642 GI/2023

(185)

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. 6]

नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 5—फरवरी 11, 2023, िजनवार/ माघ 16—माघ 22, 1944

No. 6]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 5—FEBRUARY 11, 2023, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 16—MAGHA 22, 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)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(व् यय जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 112.—केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय लेखापरीक्षा और लेखा जवभाग में भारत सरकार के कायाालय

को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै, जिसमें मिालेखाकार कायाालय, मिाराष् र (वाजणजययक लेखापरीक्षा) बम् बई, का

नामकरण मिालेखाकार कायाालय (लेखापरीक्षा)-II, मिाराष् र, िाखा कायाालय मुम् बई के रूप में दकया िाता िै ।

[फा. सं. ए- 12034/02/2021-ई.िी]

ऐनी िॉिा मॅथ् यू, जविेष सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-22022023-243784

CG-DL-W-22022023-243784

186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2023/ MAGHA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2022

S.O. 112.—In pursuance of sub – rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office of the Government of

India in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which the Office of Accountant General, Maharashtra

(Commercial Audit) Bombay shall be renamed as the Office of the Accountant General (Audit)-II, Maharashtra,

Branch office Mumbai.

[F. No. A-12034/02/2021- EG]

ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Special Secy.

जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग

नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 113.— बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिान और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की

उप-िारा (3) के खंड (क) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और दिनांक 25.2.2015 के एसीसी

दििाजनिेिों के पैराग्राफ 2(vi) के उपबंिों में छूट िेते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक आफ बड़़ौिा के प्रबंि

जनिेिक एवं मुख्य कायाकारी अजिकारी श्री संिीव चड्ढ़ा (िन्म जतजथिः 25.6.1963) के कायाकाल को उनकी जनयुजि

की तीन वषा की म़ौिूिा अजिसूजचत अवजि, िो दिनांक 19.1.2023 को समाप्त िो रिी िै, को उनकी अजिवर्षाता की

तारीख अथाात दिनांक 30.6.2023 तक अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, बढ़ाती िै।

[ईफा. सं. 4/4/2021-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

New Delhi, 16th January, 2023

S.O. 113.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9

of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and in relaxation of the

provisions of paragraph 2(vi) of the ACC guidelines dated 25.2.2015, the Central Government, hereby extends

the term of office of Shri Sanjiv Chadha (date of birth: 25.6.1963) as Managing Director and Chief Executive

Officer (MD & CEO), Bank of Baroda for a further period beyond his currently notified period of appointment

of three years that expires on 19.1.2023, till the date of his superannuation i.e., 30.6.2023, or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4/2021-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 114.— बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिान और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की

उप-िारा (3) के खंड (क) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, केनरा बैंक

के कायापालक जनिेिक श्री के. सत्यनारायण रािु (िन्म जतजथिः 28.12.1965) को पि का कायाभार ग्रिण करने की

तारीख से अजिवर्षाता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख (अथाात 31.12.2025) तक अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी

पिले िो, केनरा बैंक में प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मुख्य कायाकारी अजिकारी (एमडी एंड सीईओ) के पि पर जनयुि करती

िै।

[ईफा. सं. 4/6/2021-बीओ-I ]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2023

S.O. 114.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 11, 2023/माघ 22, 1944

187

appoints Shri K. Satyanarayana Raju (date of birth: 28.12.1965), Executive Director, Canara Bank as Managing

Director and Chief Executive Officer (MD & CEO), Canara Bank with effect from the date of assumption of

office, and up to the date of his attaining the age of superannuation (i.e., 31.12.2025), or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/6/2021-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 115.— बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिान और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उप-

िारा (3) के खंड (क) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, इंजडयन बैंक के

मिाप्रबंिक श्री िरिीप ससंि अिलूवाजलया (िन्म जतजथिः 24.6.1967) को श्री के. सत्यनारायण रािु के द्वारा केनरा

बैंक के कायापालक जनिेिक का पि त्याग करने की तारीख को या इसके पश्चात पि का कायाभार ग्रिण करने की

तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, केनरा बैंक में कायापालक जनिेिक

के पि पर जनयुि करती िै।

[ईफा. सं. 4/6/2021-बीओ-I ]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2023

S.O. 115.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9

of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby

appoints Shri Hardeep Singh Ahluwalia (date of birth: 24.6.1967), General Manager, Indian Bank as Executive

Director, Canara Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, on or after

the date of relinquishment of the post of Executive Director, Canara Bank by Shri K. Satyanarayana Raju, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/6/2021-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

जविेि मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 116.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के िूतावास, िेलससंकी में श्री रजव कांत गुप्ता, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

को दिनांक 02 फ़रवरी, 2023 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के त़ौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवािन के जलए

प्राजिकृत करती िै।

[ फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(06)]

एस. आर. एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (कांसुलर)

188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2023/ MAGHA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2023

S.O. 116.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the 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 Mr. Ravi

Kant Gupta, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Helsinki to

perform the Consular services with effect from February 2, 2023.

[F. No. T.4330/01/2023(06)]

S. R. H. FAHMI, Director (Consular)

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 117.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के सिायक उच्चायोग, मोमबासा मे श्री मिेि, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को

दिनांक 03 फ़रवरी, 2023 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के त़ौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवािन के जलए प्राजिकृत

करती िै।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(07)]

एस. आर. एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (कांसुलर)

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2023

S.O. 117.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the 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

Mr. Mahesh, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Assistant High Commission of

India, Mombasa to perform the Consular services with effect from February 03, 2023.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(07)]

S. R. H FAHMI, Director (Consular)

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 118.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;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, िनबाि ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 201/2001) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2022 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/265/2001-vkbZ-vkj (lh.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 11, 2023/माघ 22, 1944

189

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022

S.O. 118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.201/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/11/2022.

[No. L-20012/265/2001–IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference: No. 201/2001

Employer in relation to the management of P.B.Area of M/S BCCL

AND.

Their workman.

Present: SHRI DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Employer :- Shri Ranjeet Kumar Jha, Legal Inspector

For Workma :- None.

State : Jharkhand

Industry:- Coal

Dated:- 30/09 /2022

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/265/2001-IR(CM-I) dated 18.09.2001 the Central Government in the

Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to

this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union to correct the date of birth of Sri Moti Lal

Rajak as 2.1.1948 in his service records is proper and justified? If so to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

2. The reference is received on 01/11/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Vice President, Coal Mines

Engineering workers Association, had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant

document within fifteen days but the union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However after

receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed. and Management has appeared but union/workman failed

to appear in this case. Thereafter notice of the Union /workman returned unserved. Now the case is pending

since 01.11.2001 and workman/Union is not appearing before the Tribunal , so it is felt that workman/union

has lost its interest in this matter, Hence “ No Claim “ Award is passed communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2023/ MAGHA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 119.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;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, िनबाि ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 42/2005) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS, tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2022 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/267/2004-vkbZ-vkj(lh-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2022

S.O. 119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/11/2022

[No. L-20012/267/2004 – IR (C-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference: No. 42/2005

Employer in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: SHRI DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- None.

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 30/06 /2022

AWARD

By Order No.L-20012/267/2004-IR(C-I) dated 31.03.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Hurralidih Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri

Sukhdeo Hembram, M/Loader from the services w.e.f. 28.4.2004 is justified? If not, to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

2. The reference is received on 05/04/2005 by this Tribunal in which the General Secretary, National

Coal Workers Congress, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant

document within fifteen days but the concerned union/workman did not appear before the Tribunal. However

after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but the concerned union/workman did not appear

before the Tribunal but management had appeared on 17/02/2020 and 05/04/2021. Thereafter the

management has failed to appear before the Tribunal. Now Case is pending since 05/04/2005 and the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 11, 2023/माघ 22, 1944

191

concerned workman/union is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its

interest in this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate

D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 120.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार निदेशक, आरआरएल, (वैज्ञानिक और औद्योनिक अिुसंधाि पररषद, होशंिाबाद रोड, भोपाल-(म.प्र.), के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री अवधेश कुमार नससोददया, और अन्य , कामिार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभा सं. CGIT/LC/A/1/2012) को

जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

13/01/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-44- आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के. नहमांशु, अवर सनिव

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2023

S.O. 120.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/A/1/2012) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Director, RRL,(council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-

(M.P.) and Shri Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya, and Others,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 13/01/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-44- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/A/1/2012

Present: P. K.SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya

S/o shri Kanchan sisodiya,

Chairman-LIG

S.R-541, Katara Hills

Bagh Mubaliya, Bhopal(M.P.)

And Others

….Applicant’s

Versus

Director,

RRL,(council of Scientific and

Industrial Research,

Hoshangabad Road,Bhopal)

….Respondent

AWARD

(Passed on this 14^th day of November-2022 )

1. This case is proceeded against the management on the basis of an application of workman filed by him

under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to by the word ”Act” stating that he is

the President of the Workmen Union who has raised the dispute with the Management. A reference is pending

192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2023/ MAGHA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

before this Tribunal as R/39/2006. The management is pressurising by unilaterally challenging the service

condition of the applicant workman and forcing him to file a printed form issued by M/s Sengar Security

Labour Services, thus changing the service condition of the applicant workman which is prohibited in the

Industrial Disputesn Act,1947. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the management be restricted from changing

the service condition of the applicant workman.

2. The case of the Management in its reply is that the applicant workman has been terminated from his

services long back in the year 2004. A reference in this respect is pending before this Tribunal as mentioned

above. The Management has decided to take the same services by way of outsourcing for which the work

agreements have been issued.

3. The workman has filed his affidavit as a witness. He has been cross-examined by the management.

4. The Management has filed affidavit of Shri Y. Ram Krishna, Senior controller of Administration,

AMPRI, Bhopal. He has been cross-examined by workman side.

5. I have heard arguments of Shri Ashok Shrivastav for workmen and Shri A.K.Shashi, learned counsel

for the Management and have gone through the record. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947

requires to be mentioned , which is being reproduced as follows:-

33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during

pendency of proceedings.—

(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a

Board or of any proceeding before 2[an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or

NationalTribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall,—

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the

workmenconcerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them

immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or

(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by

dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express

permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.

(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the

employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned

in such dispute 2[or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms

of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman],—

(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of

serviceapplicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such

proceeding; or

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, or discharge or punish, whether

bydismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be

discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application

has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for

approval of the action taken by the employer.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), no employer shall, during the

pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against

any protected workman concerned in such dispute—

(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service

applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or

(b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected

workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the

proceeding is pending.registered trade union connected with the establishment, is

recognised as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf.

(4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognised as protected workmen

for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent. of the total number of workmen

employed therein subject to a minimum number of five protected workmen and a

maximum number of one hundred protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the

appropriate Government may make rules providing for the distribution of such protected

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 11, 2023/माघ 22, 1944

193

workmen among various trade unions, if any, connected with the establishment and the

manner in which the workmen may be chosen and recognized as protected workmen.

(5) Where an employer makes an application to a conciliation officer, Board, 1[an

arbitrator, a] labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub-

section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without

delay, hear such application and pass, within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of such application], such order in relation thereto as it deems fit:]3[Provided that

where any such authority considers it necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons to

be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as it may think fit:

Provided further that no proceedings before any such authority shall lapse merely on the

ground that any period specified in this sub-section had expired without such proceedings

being completed.

6. This petition was filed in the year 2012. The applicant workman Awdhesh Kumar Sisodiya was

terminated in the year 2004 as it comes out from the evidence. Other workman Bhawanideen Shukla who has

stated to have been terminated on 1-3-2011 has filed his affidavit but never appeared for cross-examination by

management, hence his affidavit cannot be read in his favour. On the other hand, Management has corroborated

its stand taken in its reply.

7. Hence on the basis of above discussion, holding the allegation in the petition not proved, the petition

is dismissed

8. No order as to costs..

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 121.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार कुलसनिव, डॉ हरर ससंह िौर नवश्वनवद्यालय, (केंरीय नवश्वनवद्यालय) सािर (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और श्री दीपक दुबे, द्वारा महासनिव, नवश्वनवद्यालय कामिार यूनियि, सािर-(म.प्र.), के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िाष्ट

केन्रीय

सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

जबलपुर

के

पंचाट

(संिभा

सं. CGIT/LC/A/1/2019) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13/01/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-43- आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के. नहमांशु, अवर सनिव

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2023

S.O. 121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/A/1/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Registrar, Dr.Hari Singh Gaur vishwavidyalaya, (Central University) Sagar- (M.P.) and Shri

Deepak Dubey, through The General Secretary, Vishwavidyalaya Kamgar Union,Sagar - (M.P.), which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13/01/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-43- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/A/1/2019

Present: P.K.SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)

194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2023/ MAGHA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Shiv Prasad Raikwar

General Secretary

Vishwavidyalaya Kamgar Union

Padmakar School Gate

Namak Mandi,Katra Bazaar,

Sagar(M.P.)

Representing:Deepak Dubey

…Applicant

Versus

Mr. Rakesh Mohan Joshi,

Registrar,

Dr. Hari Singh Gaur vishwavidyalaya,

(Central University)

Sagar (M.P.) 470003.

…Respondent

ORDER

(Passed on this 9^th day of November-2022 )

1. The Workman Union through its Secretary has filed this petition under Section 33(A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to by the word”Act”, with a case that the applicant Union approached this

Tribunal by way of reference dated 13-11-2018 referred for adjudication before this Tribunal as to whether the

workman is entitled for classification and regarding the validity of order of is termination dated 25-10-2017.

The workman union raised a dispute vide application dated 11-10-2017 being aggrieved by the unfair labour

practice adopted by the Management. Notice was sent by Conciliation Officer on the dispute to the

Management and was served on Management accordingly. It is further the case of the Workman Union that

after service of notice by concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Management issued a termination

letter to all of its Head of the Department and directed that employees discharging duties on out sourcing basis

be terminated forthwith. The applicant workman who was discharging his duties on daily wage basis was also

terminated by the Management. According to the Workman Union, the retrenchment and termination of the

services of the workman w.e.f. 25-10-2017 is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice as well as Section 33

A of the Act because it is alteration in service conditions of the applicant workman to prejudice during the

pendency of the Industrial Dispute before the appropriate Government. Accordingly, it has been prayed that

holding the Registrar of Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya having committed violation of Section 33A of

the Act, his prosecution be initiated accordingly.

Affidavit has been filed in support.

In its reply, the Management has taken a case that certain persons were engaged through out-sourcing

by the Management of the University, in accordance with the exigency of work. The applicant workman is also

one of them. He was not engaged against any vacant and sanctioned post following any recruitment process,

rather his engagement was on contract basis directly by the concerned Department. The Tenure of this workman

has been extended from time to time, either for 59 days or 89 days . The University took a decision in August-

2017 not to extend the engagement of any such workmen beyond 30-8-2017 and a letter was circulated to every

Department by the Registrar. Vide letter of Registrar dated 22-8-2017, the Heads of the Department have been

intimated to take work only from employees engaged on contract basis directly by the concerned department

only upto 29-8-2017 and not beyond that . Thereafter, an another order was issued on 25-10-2017 directing all

the Heads of the Department against recommendation of extension of any employee engaged on contract basis

directly by the Department. Thus according to the Management, it took a conscious policy decision to disengage

workmen in the month of August-2017 itself. The dispute was raised by the workman only on 11-10-2017,

hence there is no violation of Section 33A of the Act. Affidavit has been filed in support.

The Workman Union has filed affidavit of the applicant workman as his examination in chief. He has

reiterated his case as mentioned above in the petition. The workman Union has further filed as many as nine

photocopy documents which are application dated 11-10-2017 filed before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner(C ) raising the dispute. Notice dated 18-10-2017 sent by Assistant Labour Commissioner to

Management in response of the petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the application along with a

list filed by the Workman Union before Assistant Labour Commissioner, application by workman Union before

Registrar filed on 26-10-2017 informing him that the workman Union has raised a dispute before Assistant

Labour Commissioner and a notice to the dispute has been served on the University on 20-10-2017, hence any

alteration in service condition of the workman is in violation of Section 33A of the Act. It is also stated that the

workmen are not outsourced employees , rather they have been directly appointed by the respective departments,

Petition under Section 33 and 33A of the Act filed on 17-11-2017 before Assistant Labour Commissioner ,

failure of conciliation report dated 18-5-2018, Notesheet for payment till 31-10-2017 to the applicant workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 11, 2023/माघ 22, 1944

195

and 16 other co-workmen.

The Workman Union has further filed as many as 21 RTI documents regarding proof of direct payment

to the workman from the University and also showing that notice of dispute was served on University only on

20-10-2017.

The Management has not filed affidavit of any of its witness.

I have heard arguments of Mr. Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the workmen and Shri Rahul

Tripathi for the Management.

Before entering into any discussion, Section 33A of the Act requires to reproduced and is being

reproduced as follows:-

33A. Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service, etc., changed

during pendency of proceedings.—Where an employer contravenes the provisions of

section 33 during the pendency of proceedings 5[before a conciliation officer, Board, an

arbitrator, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], any employee aggrieved by

such contravention, may make a complaint in writing,5[in the prescribed manner,—

(a) to such conciliation officer or Board, and the conciliation officer or Board shall take

such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such

industrial dispute; and

(b) to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of

such complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the

case may be, shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or

pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit his or

its award to the appropriate Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply

accordingly.

The facts are almost undisputed in the case in hand. According to the workmen Union, when they

raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner , they came to know that their services might be

terminated against law. The Assistant Labour Commissioner sent notice with respect to dispute which was

admittedly served on 20-10-2017. This fact is supported from the RTI documents also filed on record. Te

services were terminated from 25-10-2017 is also not disputed. The arguments of learned counsel for the

Management is that a policy decision regarding not extending the services of outsourced employees was taken

on 30-8-2017 and 20-9-2017 itself which was before the date of raising dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner. Learned Counsel for workmen Union has submitted that the decision was with respect to

outsourced employees in the case in hand. The applicant workmen are employees appointed by the University

through its department itself and not kept on outsourced. Hence, that decision had no relation with termination

of service of the applicant workman. The RTI documents amply show that the payments were made to the

workmen directly by the University and not through outsourced agency. The Management has no where

disclosed as to through which outsourced agency the applicant workmen were engaged. This non-disclosure

bares significance in the light of the fact that case of the workmen Union is that the applicant workmen are

daily wage/muster roll employees appointed by the University through its department and there is

uncontroverted affidavit in support corroborated by RTI documents. Hence, the aforesaid arguments of the

learned counsel for the Management is held without any merit from the evidence on record. It is established

that the services of the applicant workman whose cases has been espoused by the Workman Union were

terminated during the pendency of Industrial Dispute before Competent Authority which is in violation of

Section 33A of the Act.

10.

The Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

11.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the appropriate Government.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 9-11-2022

नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 122.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार कुलसनिव, डॉ हरर ससंह िौर नवश् वनवद्यालय, (केंरीय नवश् वनवद्यालय) सािर (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और श्री सोिू बोहत, द्वारा महासनिव, नवश् वनवद्यालय कामिार यूनियि, सािर-(म.प्र.), के बीच अनुबंि

196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2023/ MAGHA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर के पंचाट (संिभा

सं. CGIT/LC/A/2/2019) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13/01/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-29- आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के. नहमांशु, अवर सनिव

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2023

S.O. 122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/A/2/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Registrar, Dr.Hari Singh Gaur vishwavidyalaya, (Central University) Sagar- (M.P.) and Shri

Sonu bohat, through The General Secretary, Vishwavidyalaya Kamgar Union,Sagar - (M.P.), which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13/01/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-29- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/A/2/2019

Present: P. K. SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Shiv Prasad Raikwar

General Secretary

Vishwavidyalaya Kamgar Union

Padmakar School Gate

Namak Mandi,Katra Bazaar,

Sagar(M.P.)

Representing:Sonu bohat

…Applicant

Versus

Mr.Rakesh Mohan Joshi,

Registrar,

Dr. Hari Singh Gaur vishwavidyalaya,

(Central University)

Sagar (M.P.) 470003.

….Respondent

ORDER

(Passed on this 9^th day of November-2022 )

1. The Workman Union through its Secretary has filed this petition under Section 33(A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to by the word”Act”, with a case that the applicant

Union approached this Tribunal by way of reference dated 13-11-2018 referred for adjudication

before this Tribunal as to whether the workman is entitled for classification and regarding the

validity of order of is termination dated 25-10-2017. The workman union raised a dispute vide

application dated 11-10-2017 being aggrieved by the unfair labour practice adopted by the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 11, 2023/माघ 22, 1944

197

Management. Notice was sent by Conciliation Officer on the dispute to the Management and was

served on Management accordingly. It is further the case of the Workman Union that after service

of notice by concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Management issued a termination

letter to all of its Head of the Department and directed that employees discharging duties on out

sourcing basis be terminated forthwith. The applicant workman who was discharging his duties

on daily wage basis was also terminated by the Management. According to the Workman Union,

the retrenchment and termination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 25-10-2017 is in violation

of Principles of Natural Justice as well as Section 33 A of the Act because it is alteration in service

conditions of the applicant workman to prejudice during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute

before the appropriate Government. Accordingly, it has been prayed that holding the Registrar of

Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya having committed violation of Section 33A of the Act, his

prosecution be initiated accordingly.

2. Affidavit has been filed in support.

3. In its reply, the Management has taken a case that certain persons were engaged through out-

sourcing by the Management of the University, in accordance with the exigency of work. The

applicant workman is also one of them. He was not engaged against any vacant and sanctioned

post following any recruitment process, rather his engagement was on contract basis directly by

the concerned Department. The Tenure of this workman has been extended from time to time,

either for 59 days or 89 days . The University took a decision in August-2017 not to extend the

engagement of any such workmen beyond 30-8-2017 and a letter was circulated to every

Department by the Registrar. Vide letter of Registrar dated 22-8-2017, the Heads of the

Department have been intimated to take work only from employees engaged on contract basis

directly by the concerned department only upto 29-8-2017 and not beyond that . Thereafter, an

another order was issued on 25-10-2017 directing all the Heads of the Department against

recommendation of extension of any employee engaged on contract basis directly by the

Department. Thus according to the Management, it took a conscious policy decision to disengage

workmen in the month of August-2017 itself. The dispute was raised by the workman only on 11-

10-2017, hence there is no violation of Section 33A of the Act. Affidavit has been filed in support.

4. The Workman Union has filed affidavit of the applicant workman as his examination in chief. He

has reiterated his case as mentioned above in the petition. The workman Union has further filed as

many as nine photocopy documents which are application dated 11-10-2017 filed before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner(C ) raising the dispute. Notice dated 18-10-2017 sent by

Assistant Labour Commissioner to Management in response of the petition before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner, the application along with a list filed by the Workman Union before

Assistant Labour Commissioner, application by workman Union before Registrar filed on 26-10-

2017 informing him that the workman Union has raised a dispute before Assistant Labour

Commissioner and a notice to the dispute has been served on the University on 20-10-2017, hence

any alteration in service condition of the workman is in violation of Section 33A of the Act. It is

also stated that the workmen are not outsourced employees , rather they have been directly

appointed by the respective departments, Petition under Section 33 and 33A of the Act filed on 17-

11-2017 before Assistant Labour Commissioner , failure of conciliation report dated 18-5-2018,

Notesheet for payment till 31-10-2017 to the applicant workman and 16 other co-workmen.

5. The Workman Union has further filed as many as 21 RTI documents regarding proof of direct

payment to the workman from the University and also showing that notice of dispute was served

on University only on 20-10-2017.

6. The Management has not filed affidavit of any of its witness.

7. I have heard arguments of Mr. Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the workmen and Shri

Rahul Tripathi for the Management.

Before entering into any discussion, Section 33A of the Act requires to reproduced and is being

reproduced as follows:-

33A. Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service, etc., changed during

pendency of proceedings.—Where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 33 during

the pendency of proceedings 5[before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour

Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may

make a complaint in writing,5[in the prescribed manner,—

198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 2023/ MAGHA 22, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(a) to such conciliation officer or Board, and the conciliation officer or Board shall take such

complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute;

and

(b) to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of such

complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be,

shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in

accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit his or its award to the appropriate

Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.

9. The facts are almost undisputed in the case in hand. According to the workmen Union, when they