2691 GI/2022
(861)
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. 17]
नई दिल् ली, अप्रैल 24— अप्रैल 30, 2022, िजनवार/ वैिाख 4— वैिाख 10, 1944
No. 17]
NEW DELHI, APRIL 24—APRIL 30, 2022, SATURDAY/ VAISAKHA 4–VAISAKHA 10, 1944
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िै जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् 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)
कार्मिक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल
(कार्मिक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 21 फरवरी, 2022
का.आ. 399.—केन्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार, गषि
जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1621/सी.आर. 725/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 02 दिसंबर, 2021 के माध् म से
िारी सम्मजत से, श्री जसद्धा ि िंकर कौजिक, जनरीक्षक, सीिीएसटी, साई कॉम्प्लेक्स, जचत्राल ा, बॉईसार, जिला-
ृालघर, मिाराष्ट्र के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) के अंतगित दिनांक 30.11.2021
को ििि कराई गई जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 03.12.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला
सं. आरसी0262021ए00012 ििि दक ा ग ा िै, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-06052022-235576
CG-DL-W-06052022-235576
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-06052022-235576
CG-DL-W-06052022-235576
862 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं
तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों
और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 03.12.2021 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/04/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 21st February, 2022
S.O. 399.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1621/C.R. 725/PoL-2 dated 02 December, 2021
of Home Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 03.12.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into
the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 30.11.2021 against Shri Siddharth Shankar Kaushik, Inspector,
CGST, Sai Complex, Chitralaya, Boisar, Distt.- Palghar, Maharashtra under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (49 of 1988) based on which a CBI Case No. RC0262021A00012 has been registered on 03.12.2021 and
any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any
other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/04/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 14 माचि, 2022
का.आ. 400.—केंर सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए उत्तर प्रिेि राज् सरकार, गषि
(ृुजलस) अनुभाग-11, लखनऊ के आिेि सं. 1095(1)/6-ृी-11-2021-42एम/2021 द्वारा िारी और सं. 1095/6-
ृी-11-2021-42एम/2021, दिनांक 23.09.2021 के माध् म से प्राप्त सम्मजत से वाराणसी कैंट प्रिान डाक घर में
जवजभन्न डाक खातों से सरकारी िनराजि की बेईमानी से जनकासी करने और िुर्विजन ोिन करने के संबंि में दिनांक
05.09.2019 को ाना कैंट वाराणसी में भारती िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 420, 406, 409 के
अंतगित ििि अृराि सं. 1175/2019 से िुड़े अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे
संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड़ ंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न
दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार
का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त उत्तर प्रिेि राज् में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/61/2021-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2022
S.O. 400.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued vide Order No. 1095(1)/6-P-11-2021-42M/2021, Home (Police)
Section-11, Lucknow and conveyed vide No. 1095/6-P-11-2021-42M/2021 dated 23.09.2021, hereby extends
the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of
Uttar Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) relating to case Crime No. 1175/2019, registered at Police
Station Cantt. Varanasi on 05.09.2019 under sections 420, 406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
863
pertaining to dishonestly withdrawal and misappropriation of Government money from various postal accounts
at Varanasi Cantt. Head Post Office and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection
with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out
of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/61/2021-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 5 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 401.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए जनम्नजलजखत अृरािों, जिनकी िााँच दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस
स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों द्वारा भी की िानी िै, को जवजनर्ििष्ट करती िै, नामत: -
(क)
अजवजन जमत िमा ोिना ृर ृाबंिी लगाने संबंिी अजिजन म, 2019 (वषि 2019 का 21) के अंतगित
दकए गए िण्डनी अृरािों;
(ख)
ऐसे अृराि (िों) से िुडे ा उससे संबध्ि दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड ंत्र एवं/अ वा
उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि (िों)।
[फा. सं. 228/22/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 5th April, 2022
S.O. 401.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are also to be
investigated by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely: -
(a)
Offences punishable under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (21 of 2019);
(b)
Any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with above mentioned
offence(s) and/or for any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or
arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/22/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 402.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार, गषि
जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 114/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 22 फरवरी, 2022 के माध् म से
िारी सम्मजत से, श्री िगिीि भास्ट्कर ृाठटल द्वारा दिनांक 08.06.2020 को अनुजचत लाभ की मांग करने के संबंि
में भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक अजिजन म, 1988 के अंतगित िण्डनी अृराि करने के जलए श्री मंगेि घ ावत, तत्कालीन
सीबीआई जनरीक्षक, एसीबी मुंबई के जवरुद्ध ििि कराई गई जिका त से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने त ा
ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में
दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के
सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/20/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2022
S.O. 402.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 114/POL-2 dated 22nd February, 2022
of Home Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the
complaint dated 08.06.2020 lodged by Shri Jagdish Bhaskar Patil against Shri Mangesh Ghayawat, the then
Inspector of CBI, ACB, Mumbai pertaining to demand of undue advantage punishable under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such
offence (s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the
same facts.
[F. No. 228/20/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 403.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार, गषि
जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1621/सी.आर.657/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 17 िनवरी, 2022 के माध् म से
िारी सम्मजत से, श्री दिजलृ कुमार, जनरीक्षक, आ कर, मुंबई द्वारा आ के ज्ञात स्रोतों से अजिक संृजत्त ा िन
रखने के संबंि में संिोिन ृूवि भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) की िारा 13(2) सृठ त िारा
13(1)(ई) और वतिमान भ्रष्टाचार जनरोिक अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 का अजिजन म 16 द्वारा
ासंिोजित) की िारा 13(2) सृठ त िारा 13(1)(बी) के अंतगित दकए गए अजभकज त अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण
करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी
संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस
स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/18/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2022
S.O. 403.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1621/C.R.657/Pol-2 dated 17th January, 2022,
Home Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence (s) under section 13(2)
r/w section 13(1)(e) (before amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) (49 of 1988) and presently
corresponding section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as
amended by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been committed by Shri Dilip Kumar, Inspector, Income Tax,
Mumbai pertaining to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources
of income and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)
and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/18/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
865
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 404.—केंर सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
अजिजन म सं् ा 25) की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए
मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार, गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के दिनांक 17 िनवरी, 2022 के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1621/सी.आर.
441/ृॉल-2 के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से, श्री सजचन सावंत, भारती रािस्ट्व सेवा (सीमा िुल्क एवं केंरी
उत्ृाि िुल्क:2008), श्रीमती िेमा सावंत एवं श्री बालासािेब सावंत द्वारा कज त प ृ से आ के ज्ञात स्रोतों से
अजिक आर् िक संसािनों ा संृजत्त के कब्िे में िोने के संबंि में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का
49) (संिोिन ृूवि) की िारा 13(2) सृठ त िारा 13(1)(ई) के अनुप ृ भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988
(1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा 13(2) सृठ त िारा 13(1)(बी) एवं
भारती िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 109 के तित अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे
अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे सम्बद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड ंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में
दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों
की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/10/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2022
S.O. 404.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1621/C.R. 441/Pol-2 dated 17th January, 2022,
Home Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) under section 13(2)
r/w section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (before amendment) corresponding
section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act
16 of 2018) and section 109 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) alleged to have been committed by Shri Sachin
Sawant, Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Central Excise:2008), Smt. Hema Sawant and Shri Balasaheb
Sawant pertaining to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources
of income and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)
and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/10/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 405.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार, गषि
जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर499/ृोल-2, दिनांक 06.09.2021, के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत
से, श्रीमती गोजृका मांकर, ृुजलस उृ जनरीक्षक, रेलवे सुरक्षा बल, वारोरा रेलवे स्ट्टेिन के जवप द्ध दिनांक
04.09.2021 को भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित ििि कराई गई जिका त, जिसके
आिार ृर दिनांक 12.10.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी 0282021ए0005 ििि की गई िै, से उत्ृन्न
अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र
एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए
दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक
12.10.2021 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/09/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
866 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2022
S.O. 405.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR499/POL-2 dated 06.09.2021, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 12.10.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 04.09.2021 against Smt. Gopika Mankar, Police Sub-Inspector,
Railway Protection Force, Warora Railway Station under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)
based on which a CBI Case RC 0282021A0005 has been registered on 12.10.2021 and any attempt, abetment
and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in
the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/09/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 406.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार, आिेि
सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 460/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 15.11.2021, गषि जवभाग, मुंबई, के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत
से, श्री सू िकांत सांगले, जसजवल् न गैिेटेड ऑदफसर, (सीिीओ), भारती वा ु सेना, 2 ववंग, लोिेगांव, ृुणे के
जवप द्ध दिनांक 15.11.2021 को भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित ििि कराई गई
जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 15.11.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी ृुणे/2021/ए/003 ििि की
गई िै, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा
और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण
करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से
दिनांक 15.11.2021 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/08/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2022
S.O. 406.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI -2021/CR-460/POL-2 dated 15 November, 2021
Home Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special
Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 15.11.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into
the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 15.11.2021 against Shri Suryakant Sangle, Civilian Gazetted
Officer (CGO), Indian Air Force, 2 Wing, Lohegaon, Pune under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of
1988) based on which a CBI Case No. RC PUNE/2021/A/003 has been registered on 15.11.2021 and any
attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other
offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/08/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
867
नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल, 2022
का. आ. 407.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, जनम् नजलजखत अजिवक् ताओं क को, दिल् ली उच न न् ा ाल के समक्ष दिल् ली
जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेजषत दकए गए प्रकरणों से उत्ृन्न मामलों का अजभ ोिन,
अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् जवष ों का संचालन करने और उससे संबंजित ा उनके अनुषंजगक मामलों के जलए
उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषक की अवजि के जलए ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, िो भी ृूवितर िो, जविेष
लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक् त करती िै:-
ि.सं.
अजिवक् ताओं क का नाम (एस/श्री/सुश्री)
1.
अतुल गुलेठर ा
2.
अनुराग अिलुवाजल ा
3.
िीवेि नागर
4.
सुश्री सुमन चौिान
5.
सुश्री अनुभा भारद्वाि
[फा. सं. 225/29/2021-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2022
S.O. 407.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates, as
Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the Prosecution, Appeals , Revisions and other matters arising out of
the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the
High Court of Delhi and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, for a period of three years from
the date of their appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier, namely :-
Sl. No.
Name of Advocates (S/Shri/Ms.)
1.
Atul Guleria
2.
Anurag Ahluwalia
3.
Jeevesh Nagrath
4.
Ms. Suman Chauhan
5.
Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj
[F. No. 225/29/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 408.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए एततद्वारा अजिविा श्री िववंिर ृाल वसंि को जवचारण न् ा ाल में दिल्ली
जविेष
ृुजलस
स्ट् ाृना
(केंरी
अन्वेषण
ब् ूरो)
द्वारा
संजस्ट् त
सीबीआई
मामला
आरसी-
13(ई)/2017/सीबीआई/ईओ ू4/ईओ2/नई दिल्ली के अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने के जलए इस मामले में जवजि
द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृीली अ वा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और इस मामले से उत्ृन्न अन्
मामलों में अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने िेतु उनकी जन ुजि की तारीख से तीन वषक की अवजि के जलए अ वा इस
मामले के जनस्ट्तारण तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुि करती िै।
[फा. सं. 225/21/2021-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th April, 2022
S.O. 408.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Davinder Pal Singh,
Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of CBI Case RC-13(E)/2017/CBI/EOU-
IV/EO-II/New Delhi, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), in
the Trial Court, appeals, revisions and other matters arising out of this case in any Appellate or Revisional
Courts established by law, for a period of three years from the date of his appointment or till disposal of the
case, whichever is earlier.
[F. No.225/21/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 18, अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 409.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री प्रभाकांत िुक्ला, श्री ििांक इंिाृुरकर, श्री रजव चौिरी, श्री रािू
िमाि और श्री सुिील चंर चतुवेिी, अजिवक् ताओं क को, मध् प्रिेि उच न न् ा ाल , ग्वाजल र न् ा ृी के समक्ष,
दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेषण दकए गए मामलों से उत्ृन्न िोने वाले
अजभ ोिन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् जवष ों का संचालन करने और उनसे संबंजित ा उनसे आनुषंजगक मामलों
के जलए, उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषि की अवजि के जलए ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी
ृूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिकों के प ृ में जन ुक् त करती िै ।
[फा. सं. 225/25/2021-एवीडी-2]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 18th April, 2022
S.O. 409.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Prabha Kant Shukla, Sh.
Shashank Indapurkar, Sh. Ravi Choudhary, Sh. Raju Sharma and Sh. Sushil Chandra Chaturvedi, Advocates as
Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the Prosecution, Appeals , Revisions and other matters arising out of
the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the
High Court Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, for a
period of three years from the date of their appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 225/25/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 410.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री एस.वी. रािू, भारत के अृर मिा-साजलजसटर को केंरी अन्वेषण
ब् ूरो मामला, आरसी 7(एस)/2021/एससी ू.वी/सीबीआई/एससी-II नई दिल् ली, (भारती अंतठरक्ष अनुसंिान
संग न मामला), से उद्भूत मामले में भारत के उच् चतम न् ा ाल , अिमिाबाि जस्ट् त गुिरात उच् च न् ा ा ल,
एरनाकुलम जस्ट् त केरल उच् च न् ा ाल , दिल् ली उच् च न् ा ाल , जत्रवेंरम के सत्र न् ा ाल और जत्रवेंरम जस्ट् त
मु् न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट न् ा ाल ा जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट न् ा ाल , में अजभ ोिन का संचालन, अृील ा
ृुनरीक्षण करने िेतु तारीख 01.07.2021 से तीन वषक की अवजि के जलए ा मामले के जनृटान िोने तक, िो भी
ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक् त करती िै ।
[फा. सं. 225/40/2021-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
869
New Delhi, the 19th April, 2022
S.O. 410.―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S.V. Raju, Advocate
Additional Solicitor General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution, appeal, revision
or other proceedings arising out of Central Bureau of Investigation case, RC 07(S)/2021-SCU.V/CBI/SC-
II/New Delhi, (Indian Space Research Organisation Case) , before the Supreme Court of India, High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum, High Court of Delhi, Sessions Court at Trivandrum
and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court or Special Judicial Magistrate Court at Trivandrum, for a period of three
years with effect from 1st July, 2021 or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.
[F. No.225/40/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 411.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, अजिवक् ता श्री सुभाष चंर के ाल, और अजिवक् ता श्री मानि िालोई को,
गुवािाटी जस्ट् त गुवािाटी उच न न् ा ाल के समक्ष, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा
अन्वेषण दकए गए मामलों से उत्ृन्न िोने वाले अजभ ोिन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् जवष ों का संचालन करने
और उनसे संबंजित ा उनसे आनुषंजगक मामलों के जलए, उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषि की अवजि के जलए
ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुक् त करती िै ।
[फा.सं. 225/20/2021-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi , the 21st April, 2022
S.O. 411.―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Subhash Chandra Keyal ,
Advocate and Shri Manash Haloi, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution,
appeal , revision and other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the High Court of Guwahati at Guwahati and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, for a period of three years from the date of their appointment
or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 225/20/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 412.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, अजिवक् ता श्री िग मोिन सक्सेना, अजिविा श्री प्रिांत चतुवेिी,
अजिविा श्री प्रिीृ कुमार और अजिविा श्री श् ाम वसंि ािव को, ि ृुर जस्ट् त रािस्ट् ान उच न न् ा ाल के
समक्ष, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेषण दकए गए मामलों से उत्ृन्न िोने वाले
अजभ ोिन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् जवष ों का संचालन करने और उनसे संबंजित ा उनसे आनुषंजगक मामलों
के जलए, उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषि की अवजि के जलए ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी
ृूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुक् त करती िै ।
[फा. सं. 225/16/2021-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi , the 22nd April, 2022
S.O. 412.―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Jag Mohan Saxena,
Advocate, Shri Prashant Chaturvedi, Advocate, Shri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate and Shri Shyam Singh Yadav,
Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeal , revision and other matters
arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of
Investigation), before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto for a period of three years from the date of their appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 225/16/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 413.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, सुश्री आिा ए. िेसाई, अजिवक् ता और श्री बरेटों अंटोजनओं क िोस
जसजप्र ानों फनाांडीस, अजिवक् ता को, बाम् बे उच न न् ा ाल , गोवा के समक्ष दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी
अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेजषत दकए गए प्रकरणों से उत्ृन्न मामलों का अजभ ोिन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन्
जवष ों का संचालन करने और उससे संबंजित ा उनके आनुषंजगक मामलों के जलए उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से
तीन वषक की अवजि के जलए ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, िो भी ृूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक् त करती
िै।
[फा. सं. 225/17/2021-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौराजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2022
S.O. 413.―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate
and Shri Barreto Antonio Jose Cipriano Fernandes, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the
prosecution, appeal, revision and other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the High Court of Bombay at Goa and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of their appointment or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 225/17/2021 – AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 414.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री बी. गोृा कुमार, अजिवक् ता और श्री वैभव ए. गोवििन, अजिवक् ता
को, छत् तीसग उ उच न न् ा ाल के समक्ष दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेजषत दकए
गए प्रकरणों से उत्ृन्न मामलों का अजभ ोिन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् जवष ों का संचालन करने और उससे
संबंजित ा उनके आनुषंजगक मामलों के जलए उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषक की अवजि के जलए ा अगला
आिेि िोने तक, िो भी ृूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक् त करती िै।
[फा. सं. 225/19/2021-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौराजस ा, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
871
New Delhi , the 22nd April, 2022
S.O. 414.―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate
and Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeal,
revision and other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment
(Central Bureau of Investigation), before the High Court of Chhattisgarh and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of their appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 225/19/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 415.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, अजिवक् ता श्री अवनीि कुमार वसंि, अजिवक् ता श्री सौरेंर ृांडे और
अजिवक् ता सुश्री जनवेदिता जनर्विकार को, ृटना उच न न् ा ाल के समक्ष, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी
अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेषण दकए गए मामलों से उत्ृन्न िोने वाले अजभ ोिन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् जवष ों
का संचालन करने और उनसे संबंजित ा उनसे आनुषंजगक मामलों के जलए, उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषि
की अवजि के जलए ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिकों के प ृ में जन ुक् त
करती िै ।
[फा. सं. 225/23/2021-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2022
S.O. 415.―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Avanish Kumar Singh,
Advocate, Shri Sourendra Pandey , Advocate and Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate, as Special Public
Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeal , revision and other matters arising out of the cases
investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the High Court
of Judicature at Patna and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, for a period of three years from
the date of their appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No.225/23/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 416.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री जविम वसंि, अजिवक् ता, श्री ृंकि िुबे, अजिवक् ता और श्री सुिीर
कुमार िमाि, अजिवक् ता को दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा िााँच दकए गए मामलों और
उनसे उद्भूत अन् मामलों त ा उससे संबंजित ा उससे आनुषंजगक जवष ों के संबंि में मध् प्रिेि उच् च न् ा ाल ,
िबलृुर के समक्ष अजभ ोिन का संचालन, अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण करने िेतु, उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषक
की अवजि के जलए ा अगले आिेि तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक् त करती िै ।
[फा. सं. 225/26/2021-एवीडी II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
872 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2022
S.O. 416.―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Vikram Singh, Advocate,
Sh. Pankaj Dubey, Advocate and Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for
conducting the prosecution, appeal, revision and other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi
Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) , before the High Court Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of
their appointment or until further order, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 225/26/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 417.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, अजिवक् ता डा. एम. डी. ृूणािचारी, अजिविा श्री एन. मोजििीन बािा,
अजिविा श्री सी. मु ु सवािनन और अजिविा श्री एम. करुणाजनजि को, मिुरै न् ा ृी में मरास उच न न् ा ाल के
समक्ष, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेषण दकए गए मामलों से उत्ृन्न िोने वाले
अजभ ोिन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् जवष ों का संचालन करने और उनसे संबंजित ा उनसे आनुषंजगक मामलों
के जलए, उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषि की अवजि के जलए ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी
ृूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिकों के प ृ में जन ुक् त करती िै ।
[फा. सं. 225/27/2021-एवीडी II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2022
S.O. 417.―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. M. D. Poornachari,
Advocate, Shri N. Mohideen Basha, Advocate, Shri C. Muthu Saravanan, Advocate and Shri M. Karunanithi,
Advocate as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the Prosecution, Appeal, Revision and other matters
arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of
Investigation), before the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of their appointment or until further order, whichever
is earlier.
[F. No. 225/27/2021–AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2022
का.आ. 418.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8)
द्वारा प्रित् त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री प्रिांत कुमार साज ाना न को, नागृुर जस्ट् त, बम् बई उच न न् ा ाल ,
नागृुर न् ा ृी के समक्ष, दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेषण दकए गए मामलों से
उत्ृन्न िोने वाले अजभ ोिन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् जवष ों का संचालन करने और उनसे संबंजित ा उनसे
आनुषंजगक मामलों के जलए,उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषि की अवजि के जलए ा अगला आिेि िोने तक,
इनमें से िो भी ृूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिकों के प ृ में जन ुक् त करती िै ।
[फा. सं. 225/28/2021-एवीडी II]
संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
873
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2022
S.O. 418.―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Prashant Kumar
Sathianathan, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeal, revision and other
matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of
Investigation), before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of his appointment or until further orders, whichever
is earlier.
[F. No. 225/28/2021 –AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05/2014½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@58@2013-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2022
S.O. 419.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-20012/58/2013–IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 05/2014
Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For Employer
: Sri S. N. Gosh, Advocate
For workman
: Sri S. K. Sinha, Advocate
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 29.03.2022
874 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/58/2013 (IR(CM-I)) dated 01.01.2014, the Central Government in the Ministry
of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of P.B. Area of M/s BCCL in not providing employment to Sri Ashok
Hari, dependent son of Late Arjun Hari under the provisions of NCWA is fair and justified? To
what relief the dependent son of Late Arjun Hari is entitled to?”
2.
The Tribunal in this matter has passed an award on 08/01/2018 and held as follows:- “ Usually after the
death of an earning member of family, the family virtually thrown to street. It may not be possible to file claim
fulfilling all formality. The objection of management, that the claim has been after long delay has no leg to
stand. Hence the workman/claimant be given job waiving formality, to save him from starvation.”
3.
The management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL being aggrieved by the said award filed a writ petition
bearing WP(L) No. 1354 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The Hon’ble High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has been pleased to observe as follows:- “ In view of the aforesaid facts, this court
is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, award dated 8.1.2018 passed in Reference No. 05 of 2014,
whereby, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad has answered the
reference against the Management is set aside.
However the matter is remitted back to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad to
pass a fresh speaking award after giving proper opportunities to the parties, preferably within six months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal.”
4.
After production of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi passed in WP(L) No. 1354
of 2019 on 16/09/2021 by the claimant dependent son of workman Late Arjun Hari sufficient opportunities were
given to both the parties and both the parties were heard at length again.
5.
The case of the claimant namely Ashok Hari dependent son of concerned workman namely Arjun Hari
as per his written statement is as follows:-
That he is dependent son of Late Arjun Hari, a sweeper of Gopalichak Colliery having his Personnel
No. 00554048 who died on 16/03/2000. After death of his father, he had applied for employment on 17/04/2001
which was within the stipulated period of time. After that the management of BCCL handed over to him an
employment form for his employment under para 10.4.2 of NCW 930. Thereafter the management of BCCL
sent his application form to the B.D.O. Dhanbad and Jamtara for their signatures and after completion of the
process of obtaining signatures of S.D.O. Dhanbad and Jamtara, the management of BCCL had sent a letter for
his medical test on 24/11/2004. After completion of the process of his medical test the management of BCCL
kept mum for five years and subsequently informed him that no claim for employment should be entertained
after 18 months of death of workman. The management of BCCL had kept the service file in its office for more
than 18 months, so he is not at fault. The application for employment is valid as the date of submitting of
application form is on 17/04/2001. He comes from Harizan community, so for the purpose of depriving him
from the service of his deceased father, this step has been taken by the management.
The claimant has made prayer for direction to the management for providing employment to him.
6.
On the other hand the case of the management as per its written statement submitted by the Project
Officer, Gopalichak Colliery, BCCL Dhanbad is as follows:-
That the present I.D. Case raised by the Sri Ashok Hari is neither maintainable in fact nor in law as
there remains no employer-employee relation between him and the management. The concerned workman
namely Arjun Hari died on 16/03/2000 and after withdrawl of all the retrial benefits by the wife of workman, the
present I.D. Case had been raised after 12 years of the death of the workman which is stale dispute. The present
dispute has been raised by the claimant after 6 years of regret letter by the management which is shows that the
claimant is gainfully employed elsewhere. The application for the employment had been made after 26 months
of the death of the concerned workman namely Arjun Hari which is not maintainable as per circular of BCCL in
which it is mentioned that the no application for employment of compassionate ground should be entertained
after 18 months of the death of the employee. The claimant is trying to gain unjust enrichment from the
management under the veil of “poor”, “ignorance” and “castism” which is not sustainable. The compassionate
appointment cannot be kept reserved for long as held in various cases by the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme
Court.
A prayer has been made by the management to pass an award in its favour.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
875
7.
The management by way of rejoinder has stated that the statement made in Paragraph 1 of the written
statement of the claimant is reproduction of the terms of reference, statement made in Paragraph II & III of the
written statement of claimant are matters of record, the statement made in Paragraph IV & V of the written
statement of the claimant are denied, the statement made in Paragraph VI & VII of the written statement of
claimant are matter of record, the statement made in Paragraph VIII of the written statement of claimant is
denied to the extent that mere process of application does not entitled any person for employment, the statement
made in Paragraph IX of the written of the claimant is denied as the application for employment was submitted
on 04/06/2002. The statement made in Paragraph X of the written statement of the claimant is denied as the
management is not concerned with the caste or creed of any person.
8.
The claimant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of he management in which all the
averments made by the management are denied.
9.
The claimant has examined only one witness. He is himself Ashok Hari, the claimant.
The WW-1, Ashok Hari has deposed before the Tribunal that his father Late Arjun Hari was an
employee of Gopalichak Colliery of M/s. BCCL and was working as a sweeper. He has further stated that his
father died on 16/03/2000 and thereafter he has applied for job on compassionate ground on 17/04/2001 in
Gopalichak Colliery. He has also deposed that on the basis of his application his medical test was conducted on
24/11/2004.
In the cross-examination he has deposed that at the time of death of his father he was 15 or 16 years old
and at that time his mother was alive but she had not applied for the job. He has also stated that his elder brother
is 10 to 12 years older than him but he had not applied for the job. He has further deposed that it is not a fact that
he had applied for job in 2001. He has also stated that he did not remember whether there was any agreement
between his mother and management that he would be given job after attaining majority. He has denied the
suggestion that his claim is wrong.
10.
The claimant has proved the following documents in support of his case which are marked as:-
Exhibit W-1- Photo Copy of Service Excerpts of deceased workman namely Arjun Hari.
Exhibit W-2- Photo Copy of Application for Employment of Ashok Hari, son of Late Arjun Hari dated
17/04/2001 along with Application Form.
Exhibit W-3- Photo Copy of Letter No. 1959, dated 2/3.9.2003.
Exhibit W-4- Photo Copy of Letter No. 3589 dated 17/19.12.2003.
Exhibit W-5- Photo Copy of Letter no. PBA:AMO:MED:2004/280, dated 24/11/2004 of Dr. K. Sinha,
Dy. C.M.O./A.M.O. P.B. Area addressed to the Chief of Medical Services, Central Hospital Dhanbad
regarding Audiometary test of Sri Ashok Hari.
Exhibit W-6- Photo Copy of Letter No. PBA:AMO:MED:2004/280 dated 24/11/2004 of Dr. K. Sinha,
Dy. C.M.O./A.M.O. P.B. Area addressed to Sri Ashok Hari regarding Report of Urine, TC, DC, ESR
and Blood Group.
Exhibit W-7- Photo Copy of Letter No. 932 dated 22/29.07.2006.
Exhibit W-8- Photo Copy of Death Certificate No. 038101 of Late Arjun Hari.
Exhibit W-9- Photo Copy of Family Certificate of Shri Ashok Hari.
Exhibit W-10- Photo Copy of Voter I.D. Card of Shri Ashok Hari issued by Election Commission of
India.
11.
The management has neither examined any witness nor produced any documents in support of its case.
12.
The learned lawyer of claimant has submitted before the Tribunal that earlier this Tribunal had been
pleased to pass an Award on 08/01/2018 with a direction to the management to grant compassionate
appointment in the present answering claimant but the management has filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble
High Court of Jharkhand and the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand has been pleased to pass an order in W.P.(L)
No. 1354 of 2019 remitting back this reference case after setting aside the Award passed by this Tribunal on
08/01/2018. He has argued that the father of the claimant expired on 16/03/2000 and after death of his father the
claimant had applied for his employment on 17/04/2001 i.e. within 13 months of the stipulated period of time.
He has also argued that the on 17.04.2001 the management of BCCL had handed over to him an employment
form for employment under NCW and after submission of that employment form the management had sent the
application form to the B.D.O., Dhanbad and Jamtara for their signatures. He has also argued that the
management had informed the claimant regarding his medical test on 24/11/2004 and after completion of
medical test the management of BCCL had kept mum for five years. He has further argued that the management
876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
had informed the claimant that the employment application should not be entertained after 18 months of the
death/disablement of workman. He has further argued that the claimant has been examined as WW-1 and he has
fully supported his case but the management has not examined any witness in support of its case. He has also
submitted that after remand of this case by the order of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court the management had not
produced any fresh ground for not providing compassionate appointment to the claimant, so the management
had deprived the claimant from getting compassionate appointment.
13.
The learned lawyer of the management on the other hand has submitted before the Tribunal that the
dispute raised by claimant Ashok Hari is not maintainable as there is no employer-employee relationship
between the claimant Ashok Hari and the management of BCCL. He has also argued that after death of
workman namely Arjun Hari on 16/03/2000 his wife had received all the retrial benefits and the claimant has
filed this I.D after 12 years of death of his father, so it is a stale dispute. He has also argued that the claimant has
raised this case after 6 years of regret letter by the management and the application for employment was made
after 26 months of the death of Arjun Hari which is not maintainable as per BCCL Circular. He has also
submitted that the claimant is trying to gain unjust enrichment. He has further submitted that the application for
employment by the claimant was never filed before the management and the WW-1 in his evidence has not
mentioned that who had received his application on behalf of management. He has also submitted that mere
processing of application does not entitle the claimant for employment. He has also argued that the claimant was
called for audiometary test vide letter dated 24/11/2004 but it is not clear whether he had appeared before the
Medical Board or not? He has further argued that the management vide its letter no. 1270 dated 24/01/2004 has
made it mandatory that no application for dependant employment will be entertained after 18 months from the
date of death or disablement. He has also argued that the claimant has other source of income and he gainfully
employed elsewhere, so the claim of employment is not proper and justified.
14.
He has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 2003 (99) FLR 337 and 2012
(135) FLR 560. He has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court as reported in 2003 (98)
FLR 264, Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court as reported in 2003 (97) FLR 93, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court
as reported in 2003 (99) FLR 533 and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in 2012 (134) FLR
1014.
15.
Now, the only point of consideration in this case is whether the action of the management of P.B. Area
of M/s. BCCL in not providing employment to Shri Ahsok Hari dependant son of Late Arjun Hari is fair and
justified and if not to what relief he is entitled to?
FINDINGS
16.
At the outset of discussion it is required to mention here that it is an admitted fact that Arjun Hari
father of claimant Ashok Hari was an employee of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL having personnel No. 00554048
who died on 16/03/2000.
17.
Now, the question arises whether the claimant Ashok Hari had submitted his application for
employment within the stipulated period of time of eighteen months as per circular of BCCL Letter No. 1195-
1270, dated 06/24.01.2004.
18.
It is relevant to mention here that the claimant has categorically stated in his written statement that after
death of his father Arjun Hari on 16/03/2000 he had applied for employment under NCWA on 17/04/2001 and
thereafter the management of BCCL had obtained signatures of S.D.O. Dhanbad and Jamtara. It has been also
mentioned in the written statement of the claimant that his medical test was done on 24/11/2004 but the
management kept mum for five years and informed him that no employment should be entertained after
eighteen months of death of workman.
On the other hand the management in its written statement has categorically mentioned that the
application of the claimant for employment had been submitted after 26 months of death of concerned workman
which is not maintainable as per Circular of BCCL and the claimant has raised this dispute after 12 years of
death of the concerned workman, so it is a stale dispute.
19.
In this regard WW-1 Ashok Hari had categorically stated in his evidence that after death of his father
on 16/03/2000 he had applied for job on compassionate ground on 17/04/2001 in Gopalichak Colliery and on
the basis of his application his medical test was conducted on 24/11/2004. In the cross-examination he has stated
that at the time of death of his father he was 15 to 16 years old and he had denied the fact that he had applied for
job in 2001.
20.
Now, coming to the documentary evidence of claimant it appears that Exhibit W-1 is the photo copy of
service excerpts of deceased employee namely Arjun Hari, Exhibit W-2 is the photo copy of application for
employment of Ashok Hari son of Late Arjun Hari dated 17/04/2001 along with application form, Exhibit W-3
is the photo copy of letter of O.P. No. 1959, dated 2/3.9.2004, Exhibit W-4 is the photo copy of O.P. No. 3589
dated 17/19.12.2003, Exhibit W-5 is the photo copy of letter no. PBA:AMO:MED:2004/280, dated 24/11/2004
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
877
regarding Audiometary test of Ashok Hari, Exhibit W-6 is the photo copy of letter No. PBA:AMO:
MED:2004/280, dated 24/11/2004 regarding report of Urine, TC, DC, ESR and Blood Group of Ashok Hari,
Exhibit W-7 is the Photo Copy of letter of O.P. No. 932 dated 22/29.07.2006, Exhibit W-8 is the photo copy of
death certificate no. 038101 of Arjun Hari, Exhibit W-9 is the photo copy of family identification certificate of
Ashok Hari and Exhibit W-10 is the photo copy of Voter I.D. Card of Shri Ashok Hari issued by Election
Commission of India.
21.
The management has neither examined any witness nor has produced any documents on this point.
22.
Now, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence of the claimant it is quite apparent that the
claimant had applied for employment in the management of BCCL on 17/04/2001 as per Exhibit W-2. Further
Exhibit W-3 shows that the management of BCCL of Gopalichak Colliery had issued a letter to the claimant
Ashok Hari demanding certain documents vide letter dated 2/3.9.2003. Moreover the Exhibit W-4 shows that
the management of Gopalichak Colliery vide its letter dated 17/19.12.2003 also demanded three copies of death
certificate of his father and other documents and Exhibit W-5 shows that the DY. C.M.O., P.B. Area had sent a
letter to Chief Medical Officer, Central Hospital Dhanbad stating therein that Ashok Hari s/o Late Arjun Hari
was being sent for Audiometary Test. Further the Exhibit W-6 shows that Dr. K. Sinha, Dy. C.M.O/A.M.O.,
P.B. Area vide letter No. PBA AMO:MED:2004/280 dated 24/11/2004 had written a letter to Ashok Hari
advising him to appear before the Area Medical Board at Pootkee Balihari Area Office along with three attested
passport size photographs, for routine examination of Urine, TC, DC, ESR and Blood Group. Further the
Exhibit W-7 shows that the Area Personnel Manager, P.B. Area had issued a letter to the Project Office
GopaliChak Colliery informing him that no claim for employment should be entertained after 18 months from
the death of the workman.
23.
It is relevant to mention here that the management has denied that the workman had submitted his
application for employment within eighteen months. Moreover it is the case of management that the claimant
had submitted the application on 04/06/2002 after 26 months of the death of concerned workman namely Arjun
Hari but the management has neither produced any oral evidence nor documentary evidence in support of its
case, so the management has failed to discharge onus of proof on this point.
It is also relevant to mention here that Chairman-cum-Managing Director of BCCL had issued the
circular No. 1195-1270 on 6/24.01.2004 whereas the case of claimant is of year 2000, so a letter issued in the
year 2004 cannot be retrospectively applicable in the case of claimant. Hence the circular of BCCL No. 1195-
1270 is not applicable in this case.
24.
However the claimant has submitted the photo copy of application (Exhibit W-2) submitted by
claimant Ashok Hari which shows receiving of the application on 17/04/2001 which is within 18 months of
specified period mentioned in the Circular of BCCL No. 1195-1270 dated 06/24.01.2004. It is also relevant to
mention here that the management of BCCL had processed the application of the claimant and has asked to
submit the required documents and to appear for audiometarty test which shows that the management of BCCL
had impliedly agreed to provide employment to the claimant but only to deny the employment to the claimant, a
provision has been searched out, which is not maintainable.
In view of above discussion it is quite apparent that the claimant has succeeded in establishing its case
that he had submitted the application for employment within the stipulated period whereas management had not
produced any documents to show that there was delay on the part of the claimant to submit application before
the management.
25.
The management had relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 2003 (99) FLR
337 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the appointment under death in harness
scheme – application filed after long lapse of time has got no legal right to ask for appointment.
Here in this case the claimant has filed an application for employment within the stipulated period
fixed by the management of BCCL and there is no delay, so the facts and circumstances of this case is different
from the facts and circumstances of the case on which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to decide.
The learned lawyer of the management had further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
reported in 2012 (135) FLR 560 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the
compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and claim to be considered in accordance
with the rules, regulations, or administrative instructions governing the subject.
Here in this the claimant had submitted his application within eighteen months as stipulated in the
Circular of BCCL No. 1195-1270 dated 06/24.01.2004 and consequently his application for employment was
processed but later on the management declined to give employment to claimant on the ground that the
application was submitted after eighteen months which is not correct as the management had not produced any
documents.
878 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hence, the facts and circumstances of this case is different from the facts and circumstances on which
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to decide.
The management has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court as reported in 2003
(98) FLR 264 whereas the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has been pleased to hold that petitioner was minor at
that time and claimed appointment at belated stage, after attaining majority was not accepted and no scope of an
interference.
Here in this case it is a fact that the claimant Ashok Hari was 15 or 16 years of age at the time of death
of his father but he had submitted the claim of his employment after one year and his application was processed
without mentioning this fact but the management had declined the employment not on the ground of minority at
the time of death of his father but on the ground of submitting the application after 18 months of death of his
father which is not acceptable. Further at the time of declining employment by the management, the claimed had
become major.
In view of such fact the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court as reported in this case is not
applicable in this case.
The learned lawyer of management has also relied on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court as
reported in 2003 (97) FLR 93 in which the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has been pleased to hold that
the application for compassionate appointment was submitted after lapse of eight years, so the appointment
could not be sought, as a matter of right or as a matter of course.
Here in this case the claimant had submitted his application of employment within the stipulated period
of time.
In view of such, the facts and circumstances of this case is different from the facts and circumstances of
the case on which the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has been pleased to decide, so this decision is not
applicable in this case.
The management has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court as reported in 2003
(99) FLR 533 in which the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has been pleased to hold that purpose of such
compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship and the financial condition of family of deceased has to
be examined and it should be provided strictly in accordance with rules.
Here in this case the claimant has already submitted the claim of his employment within the stipulated
period and the management of Gopalichak Colliery had completed all the process of appointment but all of
sudden after five years it has been decided that no claim for appointment should be entertained. ‘
In view of such the facts of this case is different from the facts and circumstances of the case on which
the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has been pleased to decide, so this decision also not applicable in this case.
The learned lawyer of management has relied on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court as
reported in 2012 (134) FLR 1014 in which the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has been pleased to
hold that the date of death of an employee is an important factor to be taken into consideration and employer is
within its power to lay down a policy for compassionate appointment.
Here in this case the management of BCCL had issued a Circular vide letter no. 1195-1270 dated
06/24.01.2004 in which certain directions have been given to all Area C.G.M/G.M regarding the employment to
the dependent of a deceased/disabled worker, as per NCWA provisions in which there is a provision that no
application for dependent employment will be entertained after 18 months and Colliery officials to give receipt
on submission of application with a copy to the Area Dy. CPM/PM and maintain a register of claim of
employment. Further a direction has also been given to the Colliery officials to process the case within two
weeks of receipt of application and Area Personnel Deptt. to maintain a register and also scrutinize the same and
forward to Headquarters with check list.
Here in this case the claimant had already submitted his application on 17/04/2001after death of his
father on 16/03/2000. Moreover the management has not produced any paper/register to show that all the
procedures as mentioned in the Circular No.-1195-1270 had been fully complied with.
26.
In view of such the management of BCCL had not followed its rules properly.
27.
Now, after examining all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion
that the claimant Sri Ashok Hari is entitled for employment after death of his father in harness as per NCWA.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
879
28.
In view of such the Tribunal finds and holds that the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL in not
providing employment to Shri Ashok Hari, dependent son of Late Arjun Hari under provision of NCWA is not
fair and justified.
29.
Hence, the concerned workman is entitled for relief which is as under:-
The management of P.B. Area of M/s BCCL is directed to give employment to claimant Sri Ashok Hari son of
Late Arjun Hari within one month after publication of award in the Official Gazette.
This is the Award of the Tribunal.
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= dslac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2006½ dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@93@2005-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2022
S.O. 420.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-20012/93/2005–IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 21/2006
Employer in relation to the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 29.03.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/93/2005-IR(C-I) dated 09.12.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
880 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Janta Mazdoor Sangh from the management of Bagdigi Colliery of
M/s. BCCL for regularizing S/Sri. Ramesh Gope and 13 others (as per list) in the post of Roof
Bolt is justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled and from what date?”
2. The reference is received on 02/01/2006 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Janta Mazdoor Sangh,
Jharia, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen
days but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both
parties were noticed and the union/workman appeared on 12/05/2006 thereafter neither the union/workman nor
the management appeared before the Tribunal. Further again regd. notice was issued to both the parties but even
than no one appeared from either side. Now the Case is pending since 02/01/2006 and workman/union as well as
management is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter.
Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdk vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1, /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 112/2001½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@43@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2022
S.O. 421.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 112/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-20012/43/2001–IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 112/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 30.03.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/43/2001 (C-I) dated 30.04.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
881
SCHEDULE
“क् ा राष्ट्री को॰ मििूर संघ को भारत को॰ को॰ जल॰, केिलृुर कोजल॰ के प्रबंितंत्र से मांग दक स्ट्व॰ कुंती बाउठरन के
आजश्रत ृुत्र श्री िुरंग बाउरी को NCWA IV के प्रबंिानुसार अनुकंृन आिार ृर जन ुजि िी िाए, उजचत एवं
न् ा संगत िै? दि िााँ तो उि आजश्रत दकस राित के ृात्र िैं?”
2. The reference is received on 04/06/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within
fifteen days but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference,
both parties were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal.
Now Case is pending since 04/06/2001 and workman/union as well as management is not appearing before
Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is
passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 157/2001½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@123@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2022
S.O. 422.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 157/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/04/2022
[No. L-20012/123/2001-IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 157/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 28.03.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/123/2001-IR(C-I) dated 10.07.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL in not accepting the date of birth of Sri
Ram Swarup Saw as 1. 7. 1943 as recorded in the service excerpts is fair and justified? If not,
to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
882 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The reference is received on 06/08/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within
fifteen days but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However, after receipt of the reference,
both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently workman/union left
appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter, again regd. notices were issued to both the parties but even then no
one appeared on behalf of the workman/union. Now this case is pending since 06/08/2001 and workman/union
is not appearing before Tribunal, so it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No
Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
164/2001) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@181@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2022
S.O. 423.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 164/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-20012/181/2001-IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 164/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 30.03.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/181/2001-IR(C-I) dated 11.07.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“क् ा रा.को.म.संघ की मांग दक श्री सरबन भुई ा, श्री प्र ाग भुई ा के िामाि को NCWA-V के प्रबंिानुसार जन ुजि
िी िाए उजचत एवं न् ा संगत िै? दि िााँ तो उि आवेिक दकस राित के ृात्र िैं?”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
883
2. The reference is received on 09/08/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President of Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within
fifteen days but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However, after receipt of the reference,
both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently workman/union left
appearing before this Tribunal. Thereafter, again regd. notice was issued to both the parties but even then no one
appeared on behalf of the workman/union. Now this case is pending since 09/08/2001 and workman/union is not
appearing before Tribunal, so it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute
Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1, /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 250/2001½ dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@213@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2022
S.O. 424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 250/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-20012/213/2001-IR (C-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 250/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Bokaro Colliery of M/s. CCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman. :- None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 30.03.2022
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/213/2001-IR(C-I) dated 23.11.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bokaro Colliery of M/s. C.C.L. in not giving
protection of wages to Shri Gaji Ram and 7 others (as per list,) upon regularisation as piece rated
workers is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?”
884 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
List of Workmen
1. Gaji Ram 2. Chasia Ram
3. Rambandan Tiwary 4. Chandra Shekhar
5. S.L. Nayek 6. Gajadhar Rejak
7. Bhim Gowala 8. Devender Rai
2. The reference is received on 06/12/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Area Secretary of N.C.O.E.A, Bokaro
had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were
noticed but the workman/union didn’t appear before the Tribunal. Further the management has appeared on
certain dates but union/workman has failed to appear before the Tribunal and the notice of the workman/union
returned with endorsement “No Trace”. Now the Case is pending since 06/12/2001 and workman/union is not
appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute
Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; uacj 1, /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@2001½
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@354@2001-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2022
S.O. 425.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-20012/354/2001-IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 69/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra OCP of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : None
For the workman. : None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 29.03.2022
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
885
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/354/2000 (C-I) dated 02.03.2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BCCL, Bhowra OCP in dismissing Shri Balbinder
Singh, Mech. Fitter from service w.e.f. 6.7.98 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief is the said
workman entitled?”
2. The reference is received on 03/04/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Secretary of Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union, Bhowra, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within
fifteen days but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference,
both parties were noticed but neither the union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal.
Now Case is pending since 03/04/2001 and workman/union as well as management is not appearing before
Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in this matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg& Je U;k;ky; uacj 1, /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
20/2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@72@2018-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2022
S.O. 426.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-20012/72/2018-IR (CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 20/2018
Employer in relation to the management of Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers : Sri Navin Mohan Kumar, Advocate
For the workman. : Sri Manas Chatterjee, Representative
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 29.03.2022
886 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/72/2018 (IR(CM-I)) dated 31.10.2018 the Central Government in the Ministry
of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“The Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union has raised the ID on 14.06.2017 over denial of promotion to
Sri Krishna Prasad Nonia, Ex. Auto Electrician Gr. B for last 28 years by the Management of
M/s BCCL, whereas the concerned workman has been promoted as follows during his service
period.’’
1.
Promoted from EXCVN. Gr.-C to EXCVN. Gr.-B on 01.03.1989
2.
Upgraded in Excavation – Category-4
3.
Upgraded in Special Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2005
4.
Provided Service Linked Increment (SLI) w.e.f. 01.01.2013
5.
And granted four promotions including SLP/SLI/SLU, he has not found entitled for an
increment in lieu of SLP in his retiring year, who retired in December 2017.”
2. The reference is received on 03/12/2018 by this Tribunal in which the Joint Secretary, BCKU, Dhanbad had
been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant document within fifteen days but the
union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were
noticed and both of them appeared before the Tribunal. Further in course of hearing of the case, the General
Secretary of BCKU, Sri Manas Chatterjee has informed that union is not interested in contesting the case. In
view of such it is felt that the workman has lost its interest in this matter. Hence “No dispute” award is passed.
communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/k rarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@67@2014-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2022
S.O. 427.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/67/2014-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/3/2015
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Rashtriyakruth Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp.Engineering College
Ujjain (M.P.)
Workman
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
887
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
L.H.O., Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 31st day of March-2022)
As per letter dated 23-12-2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-12011/67/2014-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating the services
of workman Shri Alok Shrivastava w.e.f. 14-9-1995 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
2.
During the course of hearing, a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this reference
was raised by learned counsel for the management, hence I have heard learned counsel for both the sides on the
maintainability of reference. I have perused the record as well. The reference has been detailed earlier.
3.
The claim of the workman is that a departmental inquiry was instituted against him which was
conducted against all legal principles, without giving the workman a proper opportunity to defend and he was
terminated on the basis of the inquiry report in which the charges were found wrongly proved. Further that a
criminal case was registered by police with respect to the same charges in which he was acquitted after trial and
appeal against the acquittal was also dismissed. After acquittal, the workman filed review petition before the
Management to reconsider the punishment order, after reviewing it in view of the fact that the basis of the
charges in the criminal trial and departmental inquiry was the same and the workman was acquitted in criminal
trial. This review petition was also dismissed by the Management. Thereafter the workman filed a writ petition
before Hon’ble the High Court which was dismissed after hearing. Thereafter the workman raised the dispute
after failure of conciliation and reference was sent by the Central Government to this Tribunal for award.
4.
The case of the Management with respect to preliminary objection is that the punishment order was
challenged by workman before the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., Bench Indore in W.P.No.2107/2000 Alok
Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State Bank of India and Others, the said writ petition was dismissed by Hon’ble
High Court vide order dated 1-8-2013 on merits holding that the workman was rightly found guilty of the
charges levelled against him. The case of the management is that the finding and judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court in the said writ petition will be operative as res- judicata, hence the reference is not maintainable as such.
5.
After hearing both the sides on preliminary objection and perusal of the written arguments of
Management, the point which comes up for determination is whether the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of
M.P. No.2107/2000 will operate as res- judicata to the case in hand or not? Section 11 of the Civil Procedure
code 1908 requires to be produced here which is as follows:-
Section 11. Res judicata.
“No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been
directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under
whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such
subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and
finally decided by such Court.”
Explanation I.-- The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in
question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II.-- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined
irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III.--The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party
and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV.-- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in
such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V.-- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for
888 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI.-- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed
in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this
section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating .
1[Explanation VII.-- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree
and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references,
respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a
former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII.-- An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to
decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of
limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been
subsequently raised.]
6.
Thus for a judgment to operate as res-judicata, the requirement would be that the earlier dispute was
within the same parties or within the persons claimed, through the same parties. Secondly, the matter in dispute
should be one and the same in both the cases, and thirdly the dispute was heard and decided in the first case on
merits.
7.
Now coming to the order of Hon’ble High, in the said writ petition which is in file as Exhibit W-19
goes to show that the writ petition was filed by the workman against the order of his dismissal dated 14-9-1995
and of the Appellate Authority, confirming the dismissal order vide order dated 1-8-1998. It was held by
Hon’ble High Court that during the departmental inquiry the workman accepted his guilt, hence there was no
ground for him to get the relief of review of the order, after his acquittal by criminal Court on the same charges.
The said order is a detailed one which shows that it has been passed on merits on points raised and the writ
petition has been dismissed. Now two dispute has been heard and decided on merits by writ Court. The same
dispute cannot be heard and decided on merits the second time by this Tribunal, as this is against judicial
discipline and also the first order will operate as res-judicata . The proper remedy the workman could have had
was that he should have filed a writ appeal against the said order of Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court as
referred above.
8.
On the basis of the above discussion the reference is held barred by res-judicata and is answered
accordingly.
A.
Accordingly the action of the management of State Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating
the services of workman Shri Alok Shrivastava w.e.f. 14-9-1995 is held just and proper.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
9.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2022
. 428.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60/2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012/12/2012-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] xqgk voj lfpo
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
889
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2022
S.O. 428—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/12/2012– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/60/2012
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Prajapati,
S/o Shri Ramdas Prajapati,
R/o Sneh Nagar Colony,
Ward No.15, Lahar,
District Bhind.
…Workman
Versus
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Ajnar Branch
District Bhind (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on 31-3-2022)
As per letter dated 2/4/2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
12012/12/2012-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating Shri Kamlesh Kumar prajapati S/o Ramdas prajapati from services, w.e.f. 27-11-2010 is
legal and justified?To what relief the workman is entitled?” .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of claim/defence.
2.
The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he was appointed as a fourth class
daily wager engaged in cleaning work by the then Branch Manager, State Bank of Indore, Branch Ajnar, District
Bhind and has been working till 27-11-2010 when his services were terminated under an oral order of
Management. The State Bank of Indore was merged in State Bank of India , hence all the officers/employees
of State Bank of Indore also became the employees of the State Bank of India. According to the workman no
notice or compensation was given to him before his dis-engagement. He had completed 240 days in continuous
service in every year, hence his dis-engagement is against Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947(hereinafter referred to as the word Act’). The management continued another daily wager Surendra
Kumar who was appointed on the same date in service and was also regularized in service, which is against
law. Accordingly, the workman had prayed that setting aside his dis-engagement, he be reinstated in service
with back wages and all consequential benefits.
3.
The case of the Management in brief is that the State Bank of Indore was merged with the State Bank
of India vide notification of Central Government which came into force from 17-8-2010. As per Clause 7 & 8
of the notification, every permanent officer/employee of the transferor bank including the officers and
employees on probation, serving in the employment of the transferor bank immediately before the effective date
would hold service in the transferee bank on such terms and conditions as approved by the Central Board of
transferee bank. The Officers and employees of the transferor bank shall be given an offer of employment and
shall be given an option in writing to the transferee bank for their absorption, within the prescribed time.
According to the management, the workman was working as a daily wager on casual basis subject to availability
of work for almost one hour a day in the State Bank of Indore , but he never completed 240 days in continuous
890 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
service in any calendar year, hence his dis-engagement is not against law. Accordingly, the Management has
prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
4.
The workman has examined himself on oath , wherein he has mainly reiterated his claim. He proved
some photocopy documents regarding payment of wages to him during different period. These documents are
photocopy which were marked as exhibits by my learned Predecessor at the time of recording statement. The
Management has examined this witness Sunny Singh, Assistant Manager who has reiterated the case of the
Management as stated in the written statement of defense. He has not been examined by workman, because he
was not produced for cross-examination.
5.
I have heard arguments of learned counsel Shri N.B.Sharma, for the workman and learned Counsel
Shri Ashish Shroti, for the Management and have perused the record.
6.
The following issues come up for determination, for the case in hand :-
1.
Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240 days and
more in every calendar year, including the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement?
2.
Whether the dis-engagement of workman is against law?
3.
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
7.
Issue No.1:- Before entering into any discussion, Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947
requires to be produced here which is as follows:-
Section 25 B:-
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 authorised
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; (b) for a
period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six 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) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and
twenty days, in any other case.
8.
Pleadings of the parties on this issue has been detailed earlier. The workman has stated on oath in his
affidavit as his examination-in-chief that he continuously worked for 240 days in every calendar year. He has
been cross-examined by Management on this point but there is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit
him on this point. His statement is further corroborated to some extend by the photocopy documents in the form
of payment vouchers for different year and certificates. On the other hand, there is an affidavit of the
Management witness who never turned up for cross-examination due to which it cannot be read in support of
the case of the Management, hence in these circumstances, the claim of the workman that he worked
continuously for 240 days and more in every calendar year is held proved. Issue No.1 is answered
accordingly.
9.
ISSUE NO.2:- Before discussing issue no.2, Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is being
reproduced as follows:-
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this
behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be
employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other
workman.
10.
Not disputed is the fact that, no notice or compensation was given to the workman before his dis-
engagement , hence his dis-engagement is held against law, particularly against Section 25G of the Act. Issue
No.2 is answered accordingly.
11.
ISSUE NO.3:- Since the dis-engagement of the workman has been held against law, the question
arises as to what relief he is entitled to . He has claimed the relief of reinstatement with back wages. There is a
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
891
clause in the merger notification which proves absorption on only regular employees of the then State Bank of
Indore. The workman is proved to be a daily wage casual labour working with the Bank and hence not a regular
employee. Hence, the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to him. Also because of the fact that he was not
appointed following the recruitment procedure against a sanctioned vacancy. Keeping in view the period of
engagement and other facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
(one lakh) in lieu of the claims of the workman will meet the ends of justice. Issue No.3 is answered
accordingly.
12.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management of Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in
terminating Shri Kamlesh Kumar Prajapati S/o Ramdas prajapati from services, w.e.f.
27-11-2010 is held not just and proper.
B.
The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh
rupees) as full and final settlement of his claims.
13.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2022
-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mÙkj e/; jsyos izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011@60@2016-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2022
S.O. 429.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Central
Railway and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/60/2016– IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, HJS (Retd.)
I.D. No. 45/2019
Ref. No. L-41011/60/2016-IR(B-I) dated: 15.01.2018
BETWEEN :
General Secretary
Rail SewakSangh
J 422, Indralok Colony
Kanpur Road, Lucknow.
AND
The Dy. Chief Engineer (Bridge)/Line)
North Central Railway
Jhansi
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-41011/60/2016 - IR(B-I) dated: 15.01.2018the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of
892 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute to this CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF DY CHIEF ENGINEER (BRIDGE)
LINE, LINE, NC RLY, JHANSI IN NOT MAKING PAYMENT FOR THE INTERVENING
PERIOD FROM 20.02.2013 TO 09.01.2014 TO SHRI S.N. SRIVASTAVA, THE THEN JE
(BRIDGE) IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED AND IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS
ENTITLED TO?”
3.
The order of reference was endorsed to the General Secretary, Rail Sewak Sangh, J 422, Indralok
Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow with direction to the party raising the dispute to file the statement of claim
along with relevant documents and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of
reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in this dispute
under rule 10 (B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.
4.
The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 16.08.2019 and the office was directed to issue
registered notice to the workman’s union for filing the statement of claim with list of documents & list of
witnesses on 21.10.2019. On the date fixed i.e. 21.10.2019 none turned up on behalf of the union; however,
theenvelope containing notice to the workman’s union had been received back in the office unserved with
remark ‘not known/lene se mana kiya’, therefore, the service of notice was sufficiently presumed. Management
also did not turn up nor the notice issued to the management was received back in the office unserved. Further
dates were being fixed in the interest of justice for filing of statement of claim. The workman union remained
absent on 01.09.2020, 09.12.2020, 03.02.2021, 13.04.2021, 01.09.2021, 16.11.2021, 10.02.2022 and
18.02.2022. The union neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates nor moved any application for
adjournment seeking time to file the statement of claim. More than two years’ time has passed and the
workman’s Union has failed to file its statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for award keeping in
view the reluctance of the workman’s Union to prosecute the case.
5.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman’s Union does not want to pursue its claim on
the basis of which it has raised the present industrial dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided as
if there is no grievance left with the workman’s union. Resultantly, no relief is required to be given to the
workman concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
LUCKNOW.
16th March, 2022
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 94@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011@84@2014-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2022
S.O. 430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.94/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/84/2014–IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
893
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/94/2014
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan
F-1, Karmbhomi” Tripti Vihar,
Opp.Engineering College,
Ujjain (M.P.)
…Workman
Versus
The State Bank of India
Regional Head Office,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)
…Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 23rd day of March-2022)
As per letter dated 12-12-2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the
reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per
Notification No.L-12011/84/2014-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Kya Tatkaleen State Bank of Indore Tatha Vartman mein Bharitya State BanK, Sthaniya Pradhan
Karyalaya Hoshangabad Madhya Pradesh, dwara Shri Abdul Wahab ko 1-7-1997 se 17-8-2012 tak
kam karwakar bina kese notice ya muawja ke kam se pruthak kar dena o.v.adhi,1947 ke pravdhano
ka ulanghan hai. Agar Nahi to Shri Abdul Wahab kes anutosh ke adhikari hai? .”
1.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties
have filed their respective statement of defense/claim.
2.
At the stage of evidence no evidence was produced by the workman. The Management also did not
produce any evidence.
3.
I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the Management. No one was present for the workman.
4.
The Reference is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
5.
The burden to prove his claim is one the workman in which he has miserably failed. Hence holding the
case of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered
accordingly.
6.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The action of the management as mentioned in the reference is held to be just and proper.
B.
The workman is held entitled to no relief.
7.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2022
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मेससि िे एंड के बैंक जलजमटेड izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012@42@2014-vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
894 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 30, 2022/VAISAKHA 10 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2022
S.O. 431.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court –II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s.
J&K Bank Limited and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/42/2014–IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. S.K. Thakur, Presiding Officer
ID No.22/2014
Registered on:-22.08.2014
Sh. Govind Singh S/o Sh. Jadev Singh, R/o Jindrah,
Distt. Jammu (J&K).
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, M/s J&K Bank Limited, Corporate Head Quarter,
Maulana Azad Road, Srinagar(J&K).
2.
The Managing Director, M/s J&K Bank Limited,
MA Road, Srinagar(J&K).
3.
The Manager Disciplinary Cell, Jammu and Kashmir Bank,
Zonal Office, Rail Head Complex, Jammu.
… Respondents/Managements
WARD
Passed on:-08.03.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-12012/42/2014-IR(B-1), Dated 11.08.2014, under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred
the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of J&K Bank Limited in terminating the services of Shri
Govind Singh S/o Shri Jagdev Singh, R/o Jindrah, Post Jindrah, District Jammu w.e.f.
23.09.2004 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?’’
1.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the
workman. On 24.02.2022, an application for substitution by Smt. Kamlesh Devi, wife of the Sh. Govind Singh
as the legal heir of the workman Sh. Govind Singh due to his death in the meanwhile on 06.04.2021 was filed.
Through the same application for withdrawal of the case has also been filed through the learned counsel of the
deceased-workman Sh. Govind Singh, which is kept on record. The reasons for withdrawal of the claim has
been mentioned as considerate view being taken by the management on pensionary/retiral benefits to widow of
the deceased workman.
2.
On 03.03.2022, the case was taken up in the Camp Court at Jammu. The wife of the deceased-
workman Smt. Kamlesh Devi applicant/LR appeared on 03.03.2022 along with her representative Sh. Vikram
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 30, 2022/वैिाख 10, 1944
895
Singh Jamwal in the Camp Court at Jammu and filed a statement in writing to withdraw this case from the
Tribunal, which is kept on record. The widow of the deceased workman also submitted verbally that the
management has assured to grant family pension to the widow of the deceased workman.
3.
Since the wife/LR of the deceased-workman Sh. Govind Singh is not interested in adjudication of the
matter on merit this Tribunal is left with no option, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim
Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.22/2014.
4.
Let the copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the
Act for publication.
S. K. THAKUR, 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. ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.06 16:02:44 +05'30'