208 GI/2023
(73)
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. 3]
नई दिल् ली, िनवरी 15—िनवरी 21, 2023, िजनवार/ पौष 25—माघ 1, 1944
No. 3]
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 15— JANUARY 21, 2023, SATURDAY/ PAUSHA 25— MAGHA 1, 1944
इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जविेि मंत्रालय
(सी. पी. वी प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 10 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 45.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2
के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।
एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, िैम्बगग मैं श्री राम बाबू मीना, सिायक अनुभाग
अजिकारी, को 10 िनवरी, 2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवगिन करने के
जलए अजिकृत करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(03)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (कांसुलर)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-06022023-243462
CG-DL-W-06022023-243462
74 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(C. P. V DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 10th January, 2023
S.O. 45.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ram Babu
Meena, Assistant Section Officer in the Consulate General of India, Hamburg, as Assistant Consular Officer to
perform Consular services with effect from January 10, 2023.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(03)]
S. R. H FAHMI, Director (Consular)
नई दिल्ली, 10 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 46.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के
खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।
एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के िूतावास, कुवैत मैं श्री अजभषेक उजनयाल, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को
10 िनवरी, 2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवगिन करने के जलए अजिकृत
करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(04)]
एस. आर. एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (कांसुलर)
New Delhi, the 10th January, 2023
S.O. 46.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Abhishek
Uniyal, Assistant Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Kuwait, as Assistant Consular Officer to perform
Consular services with effect from January 10, 2023.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(04)]
S. R. H FAHMI, Director (Consular)
नई दिल्ली, 13 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 47.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2
के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।
एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास न्यूयॉकग मैं श्री िीवन ससंि जसिवाली, सिायक
अनुभाग अजिकारी, को 13 िनवरी, 2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवगिन
करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(05)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (कांसुलर)
New Delhi, the 13th January, 2023
S.O. 47.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Jeewan Singh
Sijwali, Assistant Section Officer in the Consulate General of India, New York, as Assistant Consular Officer to
perform Consular services with effect from January 13, 2023.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(05)]
S. R. H FAHMI, Director (Consular)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
75
रेल मंत्रालय
(रेलवे बोडग)
नई दिल्ली, 10 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 48.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोडग), रािभाषा जनयम 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए
प्रयोग) के जनयम 10 के उपजनयम (2) और (4) के अनुसरण में जनम्नजलजखत कायागलयों ििां 80 प्रजतित से अजिक
अजिकाररयों/कमगचाररयों ने सिंिी का कायगसाि क ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िै:-
1. डेडीकेटेड फ्रेट कॉररडोर कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड, कोलकाता यूजनट- 700064.
2. इरकॉन इण्टरनेिनल जलजमटेड, पररयोिना कायागलय, रांची।
3. रेलवे भती बोडग, रााँची- 834001.
4. 12वीं वाजिनी, रेलवे सुरक्षा जविेष बल, ठाकुली, मुंबई।
5. डेडीकेटेड फ्रेट कॉररडोर कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड, टूण्डला यूजनट, आगरा- 282002.
[फा. सं. सिंिी-2018/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(1342994)]
डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक, रािभाषा
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
New Delhi, the 10th January, 2023
S.O. 48.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of
the Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the following
offices where 80% or more Officers/ Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-
1.
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd, Kolkata Unit- 700064.
2.
Ircon International Ltd., Project Office, Ranchi .
3.
Railway Recruitment Board, Ranchi- 834001.
4.
12th Battalion, Railway Protection Special Force, Thakurli, Mumbai.
5.
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd, Tundla Unit, Agra- 282002.
[F. No. Hindi-2018/O.L-1/12/1/( 1342994)]
Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director(O.L.)
सड़क पररविन और रािमागग मंत्रालय
(सिंिी अनुभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 49.—केंद्रीय सरकार रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 के जनयम
10 के उपजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में क्षेत्रीय कायागलय, भारतीय राष्ट्रीय रािमागग प्राजिकरण, गांिीनगर (गुिरात),
क्षेत्रीय कायागलय, भारतीय राष्ट्रीय रािमागग प्राजिकरण, िैिराबाि (तेलंगाना), और क्षेत्रीय कायागलय, भारतीय
राष्ट्रीय रािमागग प्राजिकरण, उत्तर प्रिेि (पूवग)-वाराणसी, जिनके 80% से अजिक कमगचाररयों ने सिंिी कायगसािक
ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िै।
[फा. सं. ई.-12012/1/2023-जवजवि/सिंिी]
कमलेि चतुवेिी, संयुक्त सजचव
76 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
(Hindi Section)
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 49.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify Regional Office, National Highway Authority
of India, Gandhinagar(Gujarat), Regional Office, National Highway Authority of India, Hyderabad (Telangana)
and Regional Office, National Highway Authority of India, Uttar Pradesh (East)-Varanasi where of more than
80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E. 12012/1/2023-Misc./Hindi]
KAMLESH CHATURVEDI, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 50.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj
çkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh uhps nh xbZ vuqlwph esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr rkjh[kksa dh ,oe dk- vk- la[;k }kjk mu
vf/klwpukvksa ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k FkkA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,s]
mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr fd;k
x;k FkkA
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ nh gS fd isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfutk- ds ifjogu ds fy,
rfeyukMq jkT; esa fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh fot;okM+k ls /kekZiqjh isVªksfy;e ikbiykbu izkstsDV
dh ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tk pqdh gS] vr% ml Hkwfe ds ckjs esa] ftldk laf{kIr fOkOkj.k bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V fd;k x;k gS] ,sls Ápkyu dks rfeyukMq jkT; esa lekIr fd;k tk,A
vr% vc] dsUnz ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e
1963] ds fu;e 4 ds Li"Vhdj.k 1 ds v/khu mu rkjh[kksa dks ftu ij ;g vf/klwpu Hkkjr ds jkti= esa izdkf'kr
gksrh gS] rfeyukMq jkT; ds —".kfxjh vkSj /keZiqjh ftyksa ds uhps of.kZr xkaoks esa ekxkZfËkdkj xfrfof/k;ksa dh lekfIr
dh rkjh[k ds :i esa ?kksf"kr djrh gSA
1
1644¼v½ fnukad 26-05-2020
4893¼v½ fnukad 25-11-2021
ojÙkkukiYyh
cjxqj
2
fpUukeêkjiYyh
3
3890¼v½ fnukad 18-08-2022
xq#fou;ukiYyh
1
1231¼v½ fnukad 15-03-2022
vneud¢kêb
ukyeiYyh
[फा. सं. vkj&11025¼15½@4@2018&vksvkj&I/bZ-25410]
ih- lk¢ekdqekj] voj lfpo
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
77
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 50.—Whereas, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas, S.O numbers and dated as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub-section (i) of
Section 6, Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the
Central Government acquired the Right of User in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to those
notifications;
And whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-Section(4) of Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government vested the Right of User in the lands free from all encumbrances in the Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas, the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline
has been laid in the said lands and hence the operation may be terminated for Vijayawada to Dharmapuri
petroleum product Pipeline Project in the state of Tamil Nadu in respect of the said land which in brief are
specified in the Schedule annexed to this Notification;
Now, therefore, as required under explanation 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules 1963, the Central Government hereby declare the dates on which
the notification is published in the Gazette of India as the date of “Termination of Operation” in ROU in the
Villages mentioned in Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri districts in the state of Tamil Nadu.
SCHEDULE
District : Krishnagiri State : Tamil Nadu
Sl. No.
S.o. No. & Date
Name of Village
Name of Taluk
1
2
3
4
1
1644(E) Dated 26.05.2020
4893(E) Dated 25.11.2021
Varattanapalli
Bargur
2
Chinnamattarapalli
3
3890(E) Dated 18.08.2022
Guruvinayanapalli
District : Dharmapuri State : Tamil Nadu
Sl. No.
S.o. No. & Date
Name of Village
Name of Taluk
1
2
3
4
1
1231 (E) Dated 15.03.2022
Adamankottai
Nallampalli
[F. No. R.11025(15)/4/2018.OR.I/E.25410]
P. SOMA KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 51.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj
çkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh uhps nh xbZ vuqlwph esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr rkjh[kksa dh ,oe dk- vk- la[;k }kjk mu
vf/klwpukvksa ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k FkkA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,s]
mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr fd;k
x;k FkkA
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ nh gS fd isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfutk- ds ifjogu ds fy,
vkUËkz çns’k jkT; esa fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM dh fot;okM+k ls /kekZiqjh isVªksfy;e ikbiykbu izkstsDV
dh ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tk pqdh gS] vr% ml Hkwfe ds ckjs esa] ftldk laf{kIr fOkOkj.k bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V fd;k x;k gS] ,sls Ápkyu dks vkUËkz çns’k jkT; esa lekIr fd;k tk,A
vr% vc] dsUnz ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e
1963] ds fu;e 4 ds Li"Vhdj.k 1 ds v/khu mu rkjh[kksa dks ftu ij ;g vf/klwpu Hkkjr ds jkti= esa izdkf’kr
gksrh gS] vka/kz izns'k jkT; ds d`".kk ¼orZeku uke ,uVhvkj½] xqaVwj ¼orZeku uke iyukMq½] izdk’ke] oS,lvj] vUue¸;k
78 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¼u;k thyk tks oS,lvj vkSj fpRrwj ds dqN ghLlks ls cuk gS½] rFkk fpRrwj ftys ds uhps of.kZr xkaoks esa ekxkZfËkdkj
xfrfof/k;ksa dh lekfIr dh rkjh[k ds :i esa ?kksf"kr djrh gSA
1
5732¼v½ fnukad 08-11-2018
945¼v½ fnukad 27-02-2020
3292¼v½ fnukad 18-09-2020
4533¼v½ fnukad 08-12-2020
2093¼v½ fnukad 25-05-2021
doyw:
ft- dk¢aMw#
2
xÏeuxq
3
pjoq ek/koje
4
ewuxikMq
5
lqUUkaikMq
6
rYynsojikMq
7
nqfXxjkyikMq
8
frEekiqje
fo#YyikMq
9
xwMe ek/koje
10
vYyw:
11
tqTtw:
12
y{ehiqje
13
tEekoje
14
xksdjktqiYyh
15
iksUuoje
16
isjdyikMq
dafpdpsjy
17
xaMsiYyh
18
dafpdpsjy
19
fdlj
20
lbZnkiqje
21
isUM;ky
22
oseqyiYyh
23
rksVjkoqyikMq
panjyikMq
24
rqjyikMq
25
ikVsaikMq
26
panjyikMq
27
dksMofVdYyq
1
5729¼v½ fnukad 08-11-2018
3131¼v½ fnukad 23-08-2019
233¼v½ fnukad 10-01-2020
1130¼v½ fnukad 12-03-2020
2809¼v½ fnukad 11-08-2020
1038¼v½ fnukad 26-02-2021
vEcMhiqMh
vPpeisV
2
vksoZdYyq
3
phxq#ikMq
4
osyiw#
5
vuaFkoje
Økslw#
6
oq¸;anuk
7
xfjdsikMq
8
xqfMikMq
9
jktqikyse
jktqikyse
10
x.kioje
11
cfytsiYyh
12
mIiyikMq
13
pYyxqaMy
usdfjdYyq
14
foIijy
jksfEipsjy
15
dqadyxqaV
usdfjdYyq
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
79
16
eqIikYy
biq#
17
fpÙkkiqje
18
dksaMk;ikye
19
xqaMsiYys
20
dksRryw#
';koY;kiqje
21
dksPpsjy
biq#
22
dksaMzeqVyk
23
ujxk;ikyse
fouqdksaM
24
czkEg.kiYyh
25
osadqikyse
26
fouqdksaM
27
frEe;ikyse
28
nksaMikMq
29
f'kokiqje
30
isÌoje
uwtsUMy
31
,®uoksyq
32
fparyps#oq
33
ewfrZtkiqje
1
3597¼v½ fnukad 12-07-2018
2573¼v½ fnukad 11-07-2019
4532¼v½ fnukad 08-12-2020
osLV ohj;ikyse
dqfjpsMq
2
dqfjpsMq
3
is#ÒV~y ikyse
4
iksV~yikMq
5
xaxk nksudsakM
6
;jZckyse
nksudsakMk
7
ohj osadVkiqje
8
cMkiqje
9
jkxeDdiYys
10
HkweuiYyh
11
eafxuiwMh
12
xTtydksaMk
ekdZkiqje
13
vuaroje
nksudsakMk
14
isn~n~ ;kpoje
ekdZkiqje
15
jk;oje
16
xksxqyfnUus
17
dsrxqMhih
ryZqikMw
18
lwfjiYys
19
ryZqikMw
20
psUukjsfÏiYys
21
dk#efuiYys
22
ehjtkisVk
23
cksanyikMw
ekdZkiqje
24
y{ehdksVk
dEce
25
vkSjaxckn
26
jkfoikMq
27
lydyohMq
csLrokfjisV
28
usdqukackn
29
iwlyikMq
30
vksanqV~yk
31
eks{kxqaMe
32
rkfVpsyZ
dksejksyw
33
nÏokM
80 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
34
uYyxqUV~y
35
bMedYyw
36
iqYykjsìhiYys
37
dksejksyw
38
jsìhpsyZ
39
vfYyuxje
1
5730¼v½ fnukad 08-11-2018
3887¼v½ fnukad 21-10-2019
1039¼v½ fnukad 26-02-2021
5731¼v½ fnukad 08-11-2018
3888¼v½ fnukad 21-10-2019
1040¼v½ fnukad 26-02-2021
835¼v½ fnukad 08-02-2019
Lapjkyk
iks#ekfeYyk
2
vDdyjsìhiYy¢
3
yPpeiYy¢
4
f')ufdPpk;iYy¢
5
dksjzikVqiYys
6
'kadoje
dylikMq
7
nEeuiYy¢
iks#ekfeYyk
8
iks#ekfeYyk
9
p¢Uuoje
Jh vo/kwr dkf'kuk;u
10
jaxleqæe
iks#ekfeYyk
11
dksfMxqM~yikMq
Jh vo/kwr dkf'kuk;uk
12
lkfo'k¢fêiYys
13
oadejjh
14
bfVxqYyikMq
15
eYysiYy¢
czgeaxkfjeBe~
16
ikfijsìhiYy¢
17
dksRrkdksVk nkljiYyh
fjtoZ~M QkjsLV
czgeaxkfjeBe~@,l- eSnqdw#
18
eqfnjsìhiYys
,l- eSnqdw#
19
frIihjsìhiYys
20
vfnjsìhiYys
21
vksfuisaVk
22
feÍekfuiYyh
23
'ksëhokfjiYys
24
vUuywj
,l- eSnqdw#
25
lkse;ktqy iYys
26
iRrw#
[kkthisV
27
iqYyw#
28
jkoqyiYy¢
29
nqaiyxêw
30
pseqYykiYy¢
31
psUueqDdiYy¢
32
nkSyrkiqje
psUuwj
33
ck;uiYy¢
34
duqifrZ
35
xqjzeikMq
36
uthjcsxiYy¢
37
ikrdMik
dMik
38
fpUukpkSdq
39
dMik;iYy¢
f'kÌksV
40
VDdksyq
41
ekpqiYy¢
42
oarkfViYy¢
43
ewyiYy¢
44
xqaM~yewyk
45
f'kÌksV
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
81
46
usd~ukiqje
47
isÌiYy¢
48
eUniYy¢
49
ikydksaMk oaxheyk fjtoZ
QksjsLV
50
duqeyk iYy¢
51
iqVye iYy¢
dMik
52
ekfeYyiYys
fpard©Eefnés
53
cqXxyiYys
54
#æ¸;xkjhiYys
55
bIiiasV
56
fpUudkeiYys
57
isÌdkeiYys
58
dksyqeqyiYys
59
bUMqiqyk;k ,DlVsa'ku
fjtoZ QksjsLV
60
5730¼v½ fnukad 08-11-2018
3887¼v½ fnukad 21-10-2019
1039¼v½ fnukad 26-02-2021
5731¼v½ fnukad 08-11-2018
3888¼v½ fnukad 21-10-2019
1040¼v½ fnukad 26-02-2021
835¼v½ fnukad 08-02-2019
xqOoy ps#oq
jkekiqje
61
xksixqfMiYys
62
uhydaBjkoisV
63
dYiuk;qfu ps#oq
64
lqÌeYy
65
vuUriqje
yDdhjsìhiYys
66
fpVywj
jkekiqje
67
cUMyiYys
68
eklisV
jk;pksVh
69
jk;pksVh
70
ukjk;ujsìhiYys
lEcsiYys
71
eksVdVy
72
lEcsiYys
73
jkSrqdqaVk
74
nsoiVy
1
5728¼v½ fnukad 08-11-2018
173¼v½ fnukad 08-01-2019
1707¼v½ fnukad 28-05-2020
3886¼v½ fnukad 21-10-2019
1708¼v½ fnukad 28-05-2020
2092¼v½ fnukad 25-05-2021
dksuk
dydM
2
nsoyiYys
3
jfrxqaViYys
4
,jj~dksViYys
5
uocisVk
6
eqfM;eokfjiYys
7
uxkfjeMqxq
ok;yikMq
8
v¸;kokfjiYys
9
fparifrZ
10
teyiYys
11
fparyokfjiYys
12
veZMd
13
fuEeuiYys
fuEeuiYys
14
eLrqj
15
jsìhokjhiYys
16
caMyiS
17
5728¼v½ fnukad 08-11-2018
173¼v½ fnukad 08-01-2019
1707¼v½ fnukad 28-05-2020
ck;dskaMk fjtoZ QjsLV
iqaxuqj
18
nhxqokiYyh
pSMsiYyh
19
dkxrh
20
dkfVisjh
82 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21
3886¼v½ fnukad 21-10-2019
1708¼v½ fnukad 28-05-2020
2092¼v½ fnukad 25-05-2021
pnYyk
iqaxuqj
22
,srqj
23
iqaxuqj
24
dqejukre
25
cÍenksìh
isn~iatkuh
26
djluiiYys
27
isÌosyxVqj
28
xqaMqxYyq
xaxkoje
29
ilqiRrqj
30
xaMzktqiYys
31
xksYypseu iYys
cSjsÏhiYys
32
yDduiYys
33
nsoknksÏh
34
rhFkZe
35
dSxYyq
36
rksVk duqe
fo-dksVk
37
d".kkiqje
38
cksMhxqÍiYys
39
dqackyZiYys
40
fo-dksVk
41
ikisiYys
42
xqMhiYYys
43
isn~cSjuiYys
44
iEexkuhiYys
45
dsaikleqnze
jkedqIie
46
cankjyiYys
47
jkedqIie
48
vRrhdqIie
49
euhanze
50
fdykdiksMq
51
vEeokfjisVk
'kakfriqje
52
osVxhjhdksRrq#
53
dksyeMqxq
54
jsMykiYys
55
xksYykiYysfnUus
56
duxqanh vkj ,Q
dqIie
57
thMhekuhiYys
'kakfriqje
58
phYykekuhiYys
59
MksadqekuhiYys
60
osnzqxqêiYys
61
fc eMxq xksYykiYys
62
dkMiYys
63
lksUusxkuhiYys
64
MaUMhdIie
65
csXxhykiYys
xqMhiYys
66
xksdjyiYys
67
lhxyiYy¢
dqIie
68
caM'ksÍhiYys fcV&1
69
,yTtuw:
70
lkexqÍiYys
71
xqÍiYys
72
dkerew:
73
,djyiYys
74
isÌ caxk:ukFke
75
ewydyiYys
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
83
76
cksMxqÍiYys
77
olukMwxksYyiYys
78
uMhewj
[फा. सं. vkj&11025¼15½@6@2017&vksvkj&I/bZ-18464]
ih- lk¢ekdqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 51.—Whereas, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas, S.O numbers and dated as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub-section (i) of
Section 6, Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the
Central Government acquired the Right of User in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to those
notifications;
And whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-Section(4) of Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government vested the Right of User in the lands free from all encumbrances in the Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas, the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline
has been laid in the said lands and hence the operation may be terminated for Vijayawada to Dharmapuri
petroleum product Pipeline Project in the state of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the said land which in brief are
specified in the Schedule annexed to this Notification;
“Now, therefore, as required under explanation 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules 1963, the Central Government hereby declare the dates on which
the notification is published in the Gazette of India as the date of “Termination of Operation” in ROU in the
Village mentioned in Krishna (Present Name NTR), Guntur (Present Name Palnadu), Prakasam, YSR,
Annamayya (New district which is formed from parts of YSR & Chittoor) and Chittoor district in the state of
Andhra Pradesh”
SCHEDULE
District : Krishna (Present Name NTR) State : Andhra
Pradesh
Sl. No.
S.O. No. & Date
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
1
2
3
4
1
5732(E) Dated 08.11.2018
945(E) Dated 27.02.2020
3292(E) Dated 18.09.2020
4533(E) Dated 08.12.2020
2093(E) Dated 25.05.2021
Kavuluru
G.Konduru
2
Gaddamanugu
3
Cheruvu Madhavaram
4
Munagapadu
5
Sunnampadu
6
Talladevarapadu
7
Duggiralapadu
8
Timmapuram
Virullapadu
9
Gudem Madhavaram
10
Alluru
11
Jujjuru
12
Lakshmipuram
13
Jammavaram
14
Gokarajupalli
Virullapadu
15
Ponnavaram
16
Perakalapadu
Kanchikacharla
17
Gandepalli
18
Kanchikacharla
19
Kisara
20
Saidapuram
21
Pendyala
22
Vemulapalli
23
Totaravulapadu
Chandarlapadu
24
Turlapadu
25
Patempadu
84 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26
Chandarlapadu
27
Kodavatikallu
District : Gunturu (Present Name Palnadu) State : Andhra
Pradesh
Sl. No.
S.O. No. & Date
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
1
2
3
4
1
5729(E) Dated 08.11.2018
3131(E) Dated 23.08.2019
233(E) Dated 10.01.2020
1130(E) Dated 12.03.2020
2809(E) Dated 11.08.2020
1038(E) Dated 26.02.2021
Ambatipudi
Achampet
2
Orvakallu
3
Chigurupadu
4
Velpuru
5
Anantavaram
Krosuru
6
Uyyandana
7
Garikepadu
8
Gudipadu
9
Rajupalem
Rajupalem
10
Ganapavaram
11
Balijaepalli
12
Uppalapadu
13
Challagundla
Nekarikallu
14
Vipparala
Rompicherlla
15
Kunkalagunta
Nekarikallu
16
Muppala
Ipuru
17
Chittapuram
18
Kondayapalem
19
Gundepalle
20
Kottaluru
Shyavalyapuram
21
Kochcherla
Ipuru
22
Kondramutla
23
Naragayapallem
Vinukonda
24
Brahamanapalli
25
Venkupalem
26
Vinukonda
27
Thimmayapalem
28
Dondapadu
29
Shivapuram
30
Peddavaram
Nuzendla
31
Ainavolu
32
Chintala Cheruvu
33
Murtajapuram
District : Prakasam State : Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No.
S.O. No. & Date
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
1
2
3
4
1
3597(E) Dated 12.07.2018
2573(E) Dated 11.07.2019
4532(E) Dated 08.12.2020
West Virayapalem
Kurichedu
2
Kurichedu
3
Perubhatlapalem
4
Potlapadu
5
Ganga Donnakonda
6
Errabalem
Donnakonda
7
Veera Venkatapuram
8
Badapuram
9
Ragamakkapalle
10
Bhumanapalli
11
Manginapudi
12
Gajjalakonda
Marakapuram
13
Ananthavaram
Donnakonda
14
Peddayachavaram
Marakapuram
15
Rayavaram
Marakapuram
16
Gogula Dinne
17
Ketagudipi
Tarlupadu
18
Surepalle
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
85
19
Tarlupadu
20
Chennareddipalle
21
Karumanipalle
22
Mirzapeta
23
Bondalapadu
Marakapuram
24
Lakshmikota
Cumbum
25
Aurangabad
26
Ravipadu
27
Salakalavidu
Bestavaripeta
28
Nekunabad
29
Pusalapadu
30
Ondutla
31
Mokshagundam
32
Taticherla
Komarol
33
Daddavada
34
Nallaguntla
35
Idmakallu
36
Pullareddipalle
37
Komarol
38
Reddicherla
39
Allinagaram
District: YSR State : Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No
S-O- No- & Date
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
1
2
3
4
1
5730(E) Dated 08.11.2018
3887(E) Dated 21.10.2019
1039(E) Dated 26.02.2021
5731(E) Dated 08.11.2018
3888(E) Dated 21.10.2019
1040(E) Dated 26.02.2021
835(E) Dated 08.02.2019
Sancharala
Porumamilla
2
Akkalreddipalle
3
Lachampalle
4
Siddanakitchayapalle
5
Korrapatupalle
6
Sankavaram
Kalasapadu
7
Dammanapalle
Porumamilla
8
Porumamilla
Porumamilla
9
Channavaram
Sri Avadhutha
Kasinayana
10
Ranga Samudram
Porumamilla
11
Kodigudlapadu
Sri Avadhutha
Kasinayana
12
Savisettipalle
13
Vankamarri
14
Itigullapadu
15
Mallepalle
Brahmamgarimattam
16
Papireddipalle
17
Kottakota Dasarapalli Reserve Forest
Brahmamgarimattam
– S.Mydukur
18
Mudireddipalle
S.Mydukur
19
Thippireddipalle
20
Audireddipalle
21
Onipenta
22
Mittamanipalle
23
Settivaripalle
24
Annalur
25
Somayajulapalle
26
Pathur
Khajipet
27
Pullur
28
Ravulapalle
29
Dumpalagattu
30
Chemullapalle
86 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31
Chennamukkapalle
32
Doulathapuram
Chennur
33
Bayanapalle
34
Kanuparthi
35
Gurrampadu
36
Nazeerbegpalle
37
Pata Kadapa
Kadapa
38
Chinnachouku
39
Kadapayapalle
Sidhout
40
Tokkolu
41
Machupalle
42
Vanthatipalle
43
Mulapalle
44
Gundlamoola
Sidhout
45
Sidhout
46
Nekanapuram
47
Peddapalle
48
Mandapalle
49
Palakonda Vangimala Reserve Forest
50
Kanumalapalle
51
Puttlampalle
Kadapa
52
Mamillapalle
Chinthakommadinne
53
Boggalapalle
54
Rudrayagaripalle
55
Ippapenta
56
Chinnakampalle
57
Peddakampalle
58
Kolumulapalle
59
Indupulya extension reserve forest
District: YSR (Present Name Annamayya) State : Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No
S-O- No- & Date
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
1
2
3
4
60
5730(E) Dated 08.11.2018
3887(E) Dated 21.10.2019
1039(E) Dated 26.02.2021
5731(E) Dated 08.11.2018
3888(E) Dated 21.10.2019
1040(E) Dated 26.02.2021
835(E) Dated 08.02.2019
Guvvalacheruvu
Ramapuram
61
Gopagudipalle
62
Neelakantharaopeta
63
Kalpanayunicheruvu
64
Suddamalla
65
Ananthapuram
Lakkireddipalle
66
Chitlur
Ramapuram
67
Bandlapalle
68
Masapet
Rayachoti
69
Rayachoti
70
Narayanareddipalle
Sambepalle
71
Motakatla
72
Sambepalle
73
Routhukunta
74
Devapatla
District :Chittoor (Present Name Annamayya) State : Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No
S-O- No- & Date
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
1
2
3
4
1
5728(E) Dated 08.11.2018
173(E) Dated 08.01.2019
1707(E) Dated 28.05.2020
3886(E) Dated 21.10.2019
1708(E) Dated 28.05.2020
2092(E) Dated 25.05.2021
Kona
Kalakada
2
Devalapalle
3
Ratiguntapalle
4
Errakotapalle
5
Nawabpet
6
Mudiamvaripalle
7
Nagarimadugu
Vayalpad
8
Ayyavaripalle
9
Chintaparthi
10
Jammallapalle
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
87
11
Chinthalavaripalle
12
Aramadaka
13
Nimmanapalle
Nimmanapalle
14
Mastur
15
Reddivaripalle
16
Bandlapai
17
5728(E) Dated 08.11.2018
173(E) Dated 08.01.2019
1707(E) Dated 28.05.2020
3886(E) Dated 21.10.2019
1708(E) Dated 28.05.2020
2092(E) Dated 25.05.2021
Boyakonda Reserve Forest
Punganur
18
Diguvapalle
Chowdepalle
19
Kogathi
20
Katiperi
21
Chadalla
Punganur
22
Ethur
23
Punganur
24
Kummaranatham
25
Battamdoddi
Peddapanjani
26
Karasanapalle
27
Peddavelagatur
28
Gundugallu
Gangavaram
29
Pasupathur
30
Gandrajupalle
31
Gollachemana Palle
Baireddipalle
32
Lakkanapalle
33
Devadoddi
34
Theertham
35
Kaigallu
36
Thota Kanuma
V.Kota
37
Krishnapuram
38
Bodiguttapalle
39
Kumbarlapalle
40
V.Kota
41
Papepalle
42
Gudipalle
43
Pedda Bharanipalle
44
Pamuganipalle
45
Kempasamudram
Ramakuppam
46
Bandarlapalle
47
Ramakuppam
48
Attikuppam
49
Manendram
50
Kilakupodu
51
Ammavaripeta
Shanthipuram
52
Vetagirikothur
53
Kolamadugu
54
Redlapalle
55
Gollapalledinne
56
Kangundi R.F
Kuppam
57
Jeedimanipalle
Shanthipuram
58
Chillamanipalle
59
Donkumanipalle
60
Veduruguttapalle
61
B Madugu Gollapalle
62
Kadapalle
63
Sonneganipalle
64
Dandikuppam
65
Beggilipalle
Gudupalle
66
Gokaralapalle
67
Seegalapalle
Kuppam
68
Bandasettipalle 1st Bit
69
Ellajjanuru
88 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
70
Samaguttapalle
71
Guttapalle
72
Kamathamur
73
Ekarlapalle
74
Pedda Bangarunatham
75
Mulakalapalle
76
Bodaguttapalle
77
Vasanadugolla Palle
78
Nadimur
[F. No. R.11025(15)/6/2017.OR.I/E.18464]
P. SOMA KUMAR, Under Secy.
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 52.— औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार प्रबंि गिदेशक, ददल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉर्पोरेशि गलगमटेड, बाराखंभा रोड, िई ददल्ली; डडंर्पल (मागलक),
एि.सी.ई.एस., गसकंदरर्पुर, िुड़िांि ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्रीमती र्पूजा शमाा, कामिार,के बीच अिुबंि
में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 307/2021)
को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ
16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-17-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 52.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 307/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Managing Director, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,Barakhamba Road, New Delhi ; Dimple
(Proprietor), N.C.E.S., Sikanderpur, Gurgaon and Smt. Pooja Sharma, Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-17-IR (DU)]
DK HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 307/2021
Date of Passing Award- 01.12.2022
Between:
Smt. Pooja Sharma, W/o Sh. Lalan Sharma,
R/o–177, Shastri Mohalla, Patparganj,
Delhi–110091.
….Claimant
VERSUS
1.
The Managing Director,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
2.
Sh. Dimple (Proprietor), N.C.E.S.,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
89
R/o 16–17–18, Shiv Narain Complex,
Sikanderpur, Gurgaon–122002 …. Managements
Appearances:-
Shri S B Shaily
…For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Akhilesh
…For the Management No.1
Shri Praveen Singh
…For the Management No.2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 2A of the Id Act by the claimant who has alleged illegal termination by
the management No.1 and 2. Notice of the claim being served both the managements appeared and filed their
written statement. Management No.2 stated that for some allegation made against the claimant by management
No.1 it had no other option than terminating her service.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for conciliation of the dispute. After several
rounds of discussion the matter was taken up during the National Lok Adalat held on 12.11.2022. Before that on
22.08.2022 both the managements during course of conciliation in presence of the claimant and her A/R agreed
to re-employee the claimant. On 7th November 2022 both the managements and the claimant being present
informed that they have already re-employed the claimant Pooja Sharma at Metro Station Faridabad and she is
discharging her duty since 05th November 2022. The claimant and her A/R intimated that they are satisfied with
the decision and not advancing any claim for the back wages for the intervening period. Considering the
progress made in the conciliation and the satisfaction expressed by the claimant this award is passed. Hence,
ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of on conciliation, as the claimant has not advanced any further
claim against the managements. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as
required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PARANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 53.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार ददल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉर्पोरेशि गलगमटेड, िई ददल्ली; जे कुमार सीआरटीजी/डीएमआरसी बाराखंबा लेि
िई ददल्ली ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री राम, द्वारा महासगचि, कमाशील मजदूर संघर्ा यूगियि,
मुबारकर्पुर, िई ददल्ली के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय-2
िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 209/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/51/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 53.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 209/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi ;J, Kumar CRTG/DMRC Barakhamba Lane New
Delhi, and Shri Ram ,Through The General Secretary, Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union, Mubarakpur, New
90 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Delhi Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/51/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No. 209/2021
Sh. Ram S/o Shri Pardeshi,
Through , The General Secretary,
Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
A-31 Agar Enclave, Meetha Pani, Prem Nagar-III,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Somdarzar Road, Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110086.
….Workman
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
DMRC Project , CC-24 Sarai Kale Khan ISBT,
Near RTO Office, New Delhi-110013.
2. J. Kumar CRTG /DMRC,
Barakhamba Lane New Delhi-110001
…Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. L-42011/51/2021- IR(DU) dated 16.08.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangharsh Union, New Delhi Vide letter dated
23.03.2021 demands withdrawal of workman (Sh. Ram S/o Shri S/o Shri Pardeshi)
against J. Kumar CRTG under the management of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
project and payment of notice wages to what extent it is reasonable and justified, if
any, what relief should be given to the workman and from when.”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither
the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that
postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of
the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to
abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 54.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार अध्यक्ष, दिल्ली मेरो रेल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, बाराखंभा रोड, नई दिल्ली; कूप्स इंटरनेिनल िाई-टेक.
सुरक्षा, डीएमआरसी मेरो भवन, बाराखंबा रोड, नई दिल्ली के ठेकेिार; सीसीईसीसी-केईसी िेवी डीसी-01, दिल्ली,
के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रािू, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
91
अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभग सं. 49/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया
िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-16-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 54.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chairmen, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Barakhamba Road, New Delhi ;Couops
International Hi-Tech. Security, Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi ;
CCECC–KEC JV DC–01, Delhi, and Shri Raju, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award
by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-16-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present:
Smt. Pranita Mohanty,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 47/2022
Date of Passing Award- 01.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Ram Prakash, S/o Sh. Ramveer Singh Yadav,
R/o– KH. No–1074, Plot No–31, Village –Bhalswa,
N.S. Mandi, Delhi–110033.
….Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Chairmen,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Couops International Hi-Tech. Security,
Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001
3. CCECC–KEC JV DC–01,
Office:–Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road,
Delhi–110081.
….Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Arvind Kumar
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Gulab Chandra Jha
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2.
Shri Shivam Tripathy
For the Management No.3.
(A/R)
92 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
This is an application u/s 2A filed by the claimant alleging illegal termination by management No.1.
As per the narrative in the claim petition the claimant was appointed as a Security Guard on 22.01.2020 in the
premises of management No.1 through the contractor of the said management who are the management No.2
and 3 of this proceeding. His last drawn wage was 12000/- per month. Though the claimant was discharging his
duty diligently the management No.1, 2 and 3 were not extending the benefits at par with the regular employees
describing him as a contractual worker. The management was not following the procedure laid down under the
Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act 1970. For the objection raised by the claimant for his legitimate
dues the managements in vindication terminated his service w.e.f 14.06.2021 and did not release his earned
wage for the month of March, April, May, June 2021 and even did not pay his bonus and overtime dues. At the
time of termination the provisions of section 25F Id Act was not followed. Hence, he had prayed for
reinstatement and payment of back wages alongwith all consequential benefits.
Notice being served all the managements appeared and management No.1 and 2 filed their WS
denying the claim of the claimant.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for conciliation of the dispute. After several
rounds of conciliation the management agreed to pay the dues demanded by the claimant. During the Lok
Adalat held on 12.11.2022 the claimant gave a statement to the effect that the management has paid 61500/-
through demand draft No. 003609 dated 07/10/2022 and he has no more claim against the management. The
statement of the claimant was recorded separately and attached to the proceeding. In view of the statement
given by the claimant this no claim award is passed. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The application be and the same is disposed of as the claimant has no claim and grievance against the
managements with regard to the alleged illegal termination of his service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 55.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्द्रीय सरकार दिल्ली मेरो रेल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, नई दिल्ली; िे कुमार सीआरटीिी/डीएमआरसी बाराखंबा
लेन नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री अफसर खान, द्वारा मिासजचव, कमगिील मििूर संघषग
यूजनयन, मुबारकपुर, नई दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम
न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभग सं. 131/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/43/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 55.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 131/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi ; J, Kumar CRTG/DMRC Barakhamba Lane New
Delhi, and Shri Afsar Khan, Through, The General Secretary, Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
Mubarakpur, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/43/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No.131/2021
Sh. Afsar Khan S/.o Sh. Ayub Khan.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
93
Through , The General Secretary,
Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
A-31 Agar Enclave, Meetha Pani, Prem Nagar-III,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Somdarzar Road, Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110086.
….Workman
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
DMRC Project , CC-24 Sarai Kale Khan ISBT,
Near RTO Office, New Delhi-110013.
2. J. Kumar CRTG /DMRC,
Barakhamba Lane NEw Delhi-110001
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. L-42011/43/2021- IR(DU) dated 30.07.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangharsh Union, New Delhi Vide letter dated 23.03.2021
demands withdrawal of workman (Sh. Sh. Afsar Khan S/.o Sh. Ayub Khan) against
J. Kumar CRTG under the management of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation project and
payment of notice wages to what extent it is reasonable and justified, if any, what relief
should be given to the workman and from when.”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 56.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार अध्यक्ष, दिल्ली मेरो रेल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, बाराखंभा रोड, नई दिल्ली; कूप्स इंटरनेिनल िाई-टेक.
सुरक्षा, डीएमआरसी मेरो भवन, बाराखंबा रोड, नई दिल्ली के ठेकेिार; सीसीईसीसी-केईसी िेवी डीसी-01,
दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री राम प्रकाि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभग सं. 47/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-15-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
94 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 56.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chairmen, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Barakhamba Road, New Delhi ;Couops
International Hi-Tech. Security,Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi ;
CCECC–KEC JV DC–01, Delhi, and Shri Ram Prakash, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-15-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 47/2022
Date of Passing Award- 01.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Ram Prakash, S/o Sh. Ramveer Singh Yadav,
R/o– KH. No–1074, Plot No–31, Village –Bhalswa,
N.S. Mandi, Delhi–110033
…. Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Chairmen,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Couops International Hi-Tech. Security,
Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001
3. CCECC–KEC JV DC–01,
Office:–Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road,
Delhi–110081.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Arvind Kumar
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Gulab Chandra Jha
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2.
Shri Shivam Tripathy
For the Management No.3.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application u/s 2A filed by the claimant alleging illegal termination by management No.1. As
per the narrative in the claim petition the claimant was appointed as a Security Guard on 22.01.2020 in the
premises of management No.1 through the contractor of the said management who are the management No.2
and 3 of this proceeding. His last drawn wage was 12000/- per month. Though the claimant was discharging his
duty diligently the management No.1,2 and 3 were not extending the benefits at par with the regular employees
describing him as a contractual worker. The management was not following the procedure laid down under the
Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act 1970. For the objection raised by the claimant for his legitimate
dues the managements in vindication terminated his service w.e.f 14.06.2021 and did not release his earned
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
95
wage for the month of March, April, May, June 2021 and even did not pay his bonus and overtime dues. At the
time of termination the provisions of section 25F Id Act was not followed. Hence, he had prayed for
reinstatement and payment of back wages alongwith all consequential benefits.
Notice being served all the managements appeared and management No.1 and 2 filed their WS denying
the claim of the claimant.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for conciliation of the dispute. After several
rounds of conciliation the management agreed to pay the dues demanded by the claimant. During the Lok
Adalat held on 12.11.2022 the claimant gave a statement to the effect that the management has paid 61500/-
through demand draft No. 003609 dated 07/10/2022 and he has no more claim against the management. The
statement of the claimant was recorded separately and attached to the proceeding. In view of the statement
given by the claimant this no claim award is passed. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The application be and the same is disposed of as the claimant has no claim and grievance against the
managements with regard to the alleged illegal termination of his service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANATY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 57.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार दिल्ली मेरो रेल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड नई दिल्ली; िे. कुमार सीआरटीिी/डीएमआरसी,बाराखंबा लेन,
नई दिल्ली,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री वीरेंद्र ससंि, द्वारा, मिासजचव, कमगिील मििूर संघषग यूजनयन,
नई दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली
पंचाट (संिभग सं. 142/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/48/2021- आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 57.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 142/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. New Delhi ;J. Kumar CRTG /DMRC, Barakhamba Lane, New
Delhi and Shri Virender Singh, Through , The General Secretary, Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union, New
Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/48/2021- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No.142/2021
Sh. Virender Singh, S/o Sh. Vanvari Lal,
Through , The General Secretary,
Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
A-31 Agar Enclave, Meetha Pani, Prem Nagar-III,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Somdarzar Road, Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110086
…..Workman
Versus
96 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
DMRC Project , CC-24 Sarai Kale Khan ISBT,
Near RTO Office, New Delhi-110013.
2. J. Kumar CRTG /DMRC,
Barakhamba Lane New Delhi-110001.
….Managements
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. L-42011/48/2021- IR(DU) dated 05/08/2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangharsh Union, New Delhi Vide letter dated
23.03.2021 demands withdrawal of workman (Sh. Virender Singh, S/o Sh. Vanvari
Lal) against J. Kumar CRTG under the management of Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation project and payment of notice wages to what extent it is reasonable
and justified, if any, what relief should be given to the workman and from when.”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither
the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that
postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of
the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to
abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 58.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार रजिस्ट्रार, दिल्ली जवश्वजवद्यालय, दिल्ली; िय बालािी सुरक्षा सेवाएं, करमपुरा, दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के
संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री कुलिीप एवं 166 अन्य, द्वारा अजखल भारतीय िनरल कामगार यूजनयन, के बीच अनुबंि
में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभग सं.183/2020)
को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/107/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 58.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 183/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Registrar, University of Delhi, delhi ;Jai Balaji Security Services, Karampura, Delhi, and
Shri Kuldeep & 166 Others, Through, All India General Kamgar Union, which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/107/2020 -IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
97
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID.NO. 183/2020
Shri Kuldeep & 166 Others,
Through, All India General Kamgar Union.
U-90, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
….Workman.
Versus
1. The Registrar,
University of Delhi,
Delhi-110007.
2. Jai Balaji Security Services,
102 Shiv Lok House-01, Commercial Complex,
Karampura, Delhi-110015
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. L-42011/107/2020 IR(DU) dated 05.11.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the demands dated 30.12.2016 raised by the workers Shri Kuldeep and 166
others through MD General Mazdoor Union to the management of M.s Jai Balaji
Security Services / Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi are proper, legal and /or
justified? If yes, to what relief are the workers concerned entitled and what directions,
if any, are necessary in this regard?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimants opted not to file the claim statement with the
Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption
lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimants union. Despite service of the
notice, claimants union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their
behalf. Thus, it is clear that the claimants are not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the claimants neither put their appearance nor led any evidence so as to prove their cause against
the managements, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 59.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री सुंिर
वीर,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के
पंचाट (संिभग सं. 251/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-13-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
98 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S.O. 59.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 251/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi , and Shri Sunder
Veer,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-13-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 251/2021
Date of Passing Award- 01.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Sunder Veer, S/o Sh. Mahaveer Singh,
R/o House No–F–5/297, Raj Nagar Loni, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh–201102.
…Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2. 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
….Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 18.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 18500/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
99
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 60.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री राम
दकिन,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली
के पंचाट( संिभग सं. 241/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-12-आईआर(डीयू)
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 60.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 241/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi , and Shri Ram
Kishan,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-12-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 241/2021
Date of Passing Award- 06.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Ram Kishan, S/o Sh. Netra Pal,
R/o–B-14, Gali No.-02, Ghazipur Gaon,
Delhi-110096
…. Claimant
100 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2. 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
…For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
…. For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
..… For the Management No. 2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 14,000/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
101
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 61.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री नरेंद्र
कुमार त्यागी,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभग सं. 239/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-11-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 61.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 239/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi , and Shri Narender
Kumar Tyagi,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-11-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 239/2021
Date of Passing Award- 07.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Narender Kumar Tyagi, S/o Sh. Vijay Prakash Tyagi,
R/o–A-02/272, Gali No.02, Harijan Basti,
East Gokulpur, Delhi-110094.
…Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2. 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2.
(A/R)
102 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 14,000/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 62.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री अतर
ससंि,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के
पंचाट (संिभग संख्या 238/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-10-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 62.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 238/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi , and Shri Atar
Singh,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-10-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
103
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 238/2021
Date of Passing Award- 07.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Atar Singh, S/o Sh. Kutbi,
R/o–89, Panchayara, Ghaziabad -201102.
…Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2.
3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 18,500/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
104 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 63.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
मोजिउद्दीन,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभग सं. 247/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-9-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 63.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 247/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi , and Shri
Mohiuddin,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-9-IR (DU)]
DK HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 247/2021
Date of Passing Award- 05.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Mohiuddin, S/o Sh. Tauqeer Khan,
R/o:- House No.–120, Pratap Khand, Vishwakarma Nagar,
Delhi-110095.
…Claimant
VERSUS
1.
The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2. 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
105
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 14,000/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 64.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री सलीम
खान, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली
के पंचाट (संिभग सं. 252/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-7-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
106 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S.O. 64.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 252/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi, and Shri Salim
Khan,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-7-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 252/2021
Date of Passing Award- 01.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Salim Khan, S/o Sh. Alisha Khan,
R/o House No–A–62, Vikram Enclave, Shalimar Garden,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh–201001.
…Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2.
3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 14000/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
107
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का. आ. 65.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री सुरेि
चंि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के
पंचाट (संिभग सं. 245/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-8-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 65.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 245/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi , and Shri Suresh
Chand,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-8-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 245/2021
Date of Passing Award- 05.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Suresh Chand, S/o Sh. Kanchid Lal,
R/o–1076/14, Mandoli Ex.,
Delhi-110093.
…Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2. 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 18,500/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 66.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री यम
बिािुर थापा,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभग सं. 236/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-6-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 66.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 236/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
109
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi , and Shri Yam
Bhadur Thapa,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-6-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 236/2021
Date of Passing Award- 07.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Yam Bhadur Thapa, S/o Sh. Chandra Lal Thapa,
R/o–C-228, J. J Colony, Inderpuri, IARI Madhya,
Delhi-110012.
…. Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2. 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No.2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 18500/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 67.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री यिबीर
ससंि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली
के पंचाट (संिभग सं. 244/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-5-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 67.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 244/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi , and Shri Yesbir
Singh,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-5-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 244/2021
Date of Passing Award- 06.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Yesbir Singh, S/o Sh. Shobh Ram Singh,
R/o–B-536-A, Double Story, Brij Vihar, Chander Nagar,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
…Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2. 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
111
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No. 1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No. 2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 14,000/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 68.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रीवा
राम िमाग,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभग सं. 243/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-4-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 68.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 243/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
112 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi , and Shri Rewa Ram
Sharma,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-4-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 243/2021
Date of Passing Award- 06.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Rewa Ram Sharma, S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam,
R/o–Soorajpur Mahanwa,
Bagpat, U.P
…Claimant
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2. 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No. 1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No. 2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 18500/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
113
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 69.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जचदकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमगचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जिलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली;
3573, बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री सीता
राम,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली
पंचाट (संिभग सं. 250/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-3-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023
S.O. 69.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 250/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Medical Superintendent, Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi ; 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency, Janakpuri, New Delhi, and Shri Sita
Ram,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-3-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 250/2021
Date of Passing Award- 05.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Sita Ram, S/o Sh. Paras Ram,
R/o–House No.-01/9894, Gali No.-3-D, West Gorakhpark,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
…Claimant
114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
VERSUS
1. The Medical Superintendent,
Indira Gandhi Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi–110095.
2. 3573, Balaji Kumar Panda Security Agency,
Shop No.G–30, Block–C–6B, Vikas Surya Plaza,
DDA Commercial Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi–110058.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Rohit Bhagat
For the Management No.1
None for the management No.2
For the Management No. 2.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 since 10.12.2016 as a Security Guard. His last drawn wage per
month was Rs. 14000/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant
despite demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant
was often demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
01.04.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he served a demand notice on 18.06.2019 through the union. But the management
did not respond to the same. Finding no other way he, on 10.07.2019 raised a dispute before the Labour
Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The managements though appeared did not agree
to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back
wages.
Notice being served the management No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim
advanced by the claimant. Management No.2 for his absence was proceeded exparte.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for a conciliation between the claimant and the
management No.1. The terms of conciliation proposed by the claimant since accepted, the claimant gave a
statement to the effect that he has no grievance with regard to the termination of his service and he does not
proceed with the matter and requested for disposal of the proceeding as he has no claim against the
management. The statement of the claimant as per separate sheet is recorded and attached in the record. The
proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the managements.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 70.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
33/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-12-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
115
[सं. एल-22012/53/2018-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 70.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/12/2022.
[No. L-22012/53/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE No. 33 OF 2018
Parties: Deb Kumar Roy.
Vs.
Management of Sonepur Bazari Project of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: None.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal. STATE:
West Bengal. Dated:
14.12.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/53/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 05.11.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employers, that is the Management of Sonepur Bazari Project of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Sonepur Bazari Project, M/s. E.C.
Ltd. in non-payment of Heavy Duty Allowance for the period from 01.07.2006
to 31.03.2009 to Sri Deb Kumar Roy is justified or not? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/53/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 05.11.2018 from the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 33 of 2018 was
registered on 26.11.2018 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing
them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and
a list of witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal.
2.
The Reference case was fixed up on 07.12.2022 for filing written statement by the
Management. On repeated calls at 01:05 PM none appeared for the workman. Union representative of Ukhra
Colliery Mazdoor Union was not found available. Since registration of this dispute for adjudication, no step has
been taken on behalf of workman.
116 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of Sonepur Bazari Project of M/s. ECL
was present and filed xerox copy of Death Registration Certificate of Deb Kumar Roy, the workman. It appears
that the concerned workman has died on 22.05.2021.
4.
The scheduled dispute is for consideration as to whether the action of Management of
Sonepur Bazari Project of M/s. ECL was justified in non-payment of Heavy Duty allowance to Deb Kumar Roy
for the period from 01.07.2006 to 31.03.2009 and to what relief the workman is entitled. During the period of
pendency of dispute since 2018 none has appeared for substitution of legal heir in place of Deb Kumar Roy.
Under such facts and circumstances the Reference case is disposed of in the form of “No Dispute Award”.
Hence,
ORDERED
The Reference case is accordingly disposed of. A No Dispute Award is drawn up in respect of the
above Reference. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 71.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 30/2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-12-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/50/2002-आई आर (सी.एम - II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 71.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2002) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.12.2022
[No. L-22012/50/2002 -IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE No. 30 OF 2002
Parties : Jhuma Mukherjee and 10 others.
Vs.
Management of Samla Colliery of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management :
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal. STATE: West Bengal. Dated:
14.12.2022
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
117
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/50/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 28.08.2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employers, that is the Management of Samla Colliery under Pandaveswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Shamla Colliery under Pandaveshwar
Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in not regularizing Smt. Jhuma
Mukhrjee, Wagon Loader and 10 others (list enclosed) as Security Guard is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled and from what date?”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/50/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 28.08.2002 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 30 of 2002 was registered
on 10.09.2002 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of
witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
2. The Reference case was fixed up on 07.12.2022 for hearing of Argument. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned
advocate represented the Management of Samla Colliery under Pandaveswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited was present. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, representing the workmen
submitted that the dispute involved in this Reference case is whether non-regularization of Mr. Jhuma
Mukherjee, Wagon Loader and 10 others as Security Guard is legal and justified and to what relief the workman
entitled to and from what date. In this matter it was further submitted that the workmen have been regularized in
other post in Time Rate category and they have no grievance against the company.
3. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the Management raised no objection. Considered the facts
and circumstances of the case and the changed situation, I hold that there is no pending dispute between the
eleven (11) workmen and Management of Samla colliery under Pandaveswar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited. Accordingly, the Reference case is disposed in the form of No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
A No Dispute Award is drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information
and notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 72.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 108/2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-12-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/399/2004-आई आर (सी.एम-II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 72.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/2005) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27.12.2022.
[No. L-22012/399/2004 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE No. 108 OF 2005
Parties: Raju Majhi
(dependent son of Late Hopni Mejhain).
Vs.
Management of Lachipur Colliery of M/s. ECL.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workmen: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal. STATE: West Bengal. Dated:
14.12.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/399/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 17.08.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employers, that is the Management of Lachipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Lacchipur Colliery under Kajora Area of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, in denying employment to the dependent of Late Hopni
Mejhain, who died while in service is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
dependent of deceased workman is entitled?”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/399/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 17.08.2005 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 108 of 2005 was
registered on 09.09.2005 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing
them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and
a list of witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
2. The case was fixed up on 06.12.2022 for evidence of Workman Witness. Mr. P. K. Das, learned
advocate represented the Management of Lachipur Colliery. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the union representative of
Koyala Mazdoor Congress submitted that Raju Majhi the dependent son of Late Hopni Mejhain has not turned
up for his evidence.
3. On a perusal of the case record I find that the case is pending since 2005. Ample opportunity was given
to the dependent of the deceased workman for making out their case but there is not active participation on the
part of the claimants. Under such circumstances the Reference case is disposed of in the form of “No Dispute
Award”.
Hence,
ORDERED
A No Dispute Award is drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information
and notification
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
119
का.आ. 73.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 44/2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-01-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/196/2012-आई आर (सी.एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 73.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2012) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05/01/2023.
[No. L-22012/196/2012 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE No. 44 OF 2012
Parties : Ganku Bhuia
Vs.
Management of Shyamsunderpur Colliery of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal. STATE: West Bengal. Dated: 16.12.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/196/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 30.11.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employers, that is the Management of Shyamsunderpur Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Shyamsunderpur Colliery in dismissing
Shri Ganku Bhuia, Ex-Line Mazdoor is justified? What relief the workman concerned is
entitled to and from which date?”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/196/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 30.11.2012 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 44 of 2012 was registered
on 24.12.2012 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of
witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
2. The case is fixed up today for evidence of workman. Notices were issued to both the parties. Written
statements were submitted on behalf of the workman by Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative and by
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
3. It appears from the written statement submitted on behalf of the Management of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited that the workman Ganku Bhuia is a chronic absentee and on a previous occasion he was re-
instated in his service on the basis of a settlement dated 11.12.1991, where it was agreed between the parties
that if Ganku Bhuia remained unauthorizedly absent from duty he will be punished by the way of dismissal. The
workman concerned again remained absent from 25.01.1993 on a plea of serious illness and a Charge Sheet was
issued against him bearing Ref. No. Shyam/PD/CS/95/1325 dated 03/07.04.1993. in the written statement the
workman claimed that the enquiry was held ex-parte. No evidence has been adduced in this case.
4. Be that as it may, after sufficient opportunities given to the parties none of the parties are found
available today. As per order dated 10.10.2022 fresh notice was issued the General Secretary of Colliery
Mazdoor Congress under registered post but no representation is made. In view of such nonchalant move on the
part of the workman and representative of the Union I am of the view that the workman is disinterested in
proceeding with the case. Accordingly, the Reference case is disposed of in the form of No Dispute Award.
Same be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment.
Hence,
ORDERED
A No Dispute Award is drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information
and notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 74.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 35/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-01-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/88/2019-आई आर (सी.एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 74.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05/01/2023.
[No. L-22012/88/2019 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE No. 35 OF 2019
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
121
Parties : Jipu Nunia
Vs.
Management of New Kenda Colliery of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management :
None.
INDUSTRY:
Coal. STATE: West Bengal. Dated:
14.12.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/88/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 16.10.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employers, that is the Management of New Kenda Colliery of Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management for non-payment of SPRA from 1995
to the date of conversion from PR to TR and denial of wages protection in
respect of Jipu Nunia, Ex-Employee is proper and justified? If not, what relief
to the concerned workman / his dependents is entitled to?”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/88/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 16.10.2019 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 35 of 2019 was registered
on 30.10.2019 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of
witnesses. None appeared for the Management.
2. The case is fixed up today for filing written statement by the parties. The Management of New
Kenda Colliery, Kenda Area of M/s. ECL is unrepresented. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative,
representing Jipu Nunia submits that the workman has expired and his legal heir has been granted an
employment in his place, as such the representative of the deceased workman does not want to proceed with this
Industrial Dispute any further.
3. Considered. This dispute relates to whether the Management for non-payment of SPRA to Jipu Nunia
from 1995 to the date of conversion from Piece Rate to Time Rate and denial of wage protection is proper and
justified and to what relief the concerned workman and his dependents are entitled to. Since the dependents of
the deceased employee are no longer interested to proceed with this Industrial Dispute, the same is disposed of
in the form of No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
The Reference case is accordingly disposed of. A No Dispute Award is drawn up in respect of the
above Reference. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 75.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la- 20/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/134/2013-आई आर (सी.एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
122 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 75.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2023
[No. L-22012/134/2013–IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE No. 20 OF 2013
Parties : Chanda Majhi
Vs.
Management of Satgram Incline, Satgram Area, M/s. ECL.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, Learned Advocate.
For the Union/Workman: Mr. H. L. Soni, Asst. General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
INDUSTRY:
Coal. STATE:
West Bengal. Dated:
27.12.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/134/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 04.10.2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employers, that is the Management of Satgram Incline under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Satgram Incline under Satgram Area of M/s.
E. C. Limited to dismiss from service to Sri Chanda Majhi, U.G. Loader, U. Man No.
115555 was proper, fair and proportionate punishment only on ground of absenteeism
which was due to his illness. If not, so what relief management can provide to him?”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/134/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 04.10.2013 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 20 of 2013 was registered
on 14.02.2014 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of
witnesses. Both parties appear before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
2. The case was fixed up on 07.12.2022 for ex-parte hearing. On call Mr. H. L. Soni, union representative
for the workman and Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management filed a xerox copy of
Memorandum of Settlement between Chanda Majhi, the workman and Management of Satgram Area of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited dated 23.11.2018. Also perused a copy of Office Order dated 29/31.01.2019 issued
by Senior Manager (Personnel)/IC, Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, where it has been stated
that Competent Authority, ECL has been pleased to accord approval in compliance with CGIT Award (Ref. No.
20 of 2013) for reinstatement of Chanda Majhi, U.G. Loader without back wages. A clarification was sought for
from the Senior Manager (Personnel)/IC, Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as well as the Agent
of Satgram Project, M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as to how the competent Authority of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited noted that CGIT has passed an Award in Reference No. 20 of 2013 for reinstatement of
Chanda Majhi, even before adjudication of the Industrial Dispute by the Tribunal.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
123
3. On 15.12.2022 Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate produced a copy of Corrigendum issued by the Senior
Manager (Personnel)/IC, Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited dated 01.02.2019/06.02.2019
bearing Ref. No. SAT/PER/Re-instatement/2019/1524 and submitted that the Office Order dated 29/31.01.2019
for reinstatement in service in respect of Chanda Majhi, ex-U.G. Loader was actually issued on the basis of
approval received from the competent Authority of Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter vide their
Reference No. ECL/LG/18/1151 dated 17/19.11.2018 by an out of Court settlement.
4. Having perused the Corrigendum as well as the Memorandum of Settlement it appears to me that
Chanda Majhi was reinstated in service in the initial basic pay as General Mazdoor, Category-I and the period
of his dismissal till the date of reinstatement was treated as dies-non and the workman was not entitled to any
back wages. The Reference case is accordingly disposed of in the light of the conditions of settlement. Let an
Award be issued in favour of the workman in terms of the settlement treating the Memorandum of Settlement
dated 23.11.2018 in two (2) pages as a part of the Award.
Hence,
ORDER
The Reference case is disposed of in favour of the workman. An Award be passed in favour of the
workman in terms of Memorandum of Settlement dated 23.11.2018 in Form ‘H’, which is made a part of the
Award. Let copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi for information
and necessary action.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 76.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 27/1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/247/98-आई आर (सी.एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 76.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/1999) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2023.
[No. L-22012/247/98 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Officer
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol
REFERENCE CASE No. 27 oF 1999
Parties: Smt. Gita Devi
(Dependent of Late Ramchandra Singh)
124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vs.
Management of Parascole Colliery of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, Learned Advocate.
For the Union/Workmen: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
INDUSTRY :
Coal. STATE :
West Bengal. DATED:
19.12.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/247/98/IR(CM-II) dated 26/27.05.1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employers, the Management of Parascole Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management in denying employment to the dependent wife
of late Sh. Late Ramchandra Singh, Ex-Fitter, Parascole Colliery, Distt. Burdwan is
just and legal? If not, to what relief is the dependent wife of the deceased employee
entitled for? ”
1. After receiving Order L-22012/247/98/IR(CM-II) dated 26/27.05.1998 of the aforesaid Reference
framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the industrial dispute
raised, by the dependent of deceased workman through Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol, a Reference case
No. 27 of 1999 was registered on 07.06.1999, and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through
registered post inviting them to submit their written statements along with documents and witnesses they relied
upon. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
2. On 05.12.2001 the Mr. Rakesh Kumar, General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress submitted a
written statement on behalf of the workman contending inter alia that Late Ramchandra Singh, Ex-Fitter of
Parascole Colliery was a permanent employee of the Company who died in harness on 30.01.1992 leaving
behind his two wives namely Smt. Tukubala Devi and Smt. Gita Devi and the children through his second wife
Smt. Gita Devi. While Smt. Gita Devi one of the wives of Late Ramchandra Singh applied for providing
employment another wife, Smt. Tukubala Devi claimed payment of legal dues of her husband. Management
paid all the legal dues to the first wife and also processed the employment proposal of Smt. Gita Devi Singh, the
other wife of Late Ramchandra Singh.
3. Subsequently, the Authorities at the Head Quarters of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited expressed regret
for not being able to provide employment to Smt. Gita Devi Singh on the ground that she was not the legal wife
of the ex-employee. It is contended on behalf of the dependents of the workman that the Management has to
provide one employment to one of the dependents of Late Ramchandra Singh, a permanent employee. It is
claimed that Late Ramchandra Singh married the younger sister of his first wife as it was permissible under the
law.
4. Further contention on behalf of the dependents of deceased workman is that on earlier occasion
employment was given to the second wife of deceased employee and in the instant case the second marriage of
Late Ramchandra Singh was solemnized with the consent of the first wife. The alternative relief sought on
behalf of the dependents of the deceased workman is that the son of Late Ramchandra Singh is now an adult
and if the Management is not willing to provide employment to the second wife, then the son can be granted
employment. It is also asserted that during Meeting with the Union and the Employer Company it was agreed
by the Management to pay monetary compensation to the second wife. Therefore, it would imply that
Management accepted the proposal for providing employment to the second wife as monetary compensation is
given in lieu of employment. According to the Union representative, Smt. Gita Devi, wife of Late Ramchandra
Singh should be provided employment under clause 9:4:2 of NCWA-III and if it is not possible the
Management should provide employment to the son of Smt. Gita Devi at the earlies with all consequential
benefits.
5. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management appeared on 18.01.2002 and filed a written
statement on 19.03.2002 on behalf of Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. According to the
Employer Company the dispute raised by the union in respect of the scheduled Reference is entirely
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
125
misconceived and there cannot be any industrial dispute over the said issue. It is admitted that Late Ramchandra
Singh was an employee of Parascole Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and he died in harness on
30.01.1992. According to the Eastern Coalfields Limited Authority the Service Record of the workman
indicates that he had two wives. Smt. Tukubala Devi and Smt. Gita Devi. After the death of the employee both
the wives submitted an Indemnity bond before the Management declaring that the first wife Smt. Tukubala Devi
would receive legal dues of the deceased workman in respect of P.F., Gratuity and the second wife would be
entitled to employment against death of Late Ramchandra Singh. The second wife of deceased workman
applied for providing employment to her and the same was forwarded to the competent Authority vide letter No.
E.C.L/CMD/C-68/Empl/3/8 dated 31.03.1998 and the same was regretted by the competent Authority on the
ground that the marriage with the second wife during the lifetime of first wife was illegal and therefore the
prayer for providing employment to the second wife could not be approved. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has
contended that Indemnity bond furnished by both parties are not binding upon the Management and the terms
and conditions are not enforceable as the same is nothing but an internal arrangement between the parties.
6. The Deputy CME of Parascole Colliery in the written statement has denied that in the past
Management of the Employer Company had provided employment to the second wife of deceased employee. It
has been urged that the action of the Management is totally justified in not providing the employment to the
dependent petitioner-wife of Late Ramchandra Singh and that the workman is not entitled to any other relief as
prayed for.
7. Smt. Gita Devi, Workman Witness -1, filed an Affidavit-in-chief and was cross-examined on behalf of
the Management. On a perusal of the evidence of Smt. Gita Devi it appears that Smt. Tukubala Devi, the first
wife of Late Ramchandra Singh is still alive. She denied the suggestion that she is not the dependent of Late
Ramchandra Singh or is not entitled to any employment on the ground of death of Ramchandra Singh. No
evidence has been adduced by the Management in this case despite opportunity given to them. Order dated
21.12.2004 reveals that Management declined to adduce evidence.
8. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management argued that Smt. Gita Devi who claimed
employment in the capacity of second wife of Late Ramchandra Singh is not entitled to any employment since
her marriage is void ab initio as Smt. Tukubala Devi the first wife of Late Ramchandra Singh was alive and her
marriage with Late Ramchandra Singh was subsisting at the time of her husband’s alleged second marriage.
9. Mr. Rakesh Kumar in reply argued that the marriage between Late Ramchandra Singh and Smt. Gita
Devi took place with the consent of first wife as she could not give birth to any child through her wedlock. It is
contended that according to clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-III which is pari materia with the provisions under clause
9.3.2 of NCWA-VI which relates to provision for granting employment to dependents of the workman. It is
further argued that Smt. Gita Devi is entitled to an employment due to death of her husband and in case she is
not provided with the employment the adult son of Late Ramchandra Singh and Smt. Gita Devi should be
provided with employment according to the clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-VI.
10. I have considered the rival contentions in the backdrop of provisions laid down in NCWA-III and
NCWA-VI, related to providing employment to one dependent of workman who died while in service.
Admittedly Late Ramchandra Singh was a permanent employee of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and he died
in harness on 30.01.1992 at the age of 54 years. It is evident from the testimony of Smt. Gita Devi that she is the
second wife of Late Ramchandra Singh and Smt. Tukubala Devi, her elder sister, is the first wife. Under the
Hindu Marriage Act there can be no solemnization of valid second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife.
Therefore, the alleged marriage of Late Ramchandra Singh with Smt. Gita Devi was a marriage of convenience
and a nullity in the eye of law. Accordingly, the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is justified in
not providing employment to Smt. Gita Devi in the capacity of a second wife of Late Ramchandra Singh. The
claim of Smt. Gita Devi for her employment is therefore not tenable.
11. According to clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement -VI, as a means of securing social
security employment is to be provided to one dependent of the workman who died while in service. It is amply
clear and evident from the service record of Ramchandra Singh that he left behind one son and three daughters
through his second marriage. In the Affidavit-in-chief Smt. Gita Devi has deposed in 2003 that her son was
more than eighteen years of age and if the Management did not provide employment to her then her son may be
provided with employment as a dependent. The Workman Witness has been cross-examined on behalf of
Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited. It transpires from the cross-examination dated 28.01.2003 that after
six months from the date of death of her husband she applied for employment and that her name is also recorded
as wife in the Service record of Ramchandra Singh.
12. According to the section 16 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
“Not-withstanding that a marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who
would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born
before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or not a decree
126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be
void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.”
The aforesaid law therefore declares that even though a marriage is a void marriage, the children of such
marriage would be legitimate. Thus, the Management of ECL is duty bound to consider the case of Sri Subodh
Kumar Singh, the son of deceased employee Ram Chandra Singh, given birth by Smt. Gita Devi. Already the
Management of the Company and the Head Office has unnecessarily delayed the matter without complying the
norms of clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-III and has deprived the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased employee
in an unjust and illegal manner.
13. Learned advocate for the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited tried to controvert the claim and
argued that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the dependents of the workman in claiming
employment for the son of deceased workman. Mr. P. K. Das argued that no such application seeking
employment for the son of the deceased workman was made immediately after death of Ramchandra Singh.
Only the second claimed employment for herself at the first instance. Therefore, the claim for employment for
the son cannot be entertained at this stage. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative, in reply argued that the
Management of the Company from its official record was aware about the family composition of the deceased
employee and the fact that he has left behind a minor son, but at no point of time any employment was offered
to the son nor any monetary compensation was paid to the female dependent.
14.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the contents of the Schedule which raised the
question regarding providing employment to the son. It appears from the available documents that the
Management of Employer Company by letter Ref. No. PC/C-6/93-938 dated 11.05.1993 had informed Smt.
Gita Devi that her claim for employment in the capacity of second wife was not tenable. The company is
therefore liable to comply the other options to ensure social security to the family of the deceased employee.
Since the Reference case is pending and written statement filed by the dependent of the workman in December,
2001 laid a claim for employment for the son of Smt. Gita Devi, the Management Company had adequate an
effective notice regarding such claim. Delay on the part of the dependent of the deceased workman cannot
destroy the claim for compassionate appointment which has assumed the force of a contract through various
clauses of NCWA. In this context it is appropriate to rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and others; (2016) 9 SCC 195 observed that:
“where the rules framed by the Stated does not specify as to what should be done in the case the
dependents are minor and whether there should be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority
within the prescribed period for submitting application. The Court was of the opinion that as the widow
submitted application within the prescribed time period the authorities should have considered her application.
As eleven years passed she would not be in a position to join in a Government service. It is a fit case where the
son should have been considered in her place for appointment and the Court directed the authorities to
consider the application of the son to give him appointment.”
15.
In the instant case Smt. Gita Devi, second wife of Late Ramchandra Singh, who had
performed all her responsibilities as a wife and given birth to the children of Ramchandra Singh was of the
impression that she was entitled to claim a job in place of deceased Ramchandra Singh. Unfortunately, the law
of the land has restricted her claim of being a legally married wife and she was disqualified in getting an
employment in the capacity of wife. No provision was made for monetary compensation for the maintenance of
minor children. Two decades have passed but the dispute revolving around the claim for employment remained
unresolved. After attainment of majority of the son a plea was taken in the written statement filed by Smt. Gita
Devi that her son may be provided with employment. In my considered view the claim for employment for
the son has been raised by Smt. Gita Devi long back in the year 2001, after the minor son had attained major. It
is therefore, just appropriate and reasonable for the Employer Company of Eastern Coalfields Limited to
consider Subodh Kr. Singh for his employment under the Company as a dependent son of deceased employee,
Ramchandra Singh.
16.
The Reference case is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner, Smt. Gita Devi. An Award
is passed to the effect that Subodh Kumar Singh, her son, a dependent of Ram Chandra Singh, if found
otherwise eligible be offered an employment under M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited within one (1) month from
the date of Notification of the Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
The Reference case is disposed of in favour of the petitioner. An Award is passed to the effect that
Subodh Kumar Singh, the son, a dependent of Late Ramchandra Singh be offered an employment under M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited within one (1) month from the date of notification of the Award without any delay.
Let copies of the Award in duplicate be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government
of India for information and instruction.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
127
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 77.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 18/2017) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/114/2017-आई आर (सी.एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 77.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2023.
[No. L-22012/114/2017 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE No. 18 oF 2017
Parties : Ruplal Hari
Vs.
Management of Nimcha Colliery, Satgram Area, M/s. ECL.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, Learned Advocate.
For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
INDUSTRY : Coal. STATE :
West Bengal. Dated :
16.12.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/114/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 17.11.2017 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employers, that is the Management of Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to
its Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area in imposing a punishment of dismissal for his
unauthorized period from 25.03.2006 to 26.05.2006 i.e., for about 02 (two) months, on
Shri Ruplal Hari, U.G. Loader (UM No. 116562) is just and legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/114/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 17.11.2017 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 18 of 2017 was registered
128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on 28.11.2017 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of
witnesses. Both parties appear before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
2. The case is fixed up today for further order. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management and
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress are present. A copy of the Memorandum of
Settlement in Form-H dated 31.01.2019 is submitted along with copies of Office Orders. It appears from that
the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably in terms of settlement.
3. In view of such settlement and the terms and conditions laid down in the memorandum of Settlement
in Form-H dated 31.01.2019 Ruplal Hari, the dismissed employee has been reinstated in service in the initial
basic as General Mazdoor, Cat-I and the period from the date of dismissal till his re-instatement has been
treated as dies-non. The workman has not been allowed any back wages. In light of the above findings let an
Award of no dispute be passed treating the Memorandum of Settlement in Form-H a part of the Award.
Hence,
ORDER
The Reference case is disposed of in favour of the workman. A “No Dispute Award” be passed in
terms of Memorandum of Settlement dated 31.01.2019 in Form ‘H’ which is made a part of the Award. Let
copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi for information and necessary
action.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 78.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV(lanHkZ la[;k
46/2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/298/2007-आई आर (सी.एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 78.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2008) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2023.
[No. L-22012/298/2007 – IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
PRESENT: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol
REFERENCE CASE No. 46 oF 2008
Parties : Upendra Kumar Chouhan
Vs.
Management of B.M.P Group of Mines of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management :
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
129
For the Union/Workmen : Mr. R. K. Tripathi, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
INDUSTRY: Coal. STATE :
West Bengal. DATED: 22.12.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/298/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 31.07.2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employers, the Management of B.M.P. Group of Mines of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. ECL in regularising Shri Upendra
Kr. Chouhan w.e.f. 07.05.1997 in the post of Mining Sardar, Tech & Supv. Gr ‘C’
instead of promotion in the same post is legal and justified? To what relief, is the
workman concerned entitled? ”
1. After receiving Order L-22012/298/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 31.07.2008 of the aforesaid Reference
framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the industrial dispute
raised by the workman through Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol, a Reference case No. 46 of 2008 was
registered on 13.04.2009, and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing
them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and
a list of witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
2. The workman filed written statement on 24.11.2009 and Management filed the written statement on
23.08.2012. Upendra Kr. Chouhan adduced his evidence by filing an Affidavit-in-chief. He was re-examined on
recall on 25.11.2022 as some relevant documents were not admitted in evidence on earlier occasion. Workman
Witness-1 produced a copy of the Office Order dated 15.10.1996 by which the workman, a Timber Mazdoor
bearing No. 132244 of Patmohana Colliery, Sitarampur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited joined at
Kalidaspur Project of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on transfer as Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 15.10.1996. The
document has been marked as Exhibit Ext.W-1. Another copy of Office Order bearing No.
ECL/KDP/PO/WO/Per/97/3678 dated 29/30.07.1997 has been produced as Exhibit Ext.W-2 whereby, on
successful completion of training as Mining Sirdar he was regularised to the post of Mining Sirdar in Technical
and Supervisor Grade ‘C’ in the scale of Rs.1990-100-2790-110-3670 of NCWA-V w.e.f. 01.05.1997. The third
document produced by the workman is a copy of Office Order dated 07.06.1996 by which other workmen were
promoted to the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shotfirer in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‘C’ in the same pay
scale of Rs.1990-100-2790-110-3670 of NCWA-V w.e.f. different dates. The document has been marked as
Exhibit Ext.W-3.
3. In this case the Management Company has not adduced any evidence and no Management Witness is
examined even after granting ample opportunity. The counter case of the Management of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited which transpires from their written statement and their cross-examination of Workman
Witness -1 is that Upendra Kr. Chouhan was deployed as Mining Sirdar -cum- Shotfirer for a period of six (6)
months’ training with different of wages in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‘C’. After completion of six (6)
months
he
was
regularised
as
Mining
Sirdar
-cum-
Shotfirer
vide
Office
Order
No.
ECL/KDP/PO/WO/Per/97/3678 dated 30.07.1997 and thereafter, he was transferred to Bejdih Colliery of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited after his regularisation. The Management has contended that since he has been
regularised to the post of Mining Sirdar, the workman is not entitled to any promotion as it is to be considered
where his right to promotion accrues. Further contention of the Management is that a dispute has been raised in
the year 2005 after laps of nine (9) years. As such claim of promotion is not justified and he is not entitled to
any relief.
4. The Reference case which has been formulated for adjudication is whether the action of the
Management in regularising Upendra Kr. Chouhan w.e.f. 07.05.1997 in the post of Mining Sirdar in Technical
and Supervisor Grade ‘C’ is legal and justified. The dispute between the Management of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and the workman is in connection with the Employment and terms and conditions of employment
where his promotional benefits during fixation of pay has not been paid. Therefore, circumstances the question
appropriately qualifies itself as an Industrial Dispute under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
5. It is argued by Mr. R. K. Tripathi, Union representative of Koyala Mazdoor Congress that Upendra Kr.
Chouhan was transferred to Kalidaspur Project of Eastern Coalfields Limited on 15.10.1996. While working at
Kalidaspur Project he underwent a training as Mining Sirdar for six (6) months and passed the Sirdarship
examination, Gas Tester examination and First-Aid examination. He was thereafter been promoted as Mining
Sirdar in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‘C’ in the scale of Rs.1990-100-2790-110-3670 of NCWA-V w.e.f.
130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
01.05.1997, but he was not granted one increment benefit on his promotion. In support of his contention Mr. R.
K. Tripathi rested his argument on Exhibit Ext.W-4, which are two (2) Pay Slips of Upendra Kr. Chouhan for
the month of July, 1997 and August, 1997. It is argued that in July,1997 when his designation was Timber
Mazdoor his Gross Pay was rupees five thousand eighty-nine and twenty-one paise only (Rs.5,089.21/-) but
when he was posted as Mining Sirdar and the pay applicable to the promotional post was higher, his Gross pay
was rupees four thousand eight hundred ninety-eight and fifty-eight paise (Rs.4,898.58/-) which is less than the
pay in the lower rank. Mr. R. K. Tripathi argued that in case of promotion to a higher post, workman is entitled
to an increment at the time of fixation of his pay in the higher scale but no such benefit has been given to
Upendra Kr. Chouhan. The dispute was raised before the company at the official level but as there was no
fruitful result, he raised the Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Authority through the Union.
6. In response to the argument on behalf of the workman Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the
Management submitted that the workman received the difference of pay as he was temporarily posted as Mining
Sirdar and on his completion of training and passing of the examination, he was regularised to the post of
Mining Sirdar. It is argued that, since the difference of payment has already been made, the workman was not
entitled to any promotional increment.
7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and the evidence on record. Upendra
Kumar Chouhan was transferred to Kalidaspur Project of Eastern Coalfields Limited w.e.f. 15.10.1996 for the
purpose of functioning as Mining Sirdar though in fact he was a Timber Mazdoor. In Order dated 15.10.1996
(Exhibit Ext.W-1) it is clearly stated that Upendra Kr. Chouhan would be paid the difference of wages of
Technical and Supervisor Grade ‘C’ for a period of six (6) months from the date of joining at KOP. It is
therefore clear that while the workman was still Timber and had not passed his Sirdarship examination he had
been paid the different of wages which he would earned only on his promotion as Mining Sirdar. Office Order
dated 29/30.07.1997 (Exhibit Ext.W-2) issued in favour of the workman clearly states that Upendra Kr.
Chouhan, the workman on his successful completion of training as Mining Sirdar was regularised to the post of
Mining Sirdar under Technical and Supervisor Grade ‘C’ in the scale of Rs.1990-100-2790-110-3670 of
NCWA-V w.e.f. 01.05.1997 and his fixation will be done by the Finance department of Kalidaspur Project of
Eastern Coalfields Limited.
8. Since the workman on his completion of training was in fact promoted to the post of Mining Sirdar in
Technical and Supervisor Grade ‘C’, like all the other workman whose names appeared in the Office Order
dated 07.06.1996 (Exhibit Ext.W-3) he is not only entitled to the difference of pay w.e.f. August, 1997 but the
Finance Department of the Management Company was required to fix his pay according to the pay to
promotional scale of Rs.1990-100-2790-110-3670 of NCWA-V w.e.f. 01.05.1997, granting him the fixation
benefit. The Management of the Company is the custodian of all the documents has failed and neglected to
produce any documents to show that the workman availed fixation benefit of his promotion or fixation benefit
was granted to him in parity with other workmen promoted to the post of Mining Sirdar.
9. In such view of the matter, I find and hold that the Management by simply regularising Upendra Kr.
Chouhan to the post of Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 01.05.1997 without providing him the fixation benefit of promotion
in that scale is unjustified and not lawful. The Industrial Dispute in this Reference case is accordingly decided
in favour of the workman. An Award be drawn up in favour of the workman, directing the Management of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited to grant the benefit of pay fixation to Upendra Kr. Chouhan w.e.f. 01.05.1997 along
with his promotional increment appropriately maintaining parity with the other employees promoted to the same
grade. The Award shall be enforceable within one (1) month from the date of Notification.
Hence,
ORDERED
The Reference case is disposed of in favour of Upendra Kr. Chouhan. An Award be drawn up directing
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited to grant promotional increment to the said workman w.e.f. 01.05.1997 on his
being promoted to the post of Mining Sirdar in Technical and Supervisor Grade ‘C’. The dues be paid to the
workman within a month from the date of Notification of the Award. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be
communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 79.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
131
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la- 24/2002 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-01-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/326/2001-आई आर (सी.एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 79.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2023
[No. L-22012/326/2001–IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol
REFERENCE CASE No. 24 oF 2002
Parties : Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee
Vs.
Management of Ratibati (R) Colliery of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
For the Union/Workmen: Mr. Sayantan Mukherjee, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY :
Coal. STATE : West Bengal. DATED : 26.12.2022
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/326/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employers, the Management of Ratibati (R) Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of ECL Ratibati (R) Colliery in
treating the period from 1.7.97 (date of wrong superannuation) to 29.7.98 (date
of reinstatement) as dies non and non-payment of wages for the period to Sh.
Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled? ”
1. After receiving Order L-22012/326/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.2002 of the aforesaid Reference
framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the industrial dispute
raised by the workman through Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol, a Reference case No. 24 of 2002 was
registered on 13.08.2002, and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing
them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and
a list of witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
132 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The case was fixed up on 29.11.2022 for hearing of argument as last chance. Mr. P. K. Das, learned
advocate appeared for the Management. On repeated calls Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee, the workman as well as
his learned advocate were not found available. The case is pending since the year 2002. Evidence has been
adduced by the workman but Management did not adduce any evidence nor any document has been produced.
Opportunity was provided to the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited for adducing evidence, if any.
Mr. Kalyan Roy, Deputy Manager (Personnel), Ratibati Group of Mines under M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
was examined as Management Witness-1. Documents have been produced by him as Ext.M-I to Ext.M-IV.
None appeared on behalf of the workman to cross-examine the Management Witness. For appreciating evidence
in its proper context, a question was put to the witness by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the answer
given by him was recorded. The case was thereafter taken up for hearing of argument. In gist the case of the
workman is that the Management of Employer Company due to error in recording his date of birth has
superannuated him from service w.e.f. 01.07.1997 by issuing order dated 19.04.1997 (Exhibit Ext.M-1). After
considering his representation the Competent Authority correctly recorded his date of birth in Form ‘B’ as per
his Matriculation Certificate (Exhibit Ext.M-III), and permitted him to resume his duty on 29.07.1998. The
period of his absence from duty from 01.07.1997 to 28.07.1998 was treated as dies non and he did not receive
his wages during those thirteen (13) months and no terminal benefit was given to him on account of the period
of his absence from duty, including his Bonus and Provident Fund.
3. Though, opportunity was provided to the workman no one appeared on the date fixed for argument. I
have carefully considered the contents of the written statements filed by the workman and Management of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited. Also considered the evidence and available documents which have been admitted in
evidence. In the Affidavit-in-chief Bhajan Kumar alias Bhajan Chandra Mukherjee has himself stated that
some of the documents were marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-5. However, when the case came up for
consideration, I found that the said documents were not identified and were not admitted in evidence by the
Tribunal.
4. It transpires from the contents of the written statement filed on behalf of the workman is that Bhajan
Chandra Mukherjee joined the West Bengal Mining Company on 26.06.1957 and his date of birth was recorded
in the Form ‘B’ Register as 28.05.1939. After nationalization of the Coal Industry, new ‘B’ Form was prepared
in which date of birth of the workman was wrongly recorded as 1938. In this connection the workman raised
objection and he was called upon by Management of the Company for assessment of his age on 23.12.1986 at
02:00 PM at Satgram Area Hospital (A copy of Notice dated 19.12.1986 has been produced as Exhibit Ext.M-
II). The Assessment Committee verified the Certificate issued by Bihar Vidyalay Pariksha Samiti. The original
Matriculation Certificate was received by the Company for verification but ultimately the workman was forced
to superannuate from service w.e.f. 01.07.1997. He remained idle from 01.07.1997 to 28.07.1998 without any
wages or consequential benefits. The date of birth of the workman was not accepted by the Company until
29.07.1998. On 29.07.1998 the Dy. CME, Ratibati (R) Colliery, Eastern Coalfields Limited issued a letter
stating that the period of his idleness would be treated as “Dies Non”. He was permitted to join. The contention
of the workman is that he cannot suffer for no mistake on his part and urged that the Company shall indemnify
his loss.
5. The Management in their written statement admitted that Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee raised a dispute for
correction of his date of birth and M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited Head Quarters vide letter No. ECL/CMD/C-
6E/98/14/1040 dated 22.07.1998 (Exhibit Ext.M-III) intimated the decision of the Competent Authority for
correction of date of birth of the workman as 28.05.1939 as per his Matriculation Certificate and the workman
was allowed to join his duty w.e.f 29.07.1998. An Office Order in that regard was bearing No. RB /Agent
/Pers/0.0/98/787 dated 29.07.1998 was issued by Dy. C.M.E./ Agent, Ratibati (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited and specifically mentioned in the Office Order that the period of idleness of the workman
from the date of superannuation i.e. 01.07.1997 to 28.07.1998 shall be treated as dies non but continuity of his
service will be taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of Gratuity
6. Having considered the materials in record and evidence adduced by Management Witness-1, I find that
Exhibit Ext.M-II is a Notice dated 19.12.1986 addressed to Bhajan Mukherjee, directing him to appear before
the Assessing Committee on 23.12.1986 at Satgram Area Hospital along with Identity Card and other
documents in connection with his date of birth, if any. It appears that the dispute relating to age was raised by
the concerned workman not towards the end of his service carrier, but a decade earlier to his wrongful
superannuation. Exhibit Ext.M-IV reveals that a Superannuation Notice dated 24.04.1999 was issued and the
workman was informed that he has attained superannuation on 28.05.1999 according to the Rolls of ECL (CIL).
Exhibit Ext.M-III is a document filed by Management of the Company whereby, a letter dated 22.07.1998
addressed to the Chief Personnel Manager, Satgram Area, communicating that the Competent Authority has
been pleased to accorded approval for correction of Form ‘B’ age in respect of Bhajan Chandra Mukherjee, ex-
Clerk, Ratibati Colliery as per his matriculation Certificate wherein his date of birth is recorded as 28.05.1939
and also accorded approval to Bhajan Chandra Mukherjee to join his duty.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
133
7. It is undisputed that the date of birth of Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee, the workman is 28.05.1939 for
which the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited approved correction of age appearing in the Form
‘B’ in respect of Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee and also allowed him to join his duty. The claims raised by the
workman is put to rest on the findings of the Company that there was some mistake in date of birth recorded
by the Company in the ‘B’ Form Register. The workman cannot be subjected to suffering for the fault
committed in the Office of Management. I find that the error has been perceived in the year 1986 and
representation was made for correcting date of birth of Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee. However, the Company did
not consider the matter with seriousness and filed to arrive at any finding. Due to such inordinate delay the
workman had to suffer unemployment for thirteen (13) months and he was deprived of his wages and other
consequential reliefs during that period from 01.07.1997 to 28.07.1998. The Order of the Management
Company bearing No. RB/Agent/Pers/0.0/98/787 dated 29.07.1998 issued by Dy. C.M.E./ Agent, Ratibati (R)
Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited stating that “The period of his idleness i.e. from the date of his
superannuation 01.7.97 to 28.7.98 shall be treated as dies none” is unjustified and contrary to the facts and
circumstances of this case. Therefore, the Order to that extent is not tenable. There is no evidence on record to
show that the workman was employed at any other place from 01.07.1997 to 28.07.1998 for gain. The
Management Company is therefore liable to pay the back wages to Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee for the period
from 01.07.1997 to 28.07.1998 and all consequential dues for that period.
8. The Reference case is accordingly decided in favour of Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee. The Management
Company is directed to disburse his back wages for the period from 01.07.1997 to 28.07.1998 along with all
related dues within a period of one (1) month from date of Notification of the Award, failing which Award shall
be executable against the Company.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the Reference case is disposed of in favour of Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee. It is declared that the
Management of Ratibati (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is not justified in treating the period of
his absence from 01.07.1997 to 28.07.1998 (the period of his absence on account of wrongful superannuation)
as dies non and non-payment of his back wages for said period. The Company is directed to disburse the back
wages from 01.07.1997 to 28.07.1998 to Bhajan Kumar Mukherjee with all consequential reliefs within one (1)
month from the date of Notification of the Award. In the event of failure, the Award may be executed against
the Company. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and
Employment, Government of India for information and instruction.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 80.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार ददल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉर्पोरेशि गलगमटेड, िई ददल्ली; जे कुमार सीआरटीजी/डीएमआरसी बाराखंबा लेि िई
ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री राज कुमार, द्वारा महासगचि, कमाशील मजदूर संघर्ा यूगियि,
मुबारकर्पुर, िई ददल्ली ,के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2
िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 132/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/45/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 80.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 132/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi ;J, Kumar, CRTG/DMRC, Barakhamba Lane
New Delhi, and Shri Raj Kumar,Through, The General Secretary, Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
Mubarakpur, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/45/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No.132/2021
Sh. Raj Kumar , S/o Sh. Babu Ram,
Through , The General Secretary,
Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
A-31 Agar Enclave, Meetha Pani, Prem Nagar-III,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Somdarzar Road, Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110086.
…..Workman
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
DMRC Project , CC-24 Sarai Kale Khan ISBT,
Near RTO Office, New Delhi-110013.
2. J. Kumar CRTG /DMRC,
Barakhamba Lane NEw Delhi-110001
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. L-42011/45/2021- IR(DU) dated 30.07.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangharsh Union, New Delhi Vide letter dated
23.03.2021 demands withdrawal of workman (Sh. Rajkumar , S/o Sh. Babu Ram)
against J. Kumar CRTG under the management of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
project and payment of notice wages to what extent it is reasonable and justified, if
any, what relief should be given to the workman and from when.”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 81.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार ददल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉर्पोरेशि गलगमटेड, िई ददल्ली; जे कुमार सीआरटीजी/डीएमआरसी बाराखंबा लेि
िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री गशिशरण, द्वारा महासगचि, कमाशील मजदूर संघर्ा यूगियि,
मुबारकर्पुर, िई ददल्ली, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2
िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 134/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/44/2021-आई आर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
135
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 81.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 134/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi ;J, Kumar ,CRTG/DMRC, Barakhamba Lane
New Delhi, and Shri Shivsaran,Through , The General Secretary, Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
Mubarakpur, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/44/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No.134/2021
Sh. Shivsaran, S/o Sh. Ramphal,
Through , The General Secretary,
Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
A-31 Agar Enclave, Meetha Pani, Prem Nagar-III,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Somdarzar Road, Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110086.
…Workman
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
DMRC Project , CC-24 Sarai Kale Khan ISBT,
Near RTO Office, New Delhi-110013.
2. J. Kumar CRTG /DMRC,
Barakhamba Lane New Delhi-110001.
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. L-42011/44/2021- IR(DU) dated 02.08.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangharsh Union, New Delhi Vide letter dated 23.03.2021
demands withdrawal of workman (Sh. Shivsaran, S/o Sh. Ramphal) against J. Kumar
CRTG under the management of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation project and payment of
notice wages to what extent it is reasonable and justified, if any, what relief should be
given to the workman and from when.”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 82.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में,
केन्द्रीय सरकार ददल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉर्पोरेशि गलगमटेड, िई ददल्ली; जे कुमार, सीआरटीजी/डीएमआरसी, बाराखंबा
लेि िई ददल्ली ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री ज्ञािेश, द्वारा महासगचि, कमाशील मजदूर संघर्ा
यूगियि, मुबारकर्पुर, िई ददल्ली, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 141/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/46/2021- आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 82.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 141/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi ; J, Kumar, CRTG/DMRC, Barakhamba Lane New
Delhi, and Shri Gyanesh,Through, The General Secretary, Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union, Mubarakpur,
New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/46/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No. 141/2021
Sh. Gyanesh, S/o Sh. Banbari Lal,
Through , The General Secretary,
Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
A-31 Agar Enclave, Meetha Pani, Prem Nagar-III,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Somdarzar Road, Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110086.
….Workman
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
DMRC Project , CC-24 Sarai Kale Khan ISBT,
Near RTO Office, New Delhi-110013.
2. J. Kumar CRTG /DMRC,
Barakhamba Lane New Delhi-110001.
….
Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. L-42011/46/2021- IR(DU) dated 02.08.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangharsh Union, New Delhi Vide letter dated
23.03.2021 demands withdrawal of workman (Sh. Gyanesh, S/o Sh. Banbari Lal,)
against J. Kumar CRTG under the management of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
project and payment of notice wages to what extent it is reasonable and justified, if
any, what relief should be given to the workman and from when.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
137
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 83.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार ददल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉर्पोरेशि गलगमटेड, िई ददल्ली; जे कुमार, सीआरटीजी/डीएमआरसी ,बाराखंबा लेि
िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री भंिर डसंह िौर, द्वारा महासगचि, कमाशील मजदूर संघर्ा
यूगियि, मुबारकर्पुर, िई ददल्ली, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं.135/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/47/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 83.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 135/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi ;J, Kumar ,CRTG/DMRC, Barakhamba Lane New
Delhi, and Shri Bhanvar Singh Gour,Through , The General Secretary, Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
Mubarakpur, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/47/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present : Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No.135/2021
Sh. Bhanvar Singh Gour, S/o Shri Prahlad Singh Gour,
Through , The General Secretary,
Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
A-31 Agar Enclave, Meetha Pani, Prem Nagar-III,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Somdarzar Road, Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110086.
….Workman
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
DMRC Project , CC-24 Sarai Kale Khan ISBT,
Near RTO Office, New Delhi-110013.
2. J. Kumar CRTG /DMRC,
Barakhamba Lane New Delhi-110001
…. Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference no. L-
42011/47/2021- IR(DU) dated 02.08.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section
10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangharsh Union, New Delhi Vide letter dated
23.03.2021 demands withdrawal of workman (Sh. Bhanvar Singh Gour, S/o Shri
Prahlad Singh Gour) against J. Kumar CRTG under the management of Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation project and payment of notice wages to what extent it is
reasonable and justified, if any, what relief should be given to the workman and
from when.”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 84.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार एिसीसी, िािाजुाि कंस्ट्ट्रक्शि कंर्पिी गलगमटेड, दकदिई ििर, िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों
और श्रीमती शोभा, द्वारा महासगचि, समस्ट्त औद्योगिक श्रगमक गिकास संघ, स्ट्िरूर्प ििर, ददल्ली, के बीच अिुबंि में
गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 11/2021) को जैसा
दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-18-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 84.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to NCC, Nagarjun Construction Co. Ltd., Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, and Smt. Shobha, Through , The
General Secretary, Samast Odyogik Shramik Vikas Union, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-18-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
139
LCA CASE NO. 11/2021
Date of Passing Award- 08.12.2022
Between:
Smt. Shobha, W/o Late Shri Rajendra,
R/o- B-5069-113/14, Sant Nagar Buradi,
Kamal Pur, Mazra Buradi, Delhi-110084.
Through:- Shri Yashpal Singh Rawat,
General Secretary, Samast Odyogik Shramik Vikas Union,
D-198/1, Gali No. 01, Radha Kishan Mandir Marg,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi-110042.
…Claimant
VERSUS
NCC,
Nagarjun Construction Co. Ltd.,
Structure Type-06, & 07 Quarter, Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi-110023.
…Management
Appearances:-
Shri Rajender Singh
….For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Sanjay Sharma
……For the Management.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 33C(2) of the Id act by the claimant who had pleaded that her husband
late Rajender Singh was serving as a Field Assistant in the establishment of the management since 23.09.2005.
The management had illegally terminated his service w.e.f 28.04.2016. Being aggrieved he had raised industrial
dispute which was registered as Id Case No. 07/2017. This tribunal by order dated 26th March 2019 came to
hold that the termination of the service of the claimant is illegal and thus, directed reinstatement to service
alongwith 20% of the back wage within a period of 3 months from the date of the award. But unfortunately her
husband died on 28.06.2020. Hence, she has filed the present LCA claiming Rs. 1,26,149/- as per the award
passed in Id No. 07/2017. The management appeared and intimated that they are ready for the conciliation.
Accordingly several rounds of conciliation were held and during the National Lok Adalat held on 12.11.2022
the management paid the claim amount of Rs. 126149/- alongwith 63554/- towards gratuity as full and final
settlement of the claim. The claimant since accepted the same without objection this final order is being passed
and the application is accordingly disposed of. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for
notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 85.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार ददल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉर्पोरेशि गलगमटेड, िई ददल्ली; जे कुमार सीआरटीजी/डीएमआरसी बाराखंबा लेि
िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री हरेंर डसंह, द्वारा महासगचि, कमाशील मजदूर संघर्ा यूगियि,
मुबारकर्पुर, िई ददल्ली, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2
िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 145/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/67/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
140 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023
S.O. 85.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 145/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi ;J, Kumar ,CRTG/DMRC, Barakhamba Lane New
Delhi, and Shri Harender Singh,Through , The General Secretary, Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
Mubarakpur, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-42011/67/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No.145/2021
Sh. Harender Singh S/o Sh. Rammurat,
Through , The General Secretary,
Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangarsh union,
A-31 Agar Enclave, Meetha Pani, Prem Nagar-III,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Somdarzar Road, Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110086
…..Workman
Versus
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
DMRC Project , CC-24 Sarai Kale Khan ISBT,
Near RTO Office, New Delhi-110013.
2. J. Kumar CRTG /DMRC,
Barakhamba Lane New Delhi-110001
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. L-42011/67/2021- IR(DU) dated 02.08.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether Karmsheel Mazdoor Sangharsh Union, New Delhi Vide letter dated
23.03.2021 demands withdrawal of workman (Sh. Harender Singh S/o Sh.
Rammurat) against J. Kumar CRTG under the management of Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation project and payment of notice wages to what extent it is reasonable and
justified, if any, what relief should be given to the workman and from when.”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
141
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 86.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार ईआरएिईटी इंगडया, शास्त्री र्पाका, ददल्ली,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री देिेंर डसंह ि अन्द्य,
कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के
र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 40/2017) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-19-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 86.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to ERNET India, Shastri Park, Delhi, and Shri Devender Singh and others,Worker, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-19-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 40/2017
Date of Passing Award- 08.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Devender Singh and others S/o Shri Nain Singh,
R/o- H.No.M-338, Sewa Nagar,
New Delhi.
Claimant
Versus
ERNET India,
Block-I, A Wing,
5th floor, NMRC IT Park,
Shashtri Park, Delhi-110053.
…. Managements
Appearances:-
Claimant in person
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri L R Goel
For the Management.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is a reference received from the appropriate government to adjudicate if the claimant Devender
Singh and others as per the list Annexure-A of M/s ERNET India are entitled to the status of permanent
workman in the company and entitled to pay at par with regular employees. If so on what terms and condition
and date.
142 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
As stated in the claim petition all the claimants were appointed as messenger cum peon in the
establishment of the management on their names being sponsored by the employment exchange. They were
given appointment letter the claimants were demanding regularization of service and pay parity with the
permanent employees and several representations were given. When they could not redress their grievance they
raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner and conciliation was taken up. For the failure of the
conciliation the appropriate government referred the matter to this tribunal for adjudication.
The management filed written statement denying the stand taken by the claimants. It has been pleaded
that there exists no industrial dispute and the claim is not maintainable.
On these rival pleadings the following issues are framed for adjudication.
ISSUES
1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2. Whether the claimant is a workman u/s 2(s) of the Id Act and the claim advanced is an industrial dispute.
3. Whether the claimants are entitled to get permanent status.
4. To what relief the claimants are entitled to.
During the pendency and before recording of evidence both parties express their intention for
conciliation. After several rounds of conciliation the claimants examined as WW1, WW2, and WW3 gave their
statements stating that they have no grievance against the management and the claim has been settled. Thus,
during the Lok Adalat held on 12th November 2022 the conciliation was recorded and this award is passed.
Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of as the claimants have no dispute against the management in
respect of the claim. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under
section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 87.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार िरुण िुप्ता माकेटटंि मैिेजर, के.डी. कॉलोिी, िई ददल्ली; एंटाल्या एंटरप्राइजेज, द्वारा किाल गशराज िमाा
(मागलक), िोएडा (यू.र्पी), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और कगर्पल कुमार, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 198/2022) को जैसा
दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-20-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 87.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 198/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Varun Gupta Marketing Manager, K.D. Colony, New Delhi ; Antalya Enterprises,Through–Col.
Shiraj Verma (Proprietor), Noida (U.P. ), and Shri Kapil Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-20-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
143
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 198/2022
Date of Passing Award- 01.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Kapil Kumar, S/o Sh. Virendra Kumar,
R/o B–240/03, Krishna Kunj, Gali No-01,
North Ghonda, New Delhi–110053.
…Claiman
Versus
1.
Sh. Varun Gupta Marketing Manager,
IGL Bhawan, Plot No-704, Community Centre,
Sector –09, R.K. Puram, K.D. Colony, New Delhi–110022.
2.
Antalya Enterprises,
Through– Col. Shiraj Verma (Proprietor),
House No.1128, Sector –37,
Noida U.P. –201301.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Rahul Kumar
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Sarfaraz Ahmad
For the Management No. 1
(A/R)
Shri Shiraz Verma (Propreitor)
For the Management No. 2
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant against the management No.1 and 2 alleging illegal
termination of his service.
In the claim petition it has been stated that he was working in the premises of management No.1
through the service provider management No.2 for 13 years as a Technician. His last drawn wage per month
was Rs. 16286/-. The management was not extending the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc to the claimant despite
demand. No appointment letter or salary slip was even provided by the employer. Thus, the claimant was often
demanding those legitimate entitlements. The management instead of extending the benefit to him, on
30.11.2019 illegally terminated his service and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay,
or termination compensation was paid. The efforts made by the claimants for reinstatement and grant of
legitimate dues since failed he raised a dispute before the labour commissioner. But the management did not
respond to the same. The managements though appeared did not agree to the terms of conciliation. Thus, the
claimant filed the present claim petition praying reinstatement with back wages.
Notice being served the management No.1and 2 appeared. Before filing of the written statement steps
were taken for conciliation of the matter and the conciliation proceeding was held during the Lok Adalat held
on 12.11.2022. For the terms of conciliation the claimant agreed to withdraw the claim having no grievance for
the alleged illegal termination and gave a statement to that effect which has been recorded in a separate sheet
attached to this record.
The proceeding is disposed of on conciliation as the claimant has disowned the claim against both the
managements. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of for the no claim advanced by the claimant against the
managements in respect of the alleged illegal termination of service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
144 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 88.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार ईडी (ऑर्परेशि) डीएमआरसी, बाराखंभा रोड, िई ददल्ली; ठेकेदार, मैससा एिसीईएस, संिम गिहार,
िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री मो. दागिश और 2 अन्द्य, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण-सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 45/2019) को जैसा दक
अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-21-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 88.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The E.D (operation) DMRC, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi ;The Contractor, M/s NCES, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi, and Shri Mohd. Danish & 2 Others,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-21-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No. 45/2019
Mohd. Danish & 2 Others,
R/o House No. 877, Gali no. 30/5,
Zafrabad, Delhi-110053.
…Workman
Versus
1. The E.D (operation) DMRC,
Metro Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Contractor , M/s NCES, I -1704/21, Ground Floor,
Room No. 01-05, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi-110062.
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. L-42011/209/2018- IR(DU) dated 31.01.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Nuvisioin Commercial & Escort Services
(NCES) (Contractor)/ Delhi Metro Rail Corporatioin (DMRC) (Principal Employer) in
terminating the services of the workman Mohd. Danish, Firoz and Mohd. Javed w.e.f
08.02.2017 , 14.03.2017, 15.03.2017 respectively who were working on the post of Tom
Operator and posted at the Kashmiri Gate Metro Station is illegal and /or unjustified?
If yes, what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
145
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimants opted not to file the claim statement with the
Tribunal.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workmen as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption
lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimants union. Despite service of the
notice, claimants union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their
behalf. Thus, it is clear that the claimants are not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the claimants neither put their appearance nor led any evidence so as to prove their cause against
the managements, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 89.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महागिदेशक और मुख्य कायाकारी अगिकारी, राष्ट्रीय ड्रॉडर्पंि रोिी एजेंसी, युिा मामले और खेल मंत्रालय,
भारत सरकार, िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों श्री गििोद डसंह, द्वारा- श्री प्रदीर्प कु. शुक्ला (ए / आर),
लाजर्पत ििर-III, िई ददल्ली, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 214/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-22-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 89.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 214/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director General & Chief Executive Officer,National Anti-Droping Agency,Ministry of Youth
Affairs & Sports, Government of India, New Delhi, and Shri Vinod Singh, Through- Shri Pradeep Kr. Shukla
(A/R),Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-22-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 214/2021
Date of Passing Award- 07.12.2022
Between:
Sh. Vinod Singh, S/o Shri Jeet Singh,
R/o- 230/21G, Gali No. 07, Railway Colony,
Mandwali, New Delhi-110019.
146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Through- Shri Pradeep Kr. Shukla (A/R),
Office: 24, Basement, Feroze Gandhi Road,
Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024.
…Claimant
Versus
The Director General & Chief Executive Officer,
National Anti-Droping Agency,
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India,
Hall No. 103, 104, 1st Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
….Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Pradeep Kumar
For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Atul Bhardwaj
For the Management.
(A/R)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the claimant invoking the provisions of section 2A of the Id Act
alleging therein that he was appointed in the Post of Hindi Typist on 18.03.2019 in the establishment of the
management on a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-. This appointment was made after a typing test and oral
interview of several applicants. He was verbally informed at the time of appointment that his appointment is for
a temporary period of 3 years but he would be entitled to all the legal benefits at par with the regular employees
except regularization of service. But the management took a back foot in providing the legal benefits and this
prompted the claimant to raise the demand time and again. Though, the management as deducting certain
amount from the wage of the claimant on the pretext of depositing in PF and ESI, no deposit slip was ever
supplied. Being annoyed by the demands raised by the claimant, on 30.11.2019 his service was terminated
without assigning any reason which is much prior to the expiry of the contract period. At the time of termination
no notice, notice pay, or termination compensation was paid. Thus, he raised a dispute before the labour
commissioner where the conciliation took place but failed. On failure of conciliation the present claim was
filed.
Being noticed the management appeared and filed written statement denying the stand of the
claimant and also denied the employer and employee relationship. The stand of the management is that he was
engaged by M/s Grab Detective Security Service for Human Resources outsourcing service and the service was
terminated by the said contractor.
Before commencement of the hearing steps were taken for conciliation of the dispute. After several
rounds of conciliation the parties agreed to settle the dispute and accordingly the claimant gave a statement that
he has no due pending against the management and thus, he wants to withdraw the claim petition. In view of the
same during the Lok Adalat held on 12.11.2022 the claimant gave a statement to the effect that he wants to
withdraw the dispute on full satisfaction. In view of the statement given by the claimant this no dispute award is
passed. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The application be and the same is disposed of as the claimant has no dispute or grievance against the
management with regard to the alleged illegal termination of his service. Send a copy of this award to the
appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 90.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, भारत इलेक्ट्रॉगिक्स गलगमटेड, कोटद्वार, उत्तराखंड, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री
िीरेंर प्रकाश कोटिाला, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
147
न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 03/2013) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40011/22/2012-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 90.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager,Bharat Electronics Limited,Kotdwar, Uttarakhand , and Shri Dhirender
Prakash Kotnala,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16.12.2022.
[No. L-40011/22/2012 -IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 03/2013
Date of Passing Award- 01.11.2022
Between:
Shri Dhirender Prakash Kotnala,
Asst, Engineer,
C/P Bharat Electronics Ltd.
Kotdwar, Uttarakhand.
… Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Bharat Electronics Limited,
Kotdwar, Uttarakhand.
….Management
Appearances:-
Claimant in person ..…For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri K K Tyagi
…..For the Management
(A/R)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Bharat Electronics Limited, and its workman/claimant
herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947
vide letter No. L-40011/22/2012 (IR(DU) dated 21/01/2013 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following
effect.
“Whether the action of the Management BEL, Kotdwar of not inducting Shri
Dhirender Prakash Kotnala in wage group –VIII w. e. f. 01.06.1988 and thereby
depriving him from consequential benefits is justified? If not, what relief the
work man is entitled to”?
As stated in the claim petition, the claimant is working as an Asst engineer in the management and
posted at Kotdwar in the district of Podhi in Uttarakhand. His initial appointment was as a Diploma Engineer w.
148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
e. f. 01.06.1987. on the same day another group of Diploma Engineers were appointed in Ghaziabad unit of
BEL. The persons appointed in Ghaziabad as well as the claimant on successful completion of one year
probation were given appointment as Technical Assistant-II in the wage group of VII i.e.01.6.1988. After some
years the claimant and his counterparts in Ghaziabad came to know that they have been denied the appropriate
wage Band VIII, which is applicable to them according to the carrier plan applicable to the employees of BEL.
Thus the claimant and his counter parts in Ghaziabad made representations to their respective administrative
authorities, requesting to allow them pay scale of wage group VIII instead of Wage group VII, w.e.
f.01.06.1988. Whereas the representation made by the Technical Asst –II working in Ghaziabad was allowed by
the administrative head there, by an order dated 27.09.2002, but the representation of the claimant was not
considered. Not only that the Technical Assistant –II in Ghaziabad were given three promotions and up graded
to the wage group-X .but the claimant and similarly placed employees in Kotdwar were not granted the said
benefits. For the first time the carrier plan for the employees of BEL at was Kotdwar was made applicable with
effect from 01.07.1992 and in the said plan it was clearly mentioned that in respect of persons appointed prior to
01.07.1992, the carrier plan applicable to the employees of Ghaziabad would be applicable. But for the denial of
the management to extend the said benefit the claimant had suffered huge financial loss and carrier prospect. He
was raising his demand on repeated occasions, but the management never considered the same. Finding no other
way he raised an Industrial dispute before the labour commissioner, where attempt for conciliation was made.
The said effort since failed, the appropriate Govt. referred the matter for adjudication.
The management being noticed appeared and filed written statement refuting the claim of the claimant.
It took a stand that the claim is not maintainable for want of espousal. The maintainability has been challenged
on that the claim has been raised after a considerable delay and thus hit by the unreasonable delay. On the facts,
the management has stated that the BEL has nine units across India and each unit is run by the local
management. The said local management notifies the vacancies for engagement of trainees, which is purely on
the basis of the man power requirement of that unit. The unit of BEL in Kotdwara was inaugurated in the year
1987 and in the same year, requisition was sent to the local employment exchange for sponsoring the names of
eligible candidates for engagement as trainees in different Trades. In the offer letter given to the selected
candidates it was clearly mentioned that on successful completion of one year Training and on passing the final
gradation test, the successful Trainee shall, subject to availability of vacancy shall be appointed as Technical
Assistant II in the wage Group VII and in the pay scale of 715-24-955-26-1215. The claimant is one of such
Trainees in civil, who was offered the position of Technical Assistant-II with the aforementioned pay scale.
Thus, he, on two separate occasions had accepted the pay scale in the wage group VII and joined in the service
of the management. The claim raised by the claimant after 24 years of service is barred by limitation. More over
the nature of the claim is of general demand and in absence of espousal, the same cannot be treated as an
Industrial Dispute. Hence the claim is liable to be dismissed.
The claimant filed rejoinder reiterating the claim as stated in the claim petition demanding equal pay
for equal nature of work.
On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication.
ISSUES
1- Whether the claimant is a workman in terms of the definition given u/s 2(s)of The I D Act.
2- Whether the dispute is not an Industrial Dispute for want of Espousal.
3- Whether the Dispute is barred by Limitation
4- As in terms of Reference.
After framing of the issues the claimant was called upon to adduce evidence and prove the stand taken
in the claim petition. Despite several opportunities granted the claimant did not adduce evidence. Though the
affidavit to be read as evidence was filed the claimant did not tender the same and the right to adduce evidence
was closed. Similarly the Management opted not to adduce any evidence. Hence in absence of evidence
adduced by the claimant the reference is decided against the claimant. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The Reference is answered against the claimant and the no dispute award is passed. It is held that the
claimant is not entitled to the relief sought for. Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for
notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHNATY, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
149
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 91.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार अध्यक्ष, आमी र्पगललक स्ट्कूल, क्लेमेंट टाउि, देहरादूि ; संरक्षक, आमी र्पगललक स्ट्कूल, क्लेमेंट टाउि,
देहरादूि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री महेंर र्पाल डसंह खुरािा, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 27/2017) को जैसा
दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-14012/10/2017-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 91.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court -II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chairman,Army Public School, Clement Town, Dehradun ; The Patron,Army Public School,
Clement Town, Dehradun, and Shri Mahender Pal Singh Khurana, Worker, which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-14012/10/2017 -IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 27/2017
Date of Passing Award- 02.11.2022
Between:
Shri Mahender Pal Singh Khurana,
48, LIC, Phase-II, Indrapuram Colony,
GMS Road,
Dehradun
….Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Army Public School, Clement Town,
Dehradun.
2. The Patron,
Army Public School, Clement Town,
Dehradun
…. Management
Appearances:-
Shri Saurabh Rastogi …For the claimant
(A/R)
Shri Paras Sachdeva …For the Management
(A/R)
150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Army Public School Clement Town, and its
workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-14012/10/2017 (IR(DU) dated 24/07/2017 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the chairman, Army Public School, Clement Town,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand through letter No.1001/APS, dated 29/05/2015 in
terminating the services of Shri Mahendra Pal Singh Khurrana worked as
Accountant in the school is legal, fair and justified. If not than what remedies
lie with the workman Shri Mahendra Pal Singh Khurana and what relief he is
entitled to?”
As stated in the claim petition, the claimant, was initially appointed in the Army Public School,
Clement Town Derhadun , in the year 2007 as a Lower Division Clerk on a fixed term contract for three years
and by appointment letter dated 26.06.2007, he was asked to join his duty w. e. f. 03.07.2007 and accordingly
he joined. On 18.05 2008, he was appointed as the accountant and letter of appointment was issued.
Accordingly he joined as the accountant 18.05.2008 and his appointment was on fixed term basis for a period of
three years and the pay scale given to him was 4500-125-7000 with admissible DA, HRA and other allowances.
For his satisfactory performance, the said employment was again extended for a period of three years i.e upto
May 2014 on an increased consolidated salary of Rs10500/- per month. On completion of that term and at the
end of this three year period i.eon 24th May 2014, his service by appointment letter dated 24th May 2014, was
again extended for a further period of three years as per the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) Rules,
on consolidated salary of Rs 15,300/- per month. That fixed term appointment for three years was to be over on
29th May 2017. But suddenly, on 29.05.2015, the principal of the school called him and handed over the letter of
termination to his utter surprise. No reason was assigned for the harsh action taken in violation of the terms of
his appointment. This action against him was taken to adjust their own men and the termination amounts to
retrenchment. At the time of such retrenchment, no notice or notice pay was given to him. There was no
disciplinary or administrative action was pending against him at the time of termination. After that termination
the claimant visited the office of the respondent several time with a request for his reinstatement. But the
grievance of the claimant was not considered. Having no other efficacious remedy, he approached the labour
commissioner Derhadun. Though the respondent’s AR appeared and participated in the conciliation proceeding,
nothing fruitful could be achieved and the appropriate Govt. referred the matter for adjudication on the legality
of the Termination.
Notice was served on the Management who appeared through it’s counsel and filed written statement
denying and disputing the stand of the claimant. The admitted facts as per the written statement are that the
claimant was initially appointed as a lower division clerk in the Army Public School, Clement Town, Derhadun
and subsequently appointed as the Accountant (term based) purely on contractual basis. The said appointment
was renewed from time to time and the last appointment was vide appointment letter dated 29.05.2014. In the
agreement for appointment it was clearly mentioned that the Management reserves the right of terminating the
service by giving one month notice or one month pay in lieu of the notice. Similarly there was a clause that the
employee can resign from the service by giving one month notice or one month salary in lieu of the notice. At
the time of appointment the employee claimant had also furnished a certificate stating that he has read and
understood the revised Rule of Army Public School, where in it has been clearly stated that the employer can
terminate the service of the employee any time by giving one month notice or one month pay in lieu of the
notice. The renewal of the service of the claimant was subject to satisfactory performance. But prior to the
renewal and at the time of renewal, the claimant was fond not performing to the expected standard. Thus once
on 22.07.2013 and again on 05.11.2014, he was issued performance counseling letters. Even after that the
claimant did not improve his performance and the management being left with no other alternative, terminated
his service with effect from29.05.2015. At the time of such termination, one month pay in lieu of notice along
with all other legal entitlements were paid to the claimant and the same was received without protest. The post
which fell vacant for the termination of the claimant’s service was filled up by appointment of a new candidate
as the same was necessary to meet the day to day work of the school. The claimant raised a false and frivolous
claim before the labour commissioner and the Respondent placed all the materials supporting it’s stand before
the commissioner. Even then the matter was referred to this Tribunal. The Respondent has pleaded that the
claim based on mis led facts is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed by order dated 19.11.2018.
ISSUES
1- Whether the action taken by the Respondent in Terminating the service of the claimant /applicant is
illegal, improper and contrary to the provisions of law.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
151
2- whether the claimant is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages
3- To what other relief the parties are entitled to.
The claimant examined himself as WW1 and produced several documents which were marked in a
series of WW1/1 to WW1/6. These documents include all the appointment letters of the claimant starting from
his initial appointment in 2007, appointment in the post of accountant in the year 2008, the letter of termination
of service, a certificate of Merit issued in the year 2008 for the outstanding and meritorious service rendered
and another letter of recommendation. At the time of cross examination he was confronted with two of his
signatures given before the labour commissioner acknowledging receipt of Rs 32800/- from the principal of the
Army Public School Derhadun.
On the other hand the Respondent examined the Head Clerk of the School as MW 1, who proved the
document marked as MW1, which is the appointment letter of the claimant and contains a clause to the effect
that the Respondent reserves the right of terminating the service of the employee after giving one month notice
or one month pay in lieu f the notice. The witness also stated that respondent relies upon the documents marked
as WW1/M1 and WW1/M2, acknowledging receipt of the notice pay. Both the witnesses were cross examined
at length by their adversaries.
During course of argument the learned AR for the management submitted that the claimant was only a
fixed term contractual employee whose satisfactory performance was sine qua non for extension of the
contractual employment. The appointment was made and the appointment letter was issued in consonance with
the AWES Rules and Regulation issued in Sept 2011. The appointment letter was containing a clause in the line
of that Regulation according to which the employer reserves the right of Terminating the service of the
employee and the claimant a term based contractual employee, while accepting the offer of appointment, had
given a certificate that he read and understood the said clause properly. All these facts are admitted by the
claimant during cross examination and also proved from the documents filed. The performance of the claimant
was not satisfactory which is evident from the fact that on two separate occasions performance counseling
notices were issued to him. Photocopy of those notices was placed on record being marked as C and D. He thus
argued that no illegality was committed in terminating the service of the claimant who was an under performer
for years and all legal and financial dues have been received by him. Hence the claim petition is liable to be
dismissed.
The counter argument advanced by the claimant s that no departmental inquiry was ever initiated
against him nor he was called upon to reply to the performance counseling reports. Not only that, the notice pay
as claimed by the Respondent was paid after he raised a dispute before the labour commissioner. He received
the same under protest. One month pay was given by the respondent during the pendency of the dispute along
with his PF deposits. That was his salary for the duty done in the month of June 2015 and not the notice pay as
claimed by the respondent. The said fact is evident from the contents of the documents filed by the respondent
and marked as WW1/M1 and WW1/M2. It was also argued that the respondent without any valid reason and
without following the Regulation of AWES, terminated his service which amounts to unfair labour practice and
he is entitled to the relief sought for.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1
The admitted fact is that the claimant was appointed as a LDC from 3rd July 2007 to 11thMay 2008.
Thereafter he was appointed as the accountant on 19th May 2008 for three years and con completion of that
tenure he was appointed again on 26th May 2011 for another period of three years which ended on 25th May
2014. On completion of that tenure, he was re appointed as the accountant for another term of three years
commencing from 2nd June 2015. The appointment letter filed by the claimant and marked as WW1/4 clearly
shows that the appointment was contractual in nature and for a fixed term of three years. But on 29th May 2015,
his service was suddenly terminated which is evident from the letter of termination filed by the Respondent and
marked as E for identification. This fact is not disputed by the parties. But the explanation offered by the
respondent is that the claimant was an under performer and a continuance of the contractual appointment was
purely performance based. Hence by following the due procedure of law and abiding by the termination clause
mentioned in the appointment letter the order of Termination was passed. The claimant having knowledge of
the said Termination clause is precluded from challenging the same .to prove the under performance of the
claimant, the Respondent has placed on record two attested photocopies of the performance counseling letters
issued to the claimant on 22nd July 2013 and 05th Nov 2015. Those documents were marked as C and D
respectively for identification. The claimant, during cross examination admitted to have received the same. On
perusal of the contents of the said documents, those appear to be warnings given to the claimant for improving
his performance failing which disciplinary action may be taken against him. Admittedly no disciplinary action
was taken against the claimant at any point of time before his termination. More surprisingly, though the first
the first performance counseling letter was served on the claimant on 22nd July 2013, he was reappointed on 2nd
152 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
June 2014. If at all he was found to be an under performer, the respondent had the opportunity of weeding out
him at that stage. Instead, he was reappointed, which leads to a conclusion that at the time of reappointment the
respondent had no grievance with regard to the performance of the claimant. Similarly after issue of the 2nd
performance counseling letter dated 5th Nov 2015 and termination dated 29th May 2015, no departmental inquiry
was held nor ay show cause notice or explanation for the underperformance was called for. This leads to a
conclusion that the performance counseling letters were issued to the claimant a contractual employee as a
matter of routine.
The management has pleaded and adduced documentary evidence to prove that in the letter of
appointment there was a clause that the management reserves the right of terminating the service of the
employee at any time by giving one month notice or one month pay in lieu of the notice. The claimant has
admitted during cross examination that he had knowledge about the same. As discussed in the preceding
paragraph, the respondent had not given any termination notice to the claimant. Though it has been stated that
one month pay was paid in lieu of the notice no evidence to that effect is available on record. Though it has
been argued that the notice pay was paid before the labour commissioner, no proof to that effect has been placed
on record. The document filed by the respondent as Annexure H along with the WS appears to be the
calculation with regard to the final settlement of his dues during termination. This document bears the date 26th
Aug 2015. But in this document there is no indication that one month pay as against the notice was paid. It
shows payment of duty pay for the month of June 2015 as the claimant’s service was terminated on 29th June
2015. The claimant had accepted the same on 14.09.2015. Though the document marked as WW1/M2,
confronted and admitted by the claimant during cross examination contains the observation of the Labour
commissioner that the management pleads about payment of notice pay, there is no observation in the said
proceeding that the claimant admitted receipt of the same, In absence of any document of receipt of the said
amount, the stand of the claimant with regard to nonpayment of termination compensation appears convincing.
The other argument of the respondent emphasizes the termination clause in the appointment letter. But
that clause does not confer an unfettered right on the employer for exercise of the discretion. Right of discretion
is always associated with the duty of reasoning and diligence. In the case of VedPrakash vs. Apparel Training
and Design, decided on 10th Feb 2021, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi have held that the management is
permitted to pick and choose to terminate the service of an employee on the pretext of Termination clause. It is
to be exercised cautiously, following the principle laid down under law and extra precaution is to be observed
when the post is not abolished. In the WS, management has admitted about the continuance of the post in which
the claimant was working and that a new person has been appointed in the place of the claimant to meet the
work. Thus on consideration of the evidence adduced by both the parties, it appears that the management/
respondent without any valid reason and in violation of the Regulation of AWS, Terminated the service of the
claimant with effect from 29th May 2015, though the post against which he was working has not been abolished
and while doing so the provisions of ID Act were not followed as no notice on notice pay for termination was
paid. The amount equivalent on month salary paid is the duty pay paid to him. The pled taken by the
Respondent with regard to the under performance of the claimant is not accepted considering the fact that the
performance counseling letter communicated to the claimant was never followed by any departmental action.
Rather, he was re appointed after issue of that letter. Had the claimant been an under performer, the Respondent
would have certainly thought of not re appointing him at that point of time. The action of the Respondent
amounts to unfair labour practice and this issue is decided in favour of the claimant and it is held that the
termination of the service of the claimant is illegal.
ISSUE No. 2 & 3
In view of the finding reached while deciding issue no 1, it is held that the claimant is entitled to
reinstatement for the illegal Termination of his service as the post in which he is working still exists. But the
evidence adduced by the claimant reveals that he has attained the age of superannuation i.e .sixty years in the
meantime. Hence his reinstatement with full back wages for the remaining period of the contractual
employment would not be in the interest of justice. Hence it is felt proper to direct the management to
compensate the claimant suitably for the unfair labour practice adopted by the management in terminating his
service. These two issues are accordingly answered in favour of the claimant. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The Reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimant. It is held that the service of the
claimant was illegally terminated by the Respondent/ Management w. e. f. 29th June 2015, though his contract
of service was subsisting for 24 months more. Considering the said period, it is directed that the management
shall compensate the claimant by paying Rs 4 Lakh which could have been earned by him as salary, Rs 17,300
as notice pay and Rs 1 lakh as litigation expenses with interest @ 3% per annum from the date of termination
and till the actual payment is made. The Management is directed to pay the amount as stated above, to the
claimant within one month from the date of publication of this award, failing which, the amount stated above
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
153
shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of accrual and till the actual payment is made. Send a copy
of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 92.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मुख्य सुरक्षा अगिकारी, अगखल भारतीय आयुर्िाज्ञाि संस्ट्थाि (एम्स), िई ददल्ली; बॉम्बे इंटेगलजेंस सर्िासेज
इंगडया गलगमटेड, िेहरू प्लेस, िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री रमाकांत शुक्ला, कामिार, के
बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा
सं. 194/2020) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट
कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-23-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 92.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 194/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief Security Officer,All India Institute of Medical Science (A.I.I.M.S), New Delhi ; Bombay
Intelligence Services India Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi, and Shri Ramakant Shukla,Worker, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-23-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No. 194/2020
Shri Ramakant Shukla, S/o Shri Raju Press Wala,
TA -57, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
….Workman
Versus
1. The Chief Security Officer,
All India Institute of Medical Science (A.I.I.M.S)
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029.
2. Bombay Intelligence Services India Ltd.,
B-295, C.R Park, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide file
No. ND. 96(16)2020-ID-FOC-DY-CLC dated 21.12.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the services of the workmen Sh. Ramakant Shukla has been terminated
illegally and unjustifiably by the managements or he has abandoned the job and to what
relief are the said workmen entitled and what direction are necessary in this regard ?”
154 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant opted not to file the claim statement.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 93.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार चीफ र्पोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर जिरल (सीर्पीएमजी), ददल्ली सर्काल डाक गिभाि, ददल्ली, झंडेिालाि, िई ददल्ली; डाक
गिभाि, ददल्ली, एर्पीटीएमओ, िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री अशोक कुमार िमाा और श्री लि
कुमार डसंह,द्वारा-औद्योगिक श्रगमक संघ, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण-
सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं.130/2020) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को
प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-40011/11/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 93.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 130/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief Post Master General (CPMG).Delhi Circle Department of Post, Delhi, Jhandewalan, New
Delhi ; Department of post, Delhi, A.P.T.M.O, New Delhi, and Shri Ashok Kumar Verma & Sh. Lava Kumar
Singh,Through, Industrial Worker Union, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-40011/11/2020-IR (DU)]
D. K HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No. 130/2020
Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma & Sh. Lava Kumar Singh,
Through, Industrial Worker Union Office,
RZ-16, C/7 Upper Floor, Gali No. 03 Main Sagarpur,
New Delhi-110046.
….Workman
Versus
1. The Chief Post Master General (CPMG).
Delhi Circle Department of Post, Delhi,
Meghdoot Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Link Road,
Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055.
2. Department of post, Delhi,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
155
A.P.T.M.O, AM. P.C Complex, New Delhi-110017
….
Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference no. L-
40011/11/2020- IR(DU) dated 29.07.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section
10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the termination of the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Verma and Lava
Kumar Singh by the management of the Department of Posts, Delhi as raised by
them vide letter dated October, 2018 is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what
reliefs are they entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in this respec?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimants opted not to file the claim statement with the
Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimants union. Despite service of the notice,
claimants union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf.
Thus, it is clear that the claimants are not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the claimants neither put their appearance nor led any evidence so as to prove their cause against
the managements, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 94.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार श्री रमि िोयल जेजीएम (ऑर्परेशि), ददल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉर्पोरेशि गलगमटेड, िई ददल्ली; श्री डडंर्पल,
प्रोर्पराइटर, न्द्यूगिज़ि कमर्शायल एंड एस्ट्कॉटा सर्िासेज (एिसीईएस), िुड़िांि, (हररयाणा), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
गियोजकों और श्री मो. शकील, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण-सह- श्रम
न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 173/2020) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत
करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-25-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 94.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 173/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Shri Raman Goel JGM (Operation),Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi ; Shri Dimple,
proprietor, Nuvision Commercial & Escort Services (NCES), Gurgaon,(Haryana), and Shri Mohd. Shakeel,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-25-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
156 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No. 173/2020
Sh. Mohd. Shakeel, s/o Shri Abdul Mazeed,
R/o D-66, Sarai Peeple Thala, Adarsh Nagar,
New Delhi-110033
….Workman
Versus
1. Shri Raman Goel JGM (Operation),
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Shri Dimple, proprietor,
Nuvision Commercial & Escort Services (NCES),
SCO-16, 17, 18 Shiv Narain Complex, Sikanderpur Ghosi,
(Adjacent to City Court) Tehsil and District Gurgaon,
Haryana-122002
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide file
No. ND. 96(07)2020-ID-FOC-DY-CLC(C) New Delhi, dated 31.07.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the services of the workman Sh. Mohad. Shakeel S/o Sh. Abdul Mazeed,
who was working as ‘Tom Operator’, with DMRC through M/s New Vision
Commercial and Escort Service (NCES) was terminated in an illegal and unjustified
manner “ If yes, then what relief the workman Mohd. Shakeel S/o Shri Sh. Abdul
Mazeed is entitled to?”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither
the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal
that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in
favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 95.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
मुख्य अगभयंता, एमईएस, बरेली जोि, बरेली कैंट, उत्तर प्रदेश; कमांडर िक्सा इंजीगियर, एमईएस, देहरादूि;
िैरीसि इंजीगियर, एमईएस, देहरादूि कैंट, देहरादूि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री िोर्पी चंद, कामिार,
के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली र्पंचाट(संदभा
संख्या 108/2020) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी
के साथ 16.12.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-26-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
157
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 95.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation The Chief Engineer, MES,Bareilly Zone, Bareilly Cantt, Uttar Pradesh ;The Commander Works
Engineer, MES, Dehradun ; Garrison Engineer, MES,Dehradun Cantt, Dehradun, and Shri Gopi Chand,Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-26-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No.108/2020
Shri Gopi Chand,
76, New Basti, Chander Road (Rajesh colony),
P.O Dalanwala, Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248001.
….Workman
Versus
1. The Chief Engineer, MES,
Bareilly Zone, Bareilly Cantt, Uttar Pradesh -243001.
2. The Commander Works Engineer, MES,
Mall Road Dehradun Cantt, Dehradun-248003.
3. Garrison Engineer, MES,
Dehradun Cantt, Dehradun-248003.
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference
No. D-837/A/2020/08/IRDDN Dy. CLC (C) Dehradun, dated 04.03.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the action of terminating the services of Sh. Gopi Chand, who was engaged
for performing the job of fitter from June, 1971, by the management of MES,
Dehradun is legal, fair and justified?”
Whether the workman is entitled for regularization /reinstatement of their service in
the said Estb.? If not, what relief/ remedies, the concerned workmen are entitled to ?”
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither
the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that
postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of
the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to
abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the
workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 96.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार भारतीय सांगख्यकी संस्ट्थाि, कुतुब इंस्ट्टीट्यूशिल एररया, िई ददल्ली; दीर्पक गिलबर सुरक्षा एजेंसी, द्वारका,
िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री सुभार् यादि, कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय
सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण-सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 िई ददल्ली के र्पंचाट (संदभा सं. 175/2020) को जैसा दक
अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16.12.2022 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-24-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th January, 2023
S.O. 96.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 175/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Indian Statistical Institute,Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi ; Deepak Chibber Security Agency,
Dwarka ,New Delhi, and Shri Subhash Yadav, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award
by the Central Government on 16.12.2022.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-24-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY
ID. No.175/2020
Shri Subhash Yadav,
R/o Village-Nandgaon, District –Bhivani,
Haryana-127021
….Workman.
Versus
3. Indian Statistical Institute,
7, Shid Jeet Singh Marg, B-Block,
Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016.
4. Deepak Chibber Security Agency,
272, plot No. 11, Sector-7, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
….Managements.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide file no. ND.
96(06)2020-ID-FOC-DY-CLC(C) New Delhi, dated 31.07.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the services of the workman Sh. Subhash Yadav, Ex-Havaldar, has
been terminated illegally and /or unjustifiably by the managements (M/s
Deepak Chibber Security Agency) and if yes to what relief is he entitled and
what directions are necessary in this regard ?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, claimant union opted not to file the claim statement.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
159
5. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.
Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the
Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies
in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant
opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that
the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
6. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, for publication.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 97.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार द्वारा र्पररयोजिा प्रबंिक, मैससा सेंट्रल गसल्िर प्लांट, खादी ग्राम एिं उद्योि आयोि, रायबरेली,; द्वारा
प्रबंिक गिदेशक, सेंट्रल स्ट्लाइिर प्लांट, खादी ग्राम एिं उद्योि आयोि, रायबरेली; मैससा ललैक हाउंड गसक्योररटी
सर्िासेज (र्पी) गलगमटेड – झांसी; द्वारा प्रबंिक,मैससा मासा िेटिका गसक्यूररटी सर्िासेज, कािर्पुर, प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जनयोिकों श्री आजाद कुमार, कामिार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je
U;k;ky;] लखिऊ के द्वारा पंचाट (संिभग सं. 42/2012) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकाजित
करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16/01/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-27- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2023
S.O. 97.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s Central Sliver Plant, Khadi Village & Industries Commission, Raibareli, through -Project Manager ;
Project Manager, Central Sliver Plant, Khadi Village & Industries Commission, Raibareli ; M/s Black Hound
Security Servies (P) Ltd – Jhansi through - Managing Director ; M/s Mars Network Security Services , Kanpur
through - Manager. and Azad Kumar ,Worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 16/01/2023.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-27- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 42/2012
Between
Azad Kumar S/o Sri Chhotey Lal
R/o Vilage-Devanand Peer, Deeh
PO-Ratapur Chauraha Distt. – Raibareli
AND
1. M/s Central Sliver Plant, Khadi Village & Industries Commission
Amawan Road, Raibareli, through its Project Manager
160 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Project Manager, Central Sliver Plant, Khadi Village &
Industries Commission, Amawan Road, Raibareli
1. M/s Black Hound Security Servi es (P) Ltd – 61, Sadar Bazar
Jhansi through its Managing Director
2. M/s Mars Network Security Services head office at 435,
Lakhnpur, Vikas Nagar, Distt – Kanpur through its Manager.
AWARD
The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman, Upendra Nath Tiwari before this
Tribunal for adjudication as per provisions section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 42/2012 has been registered on 16.03.2012.
From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that after exchange of pleadings by an
order dated 24.02.2016 the mater was fixed for filing of workman’s evidence; however, when the workman did
not file its oral evidence in spite of several opportunities, his opportunity to file evidence was closed vide order
dated 27.10.2020 and management was afforded an opportunity to file its evidence on affidavit. The
management also did not file any evidence.
From the perusal of sheets, it appears that neither workman nor his authorized representative has
appeared to press the case on behalf of the claimant since 05.05.2021.
Accordingly, after hearing Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, learned authorized representative of the opposite
parties and taking into consideration the facts the position which emerges out is that as no oral/documentary
evidence has been filed on behalf of the claimant to support his claim, as such, the adjudication case is liable to
be dismissed.
Taking into consideration the above said facts as well as the law laid by Hon’ble High Court in the
case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to
prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the
Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination
of service if is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out
grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If
the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be
entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held
as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit
Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P.
and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in
the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be
answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the
employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no
evidence is led.”
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v.
Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519 has held as under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the
shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead
evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any
evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the
reference has to be dismissed.”
Thus, taking into consideration the facts on record that in the present case the workman has not filed any
oral/documentary evidence in support of his claim, so the same is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
161
नई दिल्ली, 18 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 98.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
प्रबंिन, गैरीसन इंिीजनयसग (ई/एम), लखनऊ; प्रबंिन, मेससग उन्नजत इंिीजनयसग, लखनऊ, प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जनयोिकों श्री जविय, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
लखनऊ द्वारा पंचाट (संिभग सं. 58/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16/01/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-14012/16/2017- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2023
S.O. 98.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum
Labour Court– Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Management, Garrison Engineers (E/M),Lucknow ;The management, M/s Unnati Engineers, Lucknow
and Shri Vijay ,Worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
16/01/2023.
[No. L-14012/16/2017- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Hjs (Retd.)
I. D. No. 58/2019
REF. NO. L-14012/16/2017-IR(DU) DATED: 29/10/2018
Between
Sh. Vijay S/o Sh Ram Prasad
Village – Udwatkheda, Post – Mohanlal Ganj
Lucknow – 226301
AND
1. The Management
Garrison Engineers (E/M)
Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Lucknow – 226002
2. The management
M/s Unnati Engineers
Usman Enclave, Sector-O, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226024
AWARD
1. By order No. L-14012/16/2017-IR(DU) dated: 29/10/2018 the 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
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 GARRISON ENGINEERS (PRINCIPAL
EMPLOYER) & THEIR CONTRACTOR M/S UNNATI ENGINEERS IN
TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SH VIJAY, EMPLOYED AS HELPER
STATED TO BE SINCE 2006 TILL 08.09.2015, IS FAIR, JUST & LEGAL? IF
NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF IS THE WORKMAN ENTITLED TO & TO WHAT
EXTENT?”
162 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The order of reference was endorsed to Sh. Vijay S/o Sh Ram Prasad, Village –
Udwatkheda, Post – Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow with direction to the party raising the dispute to file the
statement of claim along with relevant documents, list of reliance 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 for filing the statement of claim with list of documents &
list of witnesses on 24.10.2019. On the date fixed i.e. 24.10.2019 none turned up on behalf of the workman;
however, the opposite party No. 01 put up its appearance. Next date 08.01.2020 was fixed for filing of
statement of claim. The workman remained absent on 08.01.2020. Fresh notice was issued to the workman
fixing 18.03.2020 to file statement of claim but workman remained absent on 18.03.2020 and on subsequent
date i.e. 17.06.2020; and from the track record of the notice sent to the workman, it was evident that the notice
issued to the workman had been delivered to him. Accordingly, the service of notice was presumed sufficient
vide order dated 27.11.2020; however, in the interest of justice, another date was given for filing of statement
of claim. The workman remained absent on 27.11.2020, 22.01.2021, 26.02.2021, 18.05.2021, 14.07.2021,
30.12.2021, 11.02.2022 and 18.02.2022. The workman neither turned up on any of the aforementioned dates
nor moved any application or adjournment seeking time to file the statement of claim. More than two years’
time has passed and the workman has failed to file his statement of claim, therefore, the case was reserved for
award keeping in view the reluctance of the workman to prosecute the case.
5.
In the above circumstances, it appears that the workman does not want to pursue his claim
on the basis of which the present industrial dispute has been raised; therefore, the present reference order is
decided as if there is no grievance left with the workman. Resultantly no relief is required to be given to the
workman concerned. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 िनवरी, 2023
का. आ. 99.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंिक, डहंदुस्ट्ताि एयरोिॉरटक्स गलगमटेड, लखिऊ; मैससा शाह बिू, द्वारा श्री योिेंर प्रसाद शाह,
स्ट्िच्िता ठेकेदार, कािर्पुर; मैससा ग्रुर्प-4 फैगसगलटीज सर्िास, द्वारा श्री ििल कर्पूर, गिदेशक कार्माक, लखिऊ,
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों श्री आजाद कुमार, कामिार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] लखिऊ के द्वारा पंचाट (संिभग सं. 81/2011) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया
है, को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉर्पी के साथ 16/01/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था I
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-28- आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2023
S.O. 99.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The General Manager,Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow ; M/s Shah Badhu, through Shri Yogendra
Prasad Shah, Sanitation Contractor, Kanpur ; M/s Group– 4 Facilities Service, through Shri Nawal Kapoor,
Director Personnel, Lucknow. and Azad Kumar, Worker which was received along with soft copy of the award
by the Central Government on 16/01/2023.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-28- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXRURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
163
I.D. No. 81/2011
Between:
Jagannath, s/o Sri Munna
R/o Ismailganj, PO-Chinhat
Faizabad Road, Lucknow.
AND
1. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division, Lucknow
Through its General Manager.
2. General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
3. M/s Shah Badhu, through Sri Yogendra Prasad Shah Sanitation Contractor,
504, Viman Nagar, G.T. Road, Harjendra Nagar, Kanpur.
4. M/s Group – 4 Facilities Service, through Sri Nawal Kapoor
Director Personnel, 1/97, Vidyut Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
AWARD
The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman, Upendra Nath Tiwari before this
Tribunal for adjudication as per provisions section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 81/2011 has been registered on 20.05.2011.
From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that after exchange of pleadings by an
order dated 19.02.2020 the matter was fixed for filing of workman’s evidence; however, when the workman did
not file its oral evidence in spite of several opportunities, his opportunity to file evidence was closed vide order
dated 03.02.2021 and management was afforded an opportunity to file its evidence on affidavit. The
management also did not file any evidence.
From the perusal of sheets, it appears that neither workman nor his authorized representative has
appeared to press the case on behalf of the claimant since 19.02.2020.
Accordingly, after hearing Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, learned authorized representative of the opposite
parties and taking into consideration the facts the position which emerges out is that as no oral/documentary
evidence has been filed on behalf of the claimant to support his claim, as such, the adjudication case is liable to
be dismissed.
Taking into consideration the above said facts as well as the law laid by Hon’ble High Court in the
case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must
fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is
imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which
the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to
appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government
cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co.
Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors.
1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of
any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court
against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at
all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making
the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v.
Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519 has held as under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders
of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first
164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or
documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
Thus, taking into consideration the facts on record that in the present case the workman has not filed
any oral/documentary evidence in support of his claim, so the same is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 100.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सि-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- 35/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2022 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/23/2019-आई आर (सी
एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/12/2022.
[No. L-23012/23/2019– IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 35/2019
Registered on:-18.06.2019
Basakhu Ram S/o Shri Nand Lal,
Villager & PO Kannaid, Tehsil Sudner Nagar,
Distt Mandi (HP) – 175001 .. …Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018. ....Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:- 16.11.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/23/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 28.05.2019, under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred
the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
165
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of
Basakhu Ram S/o Shri Nand Lal for deeming/Considering him in continuous
service upto age of superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential
benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to and from which date?”
1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial
Dispute for adjudication also directed the following:-
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of
this order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite
parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules,
1957”.
2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the
directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman
and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred
above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as
undelivered.
2. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite
of several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the matter on merit.
3. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No. 35/2019.
4. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act
for publication.
J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का. आ. 101.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k -सि-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 53/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2022 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/41/2019-आई आर (सी. एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.53/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/12/2022
[No. L-23012/41/2019– IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 53/2019
166 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Registered on:-09.08.2019
Shri Passing Jalbo S/o Shri Tundol,
Village & Po Pandoh,
Tehsil Sadar & Distt. Mandi (HP) – 175001
…Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018 ….Respondents/Managements
Award
Passed On:- 16.11.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/41/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 24.07.2019, under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred
the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of
Shri Passing Jalbo S/o Shri Tundal for declaring his retrenchment/termination as
illegal and considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation
resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not,
to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?”
1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial
Dispute for adjudication also directed the following:-
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of
this order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite
parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules,
1957”.
2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the
directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman
and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred
above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as
undelivered.
3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite
of several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the matter on merit.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.53/2019.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the
Act for publication.
J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ.102.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सि-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la- 54/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/64/2019-आई आर (सी.एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
167
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/12/2022
[No. L-23012/64/2019– IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 54/2019
Registered on:-09.08.2019
Shri Barfu Ram S/o Shri Kirpu Ram C/o Shri Munish Kumar
S/o Shri Dharam Dass Vill-Bajoura, Po. Bhukkar,
Tehsil – Bhoranj Distt- Hamirpur (HP) – 176045
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018 …..Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:- 16.11.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/64/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 25.07.2019, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has
referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether demand of Shri Barfu Ram S/o Shri Kirpu Ram of reinstatement in the
management of BBMB is legal, just and valid. If yes, then, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial Dispute
for adjudication also directed the following:-
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of
this order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite
parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules,
1957”.
2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period.
Despite the directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided
to the workman and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well
as to the respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the
workman, referred above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has
not been received back as undelivered.
3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up
in spite of several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not
interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove
his cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to
pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID
No.54/2019.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of
the Act for publication.
J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 103.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- 55/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2022 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/65/2019-आई आर (सी.एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/12/2022.
[No. L-23012/65/2019-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 55/2019
Registered on:-09.08.2019
Shri Brest Singh Alias Brestu Ram S/o Twaroo Ram
C/o Shri Munish Kumar
S/o Shri Dharam Dass R/o Vill-Bajoura,
Po-Bhukkar Tehsil-Bhoranj
Distt-Hamirpur (HP)-176045
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018 ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:- 16.11.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/65/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 25.07.2019, under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred
the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
169
“Whether demand of Shri Brest Singh Alias Brestu Ram S/o Shri Twraoo Ram of
reinstatement in the management of BBMB is legal, just and valid. If yes, then, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial
Dispute for adjudication also directed the following:-
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant documents,
list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of
reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite parties involved in
this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.
2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the
directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman
and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred
above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as
undelivered.
3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the matter on merit.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.55/2019.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act
for publication.
J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 104.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सि-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 56/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2022 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/72/2019-आई आर (सी. एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/12/2022.
[No. L-23012/72/2019– IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 56/2019
Registered on:-09.08.2019
Shri Sunder Ram S/o Shri Lokha Ram
C/o Shri Munish Kumar
170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S/o Shri Dharam Dass R/o Vill-Bajoura,
Po-Bhukkar Tehsil-Bhiranj Distt-Hamirpur (HP) – 176045
…Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. …..Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:- 16.11.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/72/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 26.07.2019,
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act),
has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether demand of Shri Sunder Ram S/o Shri Lokha Ram for reinstatement in
the management of BBMB is legal, just and valid. If yes, then, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial
Dispute for adjudication also directed the following:-
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of
this order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite
parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules,
1957”.
2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the
directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman
and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred
above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as
undelivered.
3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the matter on merit.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.56/2019.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act
for publication.
J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 105.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2022 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/73/2019-आई आर (सी एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
171
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.57/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/12/2022.
[No. L-23012/73/2019-IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 57/2019
Registered on:-09.08.2019
Shri. Lal Chand S/o Shri Rohli C/o Shri Munish Kumar
S/o Shri Dharam Dass R/o Vill-Bajoura, Po-Bhukkar,
Tehsil-Bhiranj Distt. Hamirpur (HP)-176045
….Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018 …..Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:- 16.11.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/73/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 26.07.2019,
under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called
the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether demand of Shri Lal Chand S/o Rohli for reinstatement in the
management of BBMB is legal, just and valid. If yes, then, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial
Dispute for adjudication also directed the following:-
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of
this order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite
parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.
2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the
directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman
and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred
above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as
undelivered.
3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite
of several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the matter on merit.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.57/2019.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the
Act for publication.
J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 106.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- 120/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2022 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/127/2018-आई आर (सी
एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.120/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/12/2022
[No. L-23012/127/2018-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 120/2018
Registered on:-21.01.2019
Sh. Bhura S/o Sh. Khajana, R/o Village Dabur,
PO Ranikotla, Tehsil Bilaspur (Sadar),
Distt. Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh – 174001
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:- 15.11.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/127/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 19.11.2018,
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 BBMB in not accepting the demand of
Shri Bhura S/o Shri Khajana for deeming/considering him in continuous service
upto age of superannuation and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is
legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and
from which date?”
1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial
Dispute for adjudication also directed the following:-
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
173
this order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite
parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.
2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the
directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman
and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred
above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as
undelivered.
3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the matter on merit.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.120/2018.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act
for publication.
J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 107.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1, चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la- 122 /2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2022 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/133/2018-आई आर (सी. एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.122/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/12/2022.
[No. L-23012/133/2018– IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 122/2018
Registered on:-21.01.2019
Smt. Gangi Devi & Others Wd/o Late Hiroo Ram,
Village Jhanduta PO and Tehsil,
Ghumarwin Distt. Bilaspur,
Himachal Pradesh – 174001
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038. …..Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:- 15.11.2022
174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/133/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 19.11.2018, 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 BBMB in not accepting the demands of
Gangi Devi & Others, LH/LR of late Hiroo Ram, for declaring his
retrenchment/termination as as illegal and considering him in continuous service
upto age of superannuation and resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is
legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late
workman are entitled to and from which date?
1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial Dispute
for adjudication also directed the following:-
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of
this order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite
parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.
2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the
directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman
and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred
above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as
undelivered.
3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite
of several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the matter on merit.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.122/2018.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the
Act for publication.
J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िनवरी, 2023
का.आ. 108.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj बी बी एम बी 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-सि-Je U;k;ky; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la- 124/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2022 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-23012/137/2018-आई आर (सी एम -II)]
रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2023
S.O. 108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.124/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/12/2022.
[No. L-23012/137/2018– IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 21, 2023/माघ 1, 1944
175
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No .124/2018
Registered on:-21.01.2019
Smt. Kubja Devi Wd/o Late Uttam Chand, Village Chhate,
PO Jugahan, Tehsil Sudernagar,
Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh –174001
…Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board,
BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038 ….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:- 15.11.2022
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/137/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 19.11.2018,
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 BBMB in not accepting the demands of
Smt. Kubja Devi & Others, LH/LR of late Uttam Chand, for declaring his
retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in continuous service upto
age of superannuation and resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal,
just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late
workman are entitled to and from which date?
1. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India while referring the above Industrial
Dispute for adjudication also directed the following:-
“The parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete within relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of
this order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each of the opposite
parties involved in this dispute under rule 10(B) of the Industrial dispute (Central), Rules, 1957”.
2. However, no claim statement was filed by the workman within the stipulated period. Despite the
directions of the Central Government not complied by the workman opportunity was provided to the workman
and, therefore, on receipt of the above reference notice was sent to the workman as well as to the
respondents/managements for appearances for adjudication. The postal article sent to the workman, referred
above, is deemed to have been served on the parties under dispute as the post sent has not been received back as
undelivered.
176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 21, 2023/ MAGHA 1, 1944
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. Workman has been given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of
several opportunities afforded to file claim statement. This shows that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the matter on merit.
4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor he has filed statement of claim to prove his
cause against the respondents/managements. As such this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a
‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the instant reference ID No.124/2018.
5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the
Act for publication.
J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. MANOJ KUMAR
VERMA
Digitally signed by MANOJ
KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2023.02.06 10:54:16 +05'30'