U.
P. and others (l991-LLR-638), the Allahabad High Court has held as
under :––
“That acceptance of retrenchment compensation by a workman
will not debar the workman to challenge the validity of his
retrenchment”.
In the light of above quoted judgements of the Apex Court and High
Court, the petitioners are not estopped from claiming the closure
compensation as the rule of estoppels cannot be invoked because there
cannot be an estoppels against a statutory provision, which
is provided under section 25- FFF of Industrial Disputes Act.
There is no bar for the petitioner to claim closure compensation under
section 25-FFF, even after signing full and final settlement as the petitioners
have not left their services of the respondent due to the expiry of their
service contracts but they were terminated due to non-renewal of the
contract of employment because of completion of the work of the project.
In the light of the discussions and the observations of law on the
subject and the judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various
Hon’ble High Court’s the question of Estoppel raised by the non-applicant’s
is therefore decided in favour of the applicants and against the respondent.
The another objection raised by the non-applicants that
section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act creates an individual right in
favour of the employees/workmen and the Employees Union cannot espouse
the cause of workmen in collective manner is examined in light of
sub-section (5) of section 33-C (2) where it provides that where workmen
employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any
6
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-2
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
money or a benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then a
single application on behalf of all the concerned workmen for the recovery
of money may be made. Thus, a collective application on behalf of a group
of workmen against the same employer is permissible under law.
The section 33-C (2) envisages joint application by a number of
workmen claiming compensation and in that case the Union of whom the
workmen are members can represent.
Therefore, this objection of the non-applicant is not relevant and
therefore is baseless without having any force in the eyes of law.
The other objection of the non-applicant that the petition filed by the
petitioners under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is time
barred has no weightage as section 33-C (2) does not contain any provision
as regards time limit for filing a claim, as is contained in the proviso to
sub-section (1). Therefore, there is no limitation for making claims under
section 33-C (2).
In this context the hands are laid at the following referred of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India :–– (i) and (ii) Cases The Hon’ble Supreme
Court : In these cases has held that,––
“Applications to Labour Court under section 33-C (2) is not barred
by limitation and Art. 137 of Limitations Act, 1963 is not applicable.
The scheme of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, is that it only deals
with applications to Courts and that the Labour Court is not a
Court within the Indian Limitations Act, 1963”.
(i) Nityanand M. Joshi versus Life Insurance Corporation of
India (AIR 1970 SC 209) ;
(ii) (Central Bank of India versus P. S. Rajagopalan, AIR 1964
SC-743).
No. 13-2]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
7
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
In view of these observations of the Apex Court, the present
application is not time barred.
The other objection of the non-applicant was regarding the
non-existence of the relationship of the employer and the employee between
the petitioners and respondent No. 1 as such relationship had ceased much
before the closure of the project due to expiry of the contract of services of
employees and as such the application is not maintainable. This issue is
settled with the observation that the Uri Hydro Electric Project commenced
the work in the year 1989 and got completed in the year 1997.
The list of the employees filed by the non-applicant on the direction
of this Court as a document duly signed and sealed by Sh. T. P. Sharma,
Accounts Manager, containing 154 pages indicating Name of the Employee,
Designation, Date of Employment and Date of Expiry of the Employment
and the Employment Code No. where depicts the cessation of the relationship
of the employees and employer before the end of the work at the project
site. The employment according to the list, started from the year 1990 and
continued up to the year 1997. The duration of employment is already given
in the said list. All the facts are undisputed and it is only a case of
mathematical calculations. The determination is not dependent on any
evidence, which is required to be led by the applicant workmen.
The last objections of the non-applicant is regarding non-existence of
the Employees’ Union during the execution of the Uri Hydro Electric Project.
In absence of any such Union the petitioners has no competence to represent
the applicants in the instant case.
In this connection the fact is that this Union was already in existence
even in the year 1992, when a month long strike was organized by this
Union in Uri Civil Project, to settle down their demands. Another strike of
employees was organized by three Unions of the employees, namely ; Daily
Wagers’ Union, Kashmir Employees’ Co-ordination Committee, and the
present Union, i. e., Uri Project Workers’ Union in the year July, 1994. The
8
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-2
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
said strike was called off by a written agreement between the workers
Unions and the Management of NHPC on 29th July, 1994, which was duly
signed by the representatives of the Unions and the Management and the
copy of the said agreement is part of the case file.
The NHPC Management side was represented by the following
officers who signed the agreement on behalf of the Management :––
1. N. Vishvanathan
- General Manager
2. P. L. Rao
- Chief Engineer (M)
3. M. Krishnamurthy
- Chief Engineer (Electric)
4. Rajeev Hastu
- Deputy Manager (P&A)
and all the three Unions were represented by their respective office bearers,
who signed the agreement on behalf of their Unions.
Therefore the above stated facts depict that the applicant Union was,
already in existence in the project and was registered under the Trade
Unions Act, 1926, with the Registrar Trade Union Labour Commissioner of
the J&K State vide Registration No. 978 dated 01-04-1997.
Since the petitioners is a registered Union, the employees who are its
members are entitled to be represented by this Union in any proceeding
under the Industrial Disputes Act, in terms of section 36 of Industrial
Disputes Act.
Therefore this objection of the non-applicant is also decided in favour
of the applicant on the basis of the above stated facts and the applicants
are within their prerogative’s vested under section 36 of the Industrial
Dispute Act to represent the petitioners in the proceeding before the Court/
Tribunal.
To sum up all the objections/issues raised by the non-applicants
(respondent) are settled in light of the statutory provisions of law and the
No. 13-2]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
9
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
law settled by the Apex Courts and other High Courts in favour of
the applicants and against the non-applicants (respondents). The applicants
are therefore held entitled to the Closure Compensation @ the rate as
defined in clause (b) of section 25 F of the I. D. Act. The said amount of
compensation in favour of the 1719 employees as per list filed by the
applicant is computed to Rs. 1,23,69,930/- Rupees One Crore, Twenty three
Lacs, Sixty nine thousand and nine hundred thirty only. The non-applicant
(management) are accordingly directed to deposit the decreed amount with
this Court/Tribunal within one month from the date of announcement of this
Judgement along with the interest at the rate of 8% per cent from the date
of filing of the application before this Court/Tribunal of the decretal amount
for disbursement to the claimant employees.
Order is accordingly passed in favour of the petitioners. A copy of
order be sent to the appropriate Government through its Commissioner/
Secretary Labour Department for information and its publication in the
Govt. Gazette.
The file, after due completion, be consigned to record.
Announced :
Dated 09-06-2016.
(Sd.) KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI,
Presiding Officer,
District and Sessions Judge,
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
J&K, Srinagar.
10
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-2
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
STATE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
SRINAGAR.
––––––
Present : Kossar Ahmad Qureshi, Presiding Officer
File No. 615-A/ITLC/1997.
Date of Institution : 23-05-1997.
Date of Decision : 13-06-2016.
––––––
In the case of :
Employees’ Union, Uri Project Construction, Uri (J&K).
(Applicant)
Versus
1. Management, Uri Civil Contractor AB.
THE
JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT GAZETTE
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Vol. 129] Srinagar, Tue., the 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938. [No. 13-3
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Separate paging is given to this part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
PART II––B
Notifications, Notices and Orders by Heads of Departments.
———–
EXTRAORDINARY
REGD. NO. JK—33
2. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited (NHPC) Uri.
(Non-Applicants)
––––––
In the Matter of :––
Reference vide SRO No. 173 dated 21-05-1997
of the Claim of relocation and rehabilitation allowance.
1.
Mr. M. A. Saraf
:
Representative for Workmen.
2.
Mr. G. N. Monga
:
Advocate for Management.
––––––
ORDER/AWARD
This disposes a reference made by the Government of J&K vide
SRO No.173 dated 21-05-1997 with the issues made therein.
The brief facts collected from statements of the witnesses produced
by the applicant workmen and their documents placed on the file, are
summarised as under :––
The National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) allotted
the construction of Hydroelectric Power Project at Uri, District Baramulla
to Uri Civil Contractor AB in the year 1988. The construction was started
in the year 1988 and the project was completed in May, 1997. The said
construction company employed personnel including locals, non-locals and
foreigners for the execution of the said contract. About 4500 employees
were working daily at various sites of the project.
The project of Hydroelectric Power was comprising of four units.
The work at the various units (sites) of the project continued simultaneously.
It was in the year 1996 when one unit (site) got completed and the
management of the project felt that due to this completion the workers
(employees) engaged will be out of job.
2
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-3
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
As a good will gesture. The General Manager, NHPC, Uri, in an
interview broadcast on Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, on October, 1996,
announced that on the completion of the Uri Hydel Project ; each outgoing
employee would be paid lump sum amount so.
The facts and the circumstances which gave rise to this case are
summarized, briefly as under :––
The National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC)
allotted the construction of Hydroelectric Power Project at Uri,
District Baramulla to Uri Civil Contractor AB in the year 1988.
The construction was started in the year 1988 and the project was
completed in May, 1997. The said construction company employed
personnel including locals non-locals and foreigners for the
execution of the said contract. About 4500 employees were
working daily at various sites of the project.
The project of Hydroelectric Power was comprising of four units.
The work at the various units (sites) of the project continued simultaneously.
It was in the year 1996 when one unit (site) got completed and the
management of the project felt that due to this completion the workers
(employees) engaged will be out of job.
As a good will gesture. The General Manager, NHPC, Uri, in an
interview broadcast on Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, on October, 1996,
announced that on the completion of the Uri Hydel Project ; each outgoing
employee would be paid lump sum amount so that the employees who are
retrenched due to completion of the project are saved from the clutches of
unemployment and starvation till they are rehabilitated or get employment
(the copy of the Radio Talk submitted by the applicants in the shape of
cassette before this Court as documentary proof is with the file). Further,
said General Manager in the same interview announced that work at the
other units (sites) is going on vigorously and will be completed in the middle
of the year 1997.
No. 13-3]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
3
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
This announcement of the said General Manager of NHPC, Uri,
created enthusiasm among all the employees and they approached the
Management of NHPC and Uri Civil AB, and others for the fulfillment of
their promises/commitments regarding relocation allowance and
rehabilitation allowance through a Letter No. 786/UCEU dated 22-11-1996,
under signatures of Peer Gayas-ud-Din Shah, the then President, Uri Civil
Employees Union, Gingal, Uri.
But the Management of NHPC and Uri Civil Contractor AB did not
kept their promise and commitment and did not agree with the workers
who were represented by their union got aggrieved with the refusal of the
commitment of the management to rehabilitate them after cessation of
their job and they approached the Conciliation Officer, Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Baramulla through an application dated 26-11-1996.
The conciliation lasted for two and a half months, in which the
non-applicants/management participated but without any outcome with the
result the conciliation failed and Conciliation Officer submitted the failure
report to the Government which onwards referred the matter to this forum
for adjudication through SRO-l73 dated 21-05-1997 with the following
references, namely :––
(a) Whether the refusal of relocation and rehabilitation allowance
to the workers of the Uri Civil Project by the Management is
illegal ?
(b) If so, to what relief the said workers are entitled ?
The applicant’s Union also filed detailed claim petition regarding
relocation/rehabilitation allowance on 24-06-1997 before this Court for
adjudication during the proceedings before this Court the Respondent No.
1 was represented by Sh. Mehraj-ud-Din Bhat, Advocate and Respondent
No. 2 by Sh. G. N. Monga, Advocate, who filed their objections to the
claim petition of the applicants. They contended the non-maintainability of
the applicant’s application. On various grounds which are discussed herein.
4
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-3
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
The applicant Employees Union, produced the following witnesses in
support of their claim who were examined by this Court on oath :––
(1) Muhammad Hussain Wani S/o Gh. Nabi Wani R/o Bemina,
Srinagar ; Ex. Personnel Officer of Uri Project, and presently
working as Advocate, J&K High Court at Srinagar.
(2) Mohammad Ramzan Najar S/o Mohammad Sultan Najar,
Supervisor, Uri Civil.
(3) Gh. Nabi Najar S/o Ab. Aziz Najar, Foreman/Supervisor,
Uri Civil.
(4) Mohammad Ashraf Khan S/o Gh. Mohammad Khan,
Supervisor, Uri Civil.
(5) Ab. Aziz Khan S/o Habib-Ullah Khan R/o Uri, President, Uri
Civil Employees Union.
(6) Mohammad Akbar Khan S/o Feroz Khan R/o Kanth Bagh,
Baramulla, General Secretary, Uri Civil Employees Union.
Witness-1 :––Muhammad Hussain Wani S/o Gh. Nabi Wani
R/o Bemina, Srinagar, Advocate of J&K High Court at Srinagar.
This witness was examined in this Court on 07-05-2008 who
deposed that he was working with the non-applicant Management Uri
Civil Contractor AB, as Personnel Officer and worked for three years
w. e. f. 1993-95. The relocation allowance was given to the personnel @
the rates mentioned as under :––
“After completion of first year of service with the Uri Civil
Contractor AB (UCC), it was paid 20 per cent of the total salary
as relocation allowance and after completion of the second year
of service with Uri Civil Contractor AB, it was paid the relocation
No. 13-3]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
5
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
allowance @ 25% of the total salary received during the
proceeding two years and after completion of the third year of
service with Uri Civil Contractor AB, 30 per cent of the total
salary received during the first, second and third year of service”.
Again he deposed that this allowance was paid at the time of
leaving the service of the said Management. However among the
labourers this allowance was paid to Supervisors only, although
they don’t exercise any administrative control or supervision power
over them as they had no power or authority to mark the attendance
of the labourers, or sanction their leave transfer or to change the
places of posting of their subordinate labourers. In cross-
examination by the non-applicant counsel he deposed that there
was no criteria or any rule for payment of the relocation allowance,
but was paid on pick and choose and to their favourites Ab.
Hamid Karnai, Camp Officer and Mohammad Shafi Vakil,
Transport Officer. He further deposed that it wrong to say that
this allowance was paid to experts only. All the experts working in
the Project were Swedish. The project had different section/wings
such as Engineering Wing, Mechanical and Transport Wing. Where
the foreigners were working only. In reply to Court question, the
witness deposed that he was working as Personnel Officer and
was dealing himself with such service contracts of the employees
where all the terms and conditions of the services were mentioned
but there was no such contract mentioning therein any such or
rehabilitation allowance, relocation anywhere. He himself
approached Senior Personnel Manager for his relocation
allowance, but the said Senior Personnel Manager told him that
payment of relocation allowance is the discretion of the Director
of the Project only.
Witness-2 :–– Mohammad Ramzan Najar S/o Mohammad Sultan
Najar in his statement deposed that he was working in the Uri Civil Project
from 1990 to 1995 as Carpenter, his employment Code was 146. During
6
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-3
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
this period, he was promoted to supervisory category and 80 persons were
working under him but he had no authority or power to mark their attendance
or sanction any leave. This attendance was marked by the time-keeper of
the Project. He deposed that he had no authority over his subordinates.
The witness deposed that he was terminated from service in 1995 after
putting in five complete years of service in the project.
Witness-3 :–– namely, Gh. Nabi Najar S/o Ab. Aziz Najar deposed
in his statement that he was working as a Foreman in Uri Civil Project
from 1990 to 1997 with employment Code No. 51 and was mainly performing
the job of laying concrete casting being an expert in this job, and on this
basis was promoted as Supervisor.
Approx. 100 workers were working under his and all the work was
supervised and controlled by the eight people and it were they who used to
sanction leave to them. He was paid relocation allowance at the rate of 20
per cent. His contract of employment was up to 1996 only.
Witness-4 :––Mohammad Ashraf Khan S/o Gh. Mohammad Khan,
in his statement dated 26-10-1999, deposed that he was working as Foreman
Security in the non-applicant establishment from 1990 till 1997, and during
his period of employment he was paid relocation allowance at the rate of
20 per cent only. He further deposed that there was no written agreement
regarding relocation allowance between the Management and the
Employees. He also deposed that whole of the Project was under the control
and the whole authority was in the hands of foreigners.
Witness-5 :––Ab. Aziz Khan S/o Habibullah Khan R/o Uri, in his
statement dated 07-09-1999, deposed that the General Manager, NHPC, in
his Radio broadcast deposed that at the time of closure of the Project, each
employee will be paid Rs. 3 lakhs, and also rehabilitation allowance. Getting
enthusiased with this announcement the employees union, approached the
authorities of the project for the relocation and rehabilitation allowance in
1996 before the Management, and at that time thousands of employees
were working with the Uri Civil as most of the units were still incomplete
No. 13-3]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
7
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
and were in progress. One unit of 120 MW was inaugurated by the
Ex-Hon’ble Prime Minister Mr. H. D. Devegowda, and the other three
units were incomplete. He further deposed that the General Manager in a
Radio broadcast dated October, 1996, promised rehabilitation allowance
for the workers which according to the General Manager, would be paid at
the close of the Power Project.
Witness-6 :––Mohammad Akbar Khan S/o Feroz Khan R/o Kanth
Bagh, Baramulla, in his statement dated 07-09-1999, deposed that he was
working in Uri Civil from 24-02-1992 to 24-10-1996 and he heard himself
the announcement of General Manager, NHPC from the Radio Kashmir
who stated that rehabilitation allowance up to Rs. 3 lakhs will be paid to all
employees of Uri Civil on completion of the Power Project. On hearing this
Radio broadcast in October, 1996, the Employees Union demanded
rehabilitation allowance from him, but he showed cold shoulder and on his
denial the union approached Conciliation Officer (Assistant Labour
Commissioner), Baramulla and at that time 1300 employees were still
working in the Uri Power Project.
On the perusal of the statements of the above mentioned witnesses,
revealed that all the experts in the establishment were the foreigners only
who belonged to Sweden and not a single expert was from India or a local.
The contention of the non-applicant’s that relocation allowance was paid to
those persons who were not workers but were supervisors and their work
was considered indispensable for the efficient completion of the project of
480 MW does not hold valid in view of the definition.
The workmen laid down under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, as defined in S.2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act is as under :––
“Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed
in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work, whether the terms of
employment be expressed or implied, and for the purpose of any
8
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-3
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes
any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched
in connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute, but does
not include any such person––
i. ..........................
ii. ..........................
iii. who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
capacity ; or
iv. who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages
exceeding one thousand, six hundred rupees ;
v. (Rs. 1600/-) per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of
the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature”.
In this connection the Hon’ble Bombay High Court Judgment titled,
Union Carbide (India) Ltd. versus D. Samuel and others 1999 LLR-21 laid
down some tests to differentiate the term “Supervisor” and the “workman”.
The relevant para is reproduced as under :––
(1) “Designation is not material but what is important is the nature
of work.
(2) Find out the dominant purpose of employment and not any
additional duties the employee may be performing.
(3) Can he bind the company/employer to some kind of decisions
on behalf of company/employer ?
(4) Has the employee the power to direct or oversee the work of
his subordinates ?
No. 13-3]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
9
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
(5) Has he the power to sanction leave or recommend it ? and
(6) Has he the power to appoint, terminate or take disciplinary
action against the workman”.
Further also held that these tests are not the only tests. There can be
a situation where there may be other tests to indicate whether the person is
doing supervisory work or not ? However, what is material is to note that a
supervisor must be in a position to bind his employer in respect of the
decisions that he has taken or in exercise of such power has control on
them.
The perusal of the standing orders of the project contractor shows
the following definition of supervisor as under :––
“Supervisor means any person who by the nature of his duties
exercises authority, supervision or control over an employee”. But
in the instant case the so called supervisors who were paid the
relocation allowance were supervisors in name only but had no
authority or control over their subordinate employees.
From the perusal of the statements of the witnesses of the petitioners,
definition of supervisor given in standing orders of the company and from
the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (as mentioned above) it is
manifestly established that the so called supervisors, who were given
relocation allowance, were actually the “workmen” as defined under
section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and not supervisors.
It is beyond to understand that relocation allowance was introduced
as an incentive allowance to benefit certain persons only who were
indispensable for the completion of the project and is without any, reasonable
basis for denying the benefit of this allowance to rest of workers who also
contributed for the completion of the project by dint of their hard work.
There was practically no order for relocation allowance issued by the
non-applicant management and there was also no separate contract for
10
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-3
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
relocation allowance with any person as stated by the witnesses. But were
paid relocation allowance without any separate contract.
Thus the order for relocation allowance is arbitrary and discriminatory
in nature treating differently the employees who had joined the project.
Relocation allowance was a terminal cash benefit and it should have been
paid to all employees without any discrimination against persons who had
been similarly placed. The classification like senior staff, supervisor and
chief supervisor was not based on some valid principle which in itself was
irrational, unreasonable and discriminatory.
It is also wrong to say, that this allowance was meant for experts and
indispensable persons only when all such persons were foreigners and not
a single such person was local. It is also wrong on the part of the non-
applicant to say that the petitioners never approached the management for
relocation allowance. Since it was a terminal cash benefit like gratuity, it
was demanded at the time of leaving the employment and should have
been paid automatically at the cessation of the job as per their commitment
and promise.
It is strange that the General Manager, NHPC, after making
commitment regarding payment of rehabilitation allowance publicly, has
backed out from his commitment. He had made commitment in an interview
with Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, in October, 1996. A copy of the cassette of
this interview already been produced by the employees “Union”, for the
perusal of this Court and is attached herewith in the file. To examine the
veracity of the recorded evidence in the shape of tap recorded the Hon’ble
Supreme Court references are quoted in this connection :––
In the case of S. Pratap Singh versus State of Punjab
1964-AIR SC 72, 86 and State of Punjab versus Sodhi Sukhdev
Singh AIR-1961 SC 493, 512, 532, it has been held that
“Inconsistent statement can be proved by tape recording. The
evidence afforded by the tape recorded talk has to be considered
in appreciating the genuineness of the talks recorded in deciding
No. 13-3]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
11
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
whether the allegations made by the appellant are substantiated
or not” ? It is further held that “whether the genuineness of the
recording is established, the evidence afforded by the tape
recording talk has to be considered in appreciating the genuineness
of the talks recorded and in deciding whether the allegations made
by the appellant are substantiated or not” ?
The most relevant view has been taken and held that “Tape recordings
can be legal evidence by way of corroborating statements of a person who
deposes that the other speaker and he carried on that conversation or even
of the statement of a person who may depose that he overheard the
conversation between the two persons and what they actually stated had
been tape recorded. Weight to be given to such evidence will depend on the
other factors which may be established in a particular case. It cannot be
held that the record of the conversation on a tape record is not admissible in
evidence for any purpose”.
Thus from the above legal positions it is collected that the “Tap
recorded” evidence is a admissible evidence in the eyes of law and one
can’t deny his stated fact that too where the announcement is a wide
publication and not only the people of the State but the whole world can
testify this announcement. Therefore the denial and backing out is the
commitment and announcement is betrayal with the public.
The other objections raised by the non-applicants that the reference
made by the competent authority for adjudication to this Court is incompetent
and bad in law for the reason that no industrial dispute was existing between
the management and the petitioners as envisaged under section 2-K of
Industrial Disputes Act. For reference section 2 (K) of the Industrial Disputes
Act which defines industrial dispute is reproduced as under :––
“Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between
employers and workmen or between employers and employers or
between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the
12
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-3
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or
with the conditions of labour of any person”.
The dispute or difference must be real in the sense that there must be
a demand made by one party to the dispute on the other party and a refusal
of the demand, unless there is a demand and there is non-compliance with
it, there cannot be any industrial dispute within the meaning of section-2(K)
of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the instant case a representation sent by
the Union to the Management making a demand and rejection considered
sufficient to constitute an industrial dispute between the parties.
As already stated above that the General Manager, NHPC, in an
interview broadcast on Radio Kashmir in October, 1996, announced that on
the completion of the Uri Project, each outgoing employee would be paid
lump sum amount so that the employees who are retrenched due to
completion of the project are saved from the clutches of unemployment
and starvation till they are rehabilitated or get employment but the same
was denied to the Employees “Union” who had submitted a written demand
before the Management on 22-11- 1996, approached the Conciliation Officer,
Baramulla, with an application dated 26-11-1996, for amicable settlement.
The conciliation failed due to non- cooperation of the Management.
The failure report was sent to the Government under section 12 (4) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, which then referred the matter to this forum for
adjudication.
Therefore, the demand was raised when the industry was existing
and the relationship of employer and employee also existed. The counsel of
the non-applicant mentioned in his objections that 70 per cent of employees
had left the Project, but 30 per cent were still working. In other words, it
means to say that out of total number of 4500 employees, still 1800
employees were working till the completion of the project.
The counsel of the non- applicant has mentioned in his objections that
the relationship of employer and employee did not exist when the jurisdiction
No. 13-3]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
13
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
of Conciliation Officer was invoked by the petitioners for making the
reference to this Court. In this connection it is to state that demand for
payment of relocation/rehabilitation was made on 22-11-1996 and after
days of the demand the interference of the Conciliation Officer was sought
and at that time the work in the project was continuing and was completed
in the year 1997 .
This fact can be ascertained from the list of employees submitted by
the Management in this Court, which is part of the case file. According
to the said list the number of employees employed in the year 1996 is
indicated as 1983, the number
of employees from 10/1996 to 12/1996 is
indicated as 330, and the number of employees employed in the year 1997
is indicated as 583. Moreover, the non-applicant counsel has mentioned at
page 3 of his objections that the Project was almost complete at that time
and most of the employees at that time had left the service of the company
due to the expiry of their contracts is not relevant as the whole project was
not complete and only one unit of it was inaugurated by the Ex-Prime
Minister at that time l/3rd of work was incomplete.
In case Lal Mohammad versus Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.,
and others (1999 LLR-100) is referred to wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court at page 116, has held, “Closing down of most of the work of a project
is not equivalent to closing of the project as a whole”.
Therefore, the said project was not fully closed and some work was
still being carried out in the year 1996, when the number of workmen was
1983, and the number of employees employed in 1997 was 583 as per the
list of Management, produced in this Court, which proves that the project
was existing, and the relationship of the employer and the employees was
also existing, at the time when the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer
was invoked by the petitioner for making reference to this Court. Therefore
the plea of the Counsel of the non-applicant can’t stand with.
Another objection raised by the counsel of the non-applicant stated
that in face of full and final settlement of the claims duly executed by the
14
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-3
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
petitioners, the petitioners have no claim to set up for getting any allowance
whatsoever.
The payment received in full and final settlement is no bar in raising
industrial dispute. In industrial law, the expression in full and final settlement
means termination of disputed matter by adoption of terms agreeable
between the parties ; the parties may express their consent to receive the
agreed amount.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken a view that if a
workman has received the sums paid to him in full and final settlement of
his accounts, he would still be entitled to challenge the order of retrenchment
for non- compliance of the statutory requirements because there cannot be
an estoppel against a statute, particularly when non-compliance with the
statute goes to the root of the thing. It has been held that the rule of estoppels
or waiver cannot be applied against a retrenched workman who has no
freedom to refuse payment in view of the slender financial position caused
by retrenchment.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that acceptance of
retrenchment compensation by a workman will not debar him to challenge
the validity of his retrenchment [Umesh Chandera Pandey, and Others
versus State of U. P. 1991 (LLR) 638 All H/C].
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bennet Coleman and
Co. (P) Ltd. versus Punya Priaya Das Gupta (AIR 1970 SC 426), held
that,––
“There are decisions which express doubt whether the technical
pleas such as acquiescence, estoppels, and waiver, suitably apply
to industrial adjudication. The rule of estoppels contained in
section 115 of the Evidence Act, is a rule of evidence only, and
does not create any substantive right or confers any cause of
action on the other. The representation, which is the basis of the
No. 13-3]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
15
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———
rule, must be clear and unambiguous and not indefinite under
section 115 of the Evidence Act ; the representation which estops
a person from acting contrary to it is the representation on the
belief of which the other person acts in a manner which he would
not have done, but for the representation”.
Where after resignation, an employee joined another concern and
required written acceptance of resignation which was held up until he gave
the receipt in full and final settlement ; the receipt obtained under stress of
circumstances cannot affect his other claims. Since employee signed the
receipt in full and final settlement but made no representation that he had
waived the claim for leave period or the company did any act on
representation which otherwise it would not have done, the rule of estoppels
cannot be invoked.
In the light of above observation of the Supreme Court, the rule of
estoppels is not applicable to the full and final settlement.
The last objection raised by the counsel of the non-applicant that the
Union representing the petitioners has no competence to represent them is
examined in light of its registration with the Registrar under Registration
No. 978. Under the relevant law of the land i. e. Trade Union Act, 1926 is
sufficient to show that the petitioners were the real and authorised
representative of the petitioners and had competence to representation.
In this context section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act is
referred to,––
“A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be
represented in any proceeding under this Act by,––
(a) Any member of the executive or other office bearer of a
registered trade union of which he is a member ;
(b) Any member of the executive or other office bearer of a
federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to
in clause (a) is affiliated ;
16
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
[No. 13-3
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—–––—————
(c) Where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by any
member of the executive or other office bearer of any trade
union connected with, or by any other workman employed in
the industry in which the worker is employed and authorized
in such a manner as may be prescribed.
Registration is sufficient to enable a trade union to represent a workman
before an Industrial Tribunal under section 36(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
It is worth while to mention here that respondents were given years,
to gather for adducing their evidence but they have failed to bring anyone
and ultimately their evidence stand closed on 17-02-2010. Therefore they
have failed to substantiate their contention.
In the light of above stated facts, circumstances and the position of
law and arguments advanced by the parties, it is established that refusal for
payment of relocation and rehabilitation allowance to the workmen of Uri
Civil Project by the Management is illegal and all the workers (applicants)
who were working in the Project, are entitled to this allowance at par to
other categories of the employees, i. e., from 01-04-1995 to ending
April, 1997 along with interest @ the rate of 8 per cent. Non-payment and
refusal to pay is clear cut victimization of the Labour Class and amounts to
unfair Labour Practice.
Award is accordingly passed in favour of the applicants. A copy of
award be sent to the appropriate Government through its Commissioner/
Secretary, Labour Department for information and its publication in the
Government Gazette.
The file, after due completion , be consigned to record.
Announced :
Dated : 13-06-2016.
(Sd.) KOSSAR AHMAD QURESHI,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
J&K, Srinagar.
No. 13-3]
The J&K Govt. Gazette, 5th July, 2016/14th Asad., 1938.
17
–––––––—––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––———