1085 GI/2023

(469)

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. 9]

नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 26—मार्च 4, 2023, िजनवार/ फाल्गुन 7—फाल्गुन 13, 1944

No. 9]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 26—MARCH 4, 2023, SATURDAY/ PHALGUNA 7—PHALGUNA 13, 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 अजिसूर्नाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 254.—केन्‍द्रीय सरकार, वर्ष 2000 में यथा संशोधित भारतीय लघु उद्योग धवकास बैंक

अधिधियम, 1989 की िारा (6) (1) (सी) द्वारा प्रदत्त शधियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, एतद्द्वारा, श्री शैलेश कुमार ससंह

के स्थाि पर, डॉ रजिीश, अपर सधिव एवं धवकास आयुि, एमएसएमई मंत्रालय, को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले

आदेशों तक भारतीय लघु उद्योग धवकास बैंक (धसडबी) के धिदेशक मंडल में धिदेशक िाधमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 17/ /

8 2021-आईएफ-II]

सुरजीत कार्तषकेयि, उप सधिव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14032023-244357

CG-DL-W-14032023-244357

470 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 254.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (6) (1) (c) of the Small Industries

Development Bank of India Act, 1989 as amended in the year 2000, the Central Government hereby nominates

Dr. Rajneesh, Additional Secretary & Development Commissioner, M/o MSME, New Delhi as a Director on

the Board of Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) with immediate effect and until further

orders vice Sh. Shailesh Kumar Singh.

[F. No. 17/8/2021-IF-II]

SURJITH KARTHIKEYAN, Dy. Secy.

जविेि मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 255.—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, तेिरान में श्री जसद्धाथच कुमार गौतम और श्री अपचण श्रीवास्ट्तव,

िोनों सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को दिनांक 27 फ़रवरी, 2023 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर

सेवाओं के जनवचिन के जलए प्राजिकृत करती िै।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(08)]

एस.आर.एर्. फिमी, जनिेिक (कांसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023

S.O. 255.—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. Siddharth Kumar Gautam and Mr. Arpan Shrivastava, both Assistant Section Officers as Assistant Consular

Officers in the Embassy of India, Tehran to perform the Consular services with effect from February 27, 2023.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(08)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (Consular)

कार्मचक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्मचक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 256.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उत्तर प्रिेि राज् य सरकार के

उत्तर प्रिेि िासन, गृि (गोपन) अनुभाग-8, लखनऊ की अजिसूर्ना सं. 03िी.आई./25-8-2022-17(17)/2022,

दिनांक 12.05.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से मोिम्मि ज़की, पुत्र फज़रुल रिमान, जनवासी िवािर आवास

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

471

सं. 375, के एल कीिगंि, इलािाबाि सीटी डाकघर, इलािाबाि द्वारा बच्चों/नाबाजलगों का यौन िोषण करने, ऐसे

घृजणत/आपजत्तिनक कुकृत्य के िौरान बच्चों की फोटोग्राफी और जवजडयोग्राफी करने, इंटरनेट पर इलेक्ट्रॉजनक स्ट्वरूप

में यौन दियायों में बच्चों को जर्जत्रत करती हुई सामग्री सजित घृजणत सामग्री को प्रकाजित, संर्ाठरत करने और

पॉनोग्रादफक प्रयोिन के जलए बच्चों का िुरुपयोग करने इत्यादि के संबंि में सूर्ना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजनयम, 2000

(2000 का 21) की िारा 67बी और लैंजगक अपरािों से बालकों का संरक्षण अजिजनयम, 2012 (2012 का 32) के

अंतगचत दकए गए अजभकजथत अपराि(िों), जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 27.12.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला

आरसी-24(एस)/2021/एससी-III/नदि ििच दकया गया िै, से िुड़े अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से

िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं

तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों

और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 27.12.2021 से कायोत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त उत्तर प्रिेि राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/51/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2022

S.O. 256.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued vide Notification No. 03G.I./25-8-2022-17(17)/2022 dated

12.05.2022, Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Grih (Gopan) Section-8, Lucknow, hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 27.12.2021) to the

whole State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) under section 67B of the Information

Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of

2012) alleged to have been committed by Mohd. Zaki, S/o Fazrul Rahman, R/o Jawahar House No. 375, K L

Keedganj, Allahabad City PO, Allahabad pertaining to the sexually abusing children/minors, photographing and

video graphing of children during such obscene/objectionable acts, publishing, transmitting obscene material

including the material depicting children in sexual acts in electronic form over the internet and using children

for pornographic purpose etc., based on which a CBI Case RC-24(S)/2021/SC-III/ND has been registered on

27.12.2021, and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)

and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/51/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 257.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जबिार राज् य सरकार, गृि

जवभाग (पुजलस िाखा), पटना की अजिसूर्ना सं. 9/सी.बी.आई-80-08/2021 एर्पी-4326/पटना, दिनांक

29.04.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से सोिल मीजडया प् लेटफॉमच इंस्ट् टाग्राम का िुरुपयोग कर लैंजगक संबंि

बनाने संबंिी कृत् य अथवा आर्रण में जलप् त बच् र्ों को ििाचती सामग्री का इलैक्ट् रॉजनक रूप में जवज्ञापन/

प्रकािन/प्रसारण के संबंि में श्री रजव कुमार, जनवासी गोरौल, लोिीपुर, वैिाली, जबिार, इंस्ट् टाग्राम यूिर

'बेस्ट् ट_सेलर_69', ईमेल आईडी payal0101[email protected] तथा मोबाइल नंबर +918986195016 तथा

+918521882777 द्वारा सूर्ना प्रौद्यौजगकी अजिजनयम, 2000 (2000 का 21) की िारा 67बी के तित दकए गए

अजभकजथत अपराि(िों) का अन् वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा

और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण

472 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त जबिार राज्य

में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/52/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2022

S.O. 257.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Bihar issued vide Notification No.9/C.B.I-80-08/2021 HP-4326/Patna dated 29.04.2022,

Home Department (Police Branch), Patna, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Bihar for investigation into the offence(s) under

section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) alleged to have been committed by Shri

Ravi Kumar, R/o Goraul, Lodipur, Vaishali, Bihar, Instagram user ‘best_seller_69’ , email-id payal 0101 bhabhi

@gmail.com and mobile numbers +918986195016 and +918521882777 pertaining to advertisement/

publishing/transmitting of material depicting children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct in electronic

form by using social media platform Instagram and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/52/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 258.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज् य सरकार, गृि एवं

न् याय जवभाग, गृि-4 िाखा के ज्ञापन सं.: 08/10/2022-1एर्4(3एर्4)/2806, दिनांक 04.05.2022 के माध् यम

से िारी सम्मजत से श्रीमती अंिू िैन, मालदकन, मेससच रुजनत फैजिक्ट्स लुजियाना, श्री मुकेि कुमार िैन, श्री अजमत

िैन, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों तथा अन्य के जवरुद्ध इंजडयन बैंक को लगभग 8.23 करोड़ रुपए की सिोष िाजन पहुुँर्ाने के

जलए दिनांक 03.03.2022 को श्री जनिान्त िुक्ट्ला, मुख्य प्रबंिक और िाखा प्रमुख, इंजडयन बैंक, िवाबयुि

पठरसंपजत्त प्रबंिन उिचवािर िाखा (स्ट् रेस्ट् ड एसेट्स मैंनेिमैंट वर्टचकल िांर्), लुजियाना द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता

(1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िाराएं 406, 420 और 421 तथा भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988

(1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवच िैसा

जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में ििच कराई गई जिकायत

से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) तथा उसके मूल अपरािों, जिनके आिार पर दिनांक 09.03.2022 को सीबीआई मामला

सं.219 2022ई 0002 ििच दकया गया िै, का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध

दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी

अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का

जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव, दिनांक 09.03.2022 से) समस्ट् त पंिाब राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/54/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

473

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2022

S.O. 258.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.08/10/2022-1H4(3H4)/2806 dated 04.05.2022, Home 4

Branch, Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 09.03.2022) to the whole State of Punjab for

investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 03.03.2022 lodged by Shri Nishant Shukla,

Chief Manager and Branch Head, Indian Bank, Stressed Assets Management Vertical Branch, Ludhiana against

Smt. Anju Jain, Proprietor of M/s Runit Fabrics Ludhiana, Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Shri Amit Jain, unknown

public servants and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 8.23 crores to the Indian Bank punishable

under section 120B r/w sections 406, 420 and 421 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w

section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made

to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and substantive offences thereof based on which a

CBI case RC No. 219 2022E 0002 has been registered on 09.03.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the

course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/54/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 259.—केंद्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री िेजवन्िर पाल ससंि, अजिविा को पजिम बंगाल राज्य में तत्समय

प्रवृत्त दकसी जवजि द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत जवर्ारण न्यायालय में दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन, केंद्रीय अन् वेषण ब् यूरो द्वारा

संजस्ट्थत नीर्े िी गई सारणी में यथा उजल्लजखत मामलों और दकसी अपील न्यायालय या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय,

कोलकाता जस्ट्थत कलकत्ता उच्च न्यायालय या भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय के समक्ष ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत अपील,

पुनरीक्षण या अन्य कायचवािी के जलए अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने िेतु पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषच से

अनजिक की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप

में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै :-

सारणी

ि. सं.

जनयजमत मामला संख्या

(1)

(2)

1.

आरसी0102020ए0019 (पिु मामला)

2.

आरसी0102020ए0022 (कोयला मामला)

3.

आरसी0102022ए0002 (एसएससी मामला)

4.

आरसी0102022ए0003 (एसएससी मामला)

5.

आरसी0102022ए0004 (एसएससी मामला)

6.

आरसी0102022ए0005 (एसएससी मामला)

7.

आरसी0102022ए0006 (एसएससी मामला)

[फा. सं. 225/16/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2022

S.O. 259.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Davinder Pal Singh,

Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting Prosecution cases as mentioned in the Table below

instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation in the State of West

Bengal in the Trial Court established by law for the time being in force and appeal, revision or other proceeding

474 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

arising out of such case before any appellate court, revisional court, High Court of Calcutta at Kolkata or before

the Supreme Court of India, for a period not exceeding three years from the date of assumption of charge or till

disposal of the case, whichever is earlier :-

TABLE

Serial number

Regular Case Number

(1)

(2)

1.

RC0102020A0019 (Cattle Case)

2.

RC0102020A0022 (Coal Case)

3.

RC0102022A0002 (SSC Case)

4.

RC0102022A0003 (SSC Case)

5.

RC0102022A0004 (SSC Case)

6.

RC0102022A0005 (SSC Case)

7.

RC0102022A0006 (SSC Case)

[F. No. 225/16/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 260.— केंद्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री िेजवन्िर पाल ससंि, अजिविा को आंध्र प्रिेि उच्च न्यायालय,

अमरावती और भारत के माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के समक्ष दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन, केंद्रीय अन् वेषण ब् यूरो

द्वारा रजिस्ट्रीकृत केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो मामला सं. आरसी.4 (एस)/2020-सीबीआई/एससी.III/दिल्ली (जववेकानंि

रेड्डी ित्या मामला) के अजभयोिन और इस मामले से उद्भूत अपील तथा अन्य कायचवाजियों का संर्ालन करने िेतु

पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषच से अनजिक की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी

पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/15/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2022

S.O. 260.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Davinder Pal Singh,

Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution, appeal and other proceeding arising out of

CBI Case number RC.4(S)/2020-CBI/SC.III/ Delhi (Vivekanand Reddy Murder Case) registered by Delhi

Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Amaravati and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for a period not exceeding three years from the date

of assumption of charge or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/15/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 नवम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 261.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, जनम्नजलजखत व्यजियों, (i) सुश्री रूजर् िैन, अजिवक्ट् ता, (ii) श्री रजव भूषण

िमाच, अजिवक्ट् ता, (iii) सुश्री बीना गगच, अजिवक्ट् ता, (iv) श्री राहुल ससंि, अजिवक्ट् ता, (v) श्री कीर्तचमान ससंि,

अजिवक्ट् ता और (vi) श्री संिीव के. झा, अजिवक्ट् ता को, दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा

संस्ट्थाजपत मामलों में, तत्समय प्रवृत्त दकसी जवजि द्वारा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राििानी राज्यक्षेत्र में स्ट्थाजपत जवर्ारण

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

475

न् यायालयों में, अजभयोिन संर्ाजलत करने के जलए, उनकी जनयुजक्ट् त की तारीख से तीन वषच से अनजिक की अवजि के

जलए या अगले आिेि तक, इनमें से िो भी पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिकों के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/01/2018- ए.वी.डी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2022

S.O. 261.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following persons (i) Ms.

Ruchi Jain, Advocate, (ii) Shri Ravi Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, (iii) Ms. Beena Garg, Advocate, (iv) Shri

Rahul Singh, Advocate, (v) Shri Kirtiman Singh, Advocate and (vi) Shri Sanjiv K Jha, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment

(Central Bureau of Investigation) in the National Capital Territory of Delhi in the Trial Court established by any

law for the time being in force for a period not exceeding three years from the date of appointment or till further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/01/2018–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 नवम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 262.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री वी.एस. िुक्ट्ला, अजिवक्ट् ता को, तत्समय प्रवृत्त जवजि द्वारा उत्तर प्रिेि

राज्य के गाजियाबाि में स्ट्थाजपत जवर्ारण न् यायालय में, दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन, केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा

संजस्ट्थत, जनम्नजलजखत सारणी में यथा उजल्लजखत मामलों के अजभयोिन को संर्ाजलत करने के जलए, उनकी जनयुजक्ट् त

की तारीख से तीन वषच से अनजिक की अवजि के जलए या मामलों के जनपटान िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी पूवचतर िो,

जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै:-

िम सं.

जनयजमत वाि सं.

वाि िीषचक

न्यायालय का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1

आरसी-14(ई)/2018-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो

बनाम

जविाल

गोयल और अन्य

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

2

आरसी-10(ई)/2018-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो बनाम मै0 िे.आर.

फुड्स (बैंक िोखािड़ी)

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

3

आरसी-05(ई)/2002-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो बनाम कुमल बिाई

एसिेएम, के.अ.ब्यूरो मामले,

गाजियाबाि

4

आरसी-10(ई)/2010-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो बनाम जनमचल कुमार

गांगुली

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

5

आरसी-11(ई)/2018-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो

बनाम

मै0

िे.बी.आर.

इम्पैक्ट्स

इंजडया

जलजमटेड (बैंक िोखािड़ी)

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

6

आरसी-13(ई)/2018-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो

बनाम

एस.एम.

इंटरप्राइिेि (बैंक िोखािड़ी)

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

7

आरसी-12(ई)/2018-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो

बनाम

मै0

एस.ए.आर. इंटरप्राइिेि (बैंक

िोखािड़ी)

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

8

आरसी-15(ई)/2016-ईओ-

के.अ.ब्यूरो बनाम जगठरिा िंकर

एसिेएम, के.अ.ब्यूरो मामले,

476 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

II/दिल्ली

राठी और अन्य

गाजियाबाि

9

आरसी-04(ई)/2019-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो बनाम मै0 सम्पिच

फुड्स जलजमटेड

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

10

आरसी-07(ई)/2020-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो बनाम मै0 जमक्ट्सड

बैग ओवरसीि

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

11

आरसी-16(ई)/2018-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो बनाम फारेनिाइट

मोटसच प्रा.जल.

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

12

आरसी-03(ई)/2019-ईओ-

II/दिल्ली

के.अ.ब्यूरो बनाम िाजन्तनाथ

इम्पैक्ट्स प्रा. जल.

जविेष न्यायािीि के.अ.ब्यूरो

मामले, गाजियाबाि

[फा. सं. 225/12/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2022

S.O. 262.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri V. S. Shukla, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases as mentioned in table below instituted by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation in the state of Uttar Pradesh at Ghaziabad

in the Trial Courts established by any law for the time being in force for a period not exceeding three years from

the date of assumption of charge or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier, namely: -

TABLE

Serial

Number

Regular Case No.

Case Title

Name of the Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1

RC-14(E)/2018-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. Vishal Goel & Others

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

2

RC-10(E)/2018-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. M/s JR Foods (Bank Fraud)

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

3

RC-05(E)/2002-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. Kumal Badai

SJM,

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

4

RC-10(E)/2010-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. Nirmal Kumar Ganguly

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

5

RC-11(E)/2018-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. M/s JBR Impex India Ltd.

(Bank Fraud)

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

6

RC-13(E)/2018-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. SM Enterprises (Bank

Fraud)

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

7

RC-12(E)/2018-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. M/s SAR Enterprises (Bank

Fraud)

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

8

RC-15(E)/2016-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. Girija Shankar Rathi &

Others

SJM CBI cases, Ghaziabad

9

RC-04(E)/2019-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. M/s Samprash Foods Ltd.

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

10

RC-07(E)/2020-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. M/s Mixed Bag Overseas

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

11

RC-16(E)/2018-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. Fahrenheit Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

12

RC-03(E)/2019-EO-II/Delhi

CBI Vs. Shantinath Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Spl

Judge

CBI

cases,

Ghaziabad

[F. No. 225/12/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

477

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 263.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री एन जवनेि राि, अजिवक्ट् ता को, िैिराबाि जस्ट्थत जवर्ारण न्यायालय

में दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन, (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् थत सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी 09(ए)/2022-

एर्वाईडी. का अजभयोिन और तत्समय प्रवृत्त दकसी जवजि द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत दकसी अपील न्यायालय या पुनरीक्षण

न्यायालय में इस मामले से उद्भूत अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों या अन्य मामलों के जलए भी अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने

िेतु पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषच की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूवचतर िो,

जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/30/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2022

S.O. 263.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri N Vinesh Raj, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of CBI Case RC 09(A)/2022-Hyd. instituted by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Trial Court at Hyderabad, Appeals,

Revisions or other matters arising out of the said case in any Appellate or Revision Court established by any

law for the time being in force, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or till disposal

of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/30/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 264.— केन्द्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा

(8) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री िीपक नारगोल्कर, अजिवक्ट् ता और श्री रजव िमाच, अजिवक्ट् ता

को दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा अन्वेजषत दकए गए

मामले से उद्भूत अपील, पुनरीक्षण और अन्य मामलों तथा उससे संबंजित या उनके आनुषंजगक मामलों के

अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने के जलए उनकी जनयुजक्ट् त की तारीख से तीन वषों की अवजि के जलए या अगले

आिेि तक, िो भी पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक जनयुक्ट् त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/29/2021-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2022

S.O. 264.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Deepak Nargolkar,

Advocate and Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution, appeal,

revision and other matters arising out of the case investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment

(Central Bureau of Investigation), before the High Court of Delhi and for matters connected therewith or

incidental thereto, for a period of three years from the date of appointment or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F. No. 225/29/2021–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

478 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 265.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्रीमती येनसेनबाम जर्त्राभानू िेवी, अजिवक्ट् ता को, दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस

स्ट् थापन, (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत, जनम्नजलजखत सारणी में यथा उजल्लजखत मामलों के और जवजि द्वारा

स्ट्थाजपत दकसी अपील न्यायालय या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामले

के जलए भी अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने िेतु पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषच की अवजि के जलए या मामले के

जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै :--

सारणी

ि.सं.

आर.सी. सं.

न्यायालय का नाम

1.

आरसी-23(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0039 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

मुख्य न्यायािीि मजिस्ट्रेट, पजिम

इंफाल

2.

आरसी-24(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0040 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

मुख्य न्यायािीि मजिस्ट्रेट, थौबल

3.

आरसी-11(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2019/एस/0001 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

मुख्य न्यायािीि मजिस्ट्रेट, र्ंिेल,

मजणपुर

4.

आरसी-04(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0031/ ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

अपर सेिन न्यायािीि (एफटीसी),

इंफाल पूवच

5.

आरसी-12(एस)/2017/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0011 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

जविेष न्यायािीि, इंफाल (पूवच)

6

आरसी-21(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0013 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

मुख्य न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट, इंफाल

पजिम

7.

आरसी-13(एस)/2017/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0015 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

जविेष न्यायािीि, इंफाल पजिम

8.

आरसी-15(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0032 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

जविेष न्यायािीि, इंफाल पजिम

9.

आरसी-16(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0033 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

जविेष न्यायािीि, इंफाल पजिम

10.

आरसी-19(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0036/ ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

जविेष न्यायािीि, इंफाल पजिम

11.

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/(एस)/0030/ ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

मुख्य न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट, इंफाल

पजिम

12.

आरसी-21(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0013 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

मुख्य न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट, इंफाल

पजिम

13.

आरसी-07(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0024 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

मुख्य न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट, इंफाल

पजिम

14.

आरसी-09(एस)/2018/एससी-III/एनडी और

आरसी-डीएसटी/2018/एस/0023 ऑफ सीबीआई/एसआईटी

मुख्य न्याजयक मजिस्ट्रेट, इंफाल

पजिम

[फा. सं. 225/37/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

479

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2022

S.O. 265.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Yensenbam Chitrabhanu

Devi, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special

Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) as mentioned in the Table below and any appeal,

revision or other matter arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional Court established by law for a

period of three years from the date of assumption of the charge or till disposal of the cases, whichever is earlier.

TABLE

Sl. No.

RC. No.

Name of Court

1.

RC-23(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0039 of CBI/SIT

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West

2.

RC-24(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0040 of CBI/SIT

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal

3.

RC-11(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2019/S/0001 of CBI/SIT

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandel, Manipur

4.

RC-04(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0031/ of CBI/SIT

Additional Session Judge (FTC), Imphal East

5.

RC-12(S)/2017/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0011 of CBI/SIT

Special Judge, Imphal (East)

6.

RC-21(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0013 of CBI/SIT

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West

7.

RC-13(S)/2017/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0015 of CBI/SIT

Special Judge, Imphal West

8.

RC-15(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/0032 of CBI/SIT

Special Judge, Imphal West

9.

RC-16(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0033 of CBI/SIT

Special Judge, Imphal West

10.

RC-19(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0036/ of CBI/SIT

Special Judge, Imphal West

11.

RC-DST/2018/S/0030/of CBI/SIT

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West

12.

RC-21(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0013 of CBI/SIT

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West

13.

RC-07(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0024 of CBI/SIT

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West

14.

RC-09(S)/2018/SC-III/ND and

RC-DST/2018/S/0023 of CBI/SIT

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West

[F. No. 225/37/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 266.— केन्द्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री टीटो टाबा, अजिवक्ट् ता और सुश्री िीपा योका, अजिवक्ट् ता को जविेष

न्यायािीि, पजिम सेिन जडजवज़न, यूजपआ, अरुणार्ल प्रिेि के न्यायालय में दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन (केंद्रीय

अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत दकए गए मामलों के अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने के जलए उनकी जनयुजक्ट् त की तारीख

से तीन वषों की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक जनयुक्ट् त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/28/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

480 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2023

S.O. 266.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Teto Taba, Advocate and

Ms. Deepa Yoka, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of the cases instituted by

the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Court of Special Judge, West

Session Division, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or

till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/28/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 267.— केन्द्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री प्रिान्त जवद्याथी, अजिवक्ट् ता को, रांर्ी जस्ट्थत झारखण्ड उच्च

न्यायालय के समक्ष दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत, जनम्नजलजखत सारणी में यथा

उजल्लजखत मामलों के जलए अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने िेतु पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषच की अवजि के

जलए या अगले आिेि तक, िो भी पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै, अथाचत :--

सारणी

ि.सं.

आर.सी. सं.

न्यायालय का नाम

1.

ठरट यजर्का(िासडंक)/466/2017

िंकर प्रसाि बनाम् केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो, सीबीआई पुजलस

अिीक्षक के माध्यम से और अन्य

2.

ठरट यजर्का(िासडंक)/314/2011

राम कुमार ससंि बनाम् झारखण्ड राज्य, सीबीआई के माध्यम से

3.

ठरट यजर्का(िासडंक)/211/2012

जबभुती भूषण प्रसाि अमर बनाम् झारखण्ड राज्य, सीबीआई के

माध्यम से

4.

ठरट यजर्का(िासडंक)/217/2012

नरेि प्रसाि ससंि बनाम् केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो और अन्य

5.

िासडंक प्रकीणच याजर्का/1149/2012

जविय कुमार ससंि बनाम् झारखण्ड राज्य, सीबीआई पुजलस

अिीक्षक के माध्यम से

6

िासडंक प्रकीणच याजर्का/1153/2012

उमेि प्रसाि ससंि बनाम् बनाम झारखण्ड राज्य, सीबीआई

पुजलस अिीक्षक के माध्यम से

7.

िासडंक प्रकीणच याजर्का/1415/2012

मुनव्वर आलम बनाम् केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो

8.

िासडंक प्रकीणच याजर्का/2857/2013

िुगाचनन्ि समंि बनाम् झारखण्ड राज्य, सीबीआई के माध्यम से

9.

िासडंक प्रकीणच याजर्का/3219/2013

अिय िेखर बनाम् झारखण्ड राज्य, केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के

माध्यम से

[फा. सं. 225/31/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2023

S.O. 267.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Prashant Vidyarthy,

Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the following case as mentioned in the Table below

instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment, (Central Bureau of Investigation) before the High Court of

Jharkhand at Ranchi for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or till further orders,

whichever is earlier, namely :-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

481

TABLE

Serial

Number

Case Number

Name of the Party

(1)

(2)

(3)

1

W.P. (Cr.)/466/2017

Shankar Prasad Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation through

the Superintendent of Police CBI and ANR

2

W.P. (Cr.)/314/2011

Ram Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand through CBI

3

W.P. (Cr.)/211/2012

Bibhuti Bhushan Prasad Amar Vs. State of Jharkhand through

CBI

4

W.P. (Cr.)/217/2012

Naresh Prasad Singh Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation and

Another

5

Cr.M.P./1149/2012

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand through S P CBI

6

Cr.M.P./1153/2012

Umesh Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand through S P CBI

7

Cr.M.P./1415/2012

Manauwar Alam Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

8

Cr.M.P./2857/2013

Durganand Minz Vs. State of Jharkhand through CBI

9

Cr.M.P./3219/2013

Ajay Shekhar Vs. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau

of Investigation

[F. No. 225/31/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 268.—केन् द्र सरकार, एति द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का

25) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज् य सरकार,

गृि 4 िाखा, गृि मामलों और न् याय जवभाग के ज्ञापन सं.08/05/2022-1एर्4(3एर्4)/1489, दिनांक

10.03.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से भारतीय स्ट् टेट बैंक को लगभग 4 करोड़ रूपए की सिोषपूणच िाजन

काठरत करने के जलए श्री उमेि कुमार, क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक, भारतीय स्ट् टेट बैंक, आरबीओ-।।, लुजियाना के द्वारा मेससच

िीवान स्ट् टील् स, 1790/ए, फेि-5, फोकल पॉइंट, नया डाकघर, लुजियाना, श्री िीपक िैन पुत्र श्री श् याम प्रकाि िैन,

श्री मोजित िैन पुत्र िीपक िैन, श्रीमती ज् योजत िैन पत् नी श्री िीपक िैन, सभी सी-61, अबचन एस्ट् टेट, फेि-।, र्ंड़ीगढ़

रोड़, लुजियाना के जनवासी तथा अज्ञात लोक सेवकों के जवरूद्ध ििच कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) तथा भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) के तित िंडनीय अपराि(िों)

का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा

षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के

जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त पंिाब राज्य में

करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/145/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2023

S.O. 268.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.08/05/2022-1H4(3H4)/1489 dated 10.03.2022, Home 4

Branch, Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising

out of the complaint lodged by Shri Umesh Kumar, Regional Manager, State Bank of India, RBO-II, Ludhiana

against M/s Diwan Steels, 1790/A, Phase-5, Focal Point, New Post Office, Ludhiana, Shri Deepak Jain S/o

Shyam Parkash Jain, Shri Mohit Jain S/o Deepak Jain, Smt. Jyoti Jain W/o Shri Deepak Jain, all resident at C-

61, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana and unknown public servants for causing wrongful loss

of approx. Rs. 4 crores to the State Bank of India punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49

482 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of 1988) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to

or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/145/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 269.—केंद्र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उत्तर प्रिेि राज्य सरकार,

गृि (पुजलस) अनुभाग-12, लखनऊ के आिेि सं. 2628(1)/6-पी-12-2022-2(39)डी/22, दिनांक

29.12.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से इंद्रा नगर, पुजलस थाना, जिला-लखनऊ में भारतीय िंड संजिता,

1860 (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 386, 342, 504, 506, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120बी और

भ्रष्टाiर्ार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 का अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथासंिोजित) की िारा

7 के तित दिनांक 29.10.2022 को ििच मामला अपराि प्राथजमकी सं.0310/2022 से संबंजित अपराि(िों)

का अन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र

एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए,

दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त उत्तर प्रिेि राज्य में

करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/04/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 6th Januaary, 2023

S.O. 269.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued vide Order No.2628(1)/6-P-12-2022-2(39)D/22 dated 29.12.2022,

Home (Police) Section-12, Lucknow, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) under

sections 386, 342, 504, 506, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and

section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) relating to

Case Crime FIR No. 0310/2022 dated 29.10.2022, registered at Police Station Indra Nagar, District Lucknow

and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any

other offence committed in the course of same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/04/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 270.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री बी.एम.पी. ससंि, अजिवक्ट् ता को, जविेष न्यायािीि, केन्िीय अन्वेषण

ब्यूरो, रांर्ी, झारखंड के समक्ष दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन, (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् थत मामला सं.

आरसी 13/2011 (मिु कोड़ा और अन्य) का अजभयोिन और तत्समय प्रवृत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत दकसी अपील

न्यायालय या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय के समक्ष इस मामले से उद्भूत दकसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामले के जलए

भी अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने िेतु पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषच की अवजि के जलए या मामले के

जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/25/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

483

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2023

S.O. 270.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri B.M.P Singh, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution Case RC 13/2011 (Madhu Koda and another) instituted by Delhi

Special Police Establishment, (Central Bureau of Investigation), before Special Judge, Central Bureau of

Investigation, Ranchi, Jharkhand and any appeal, revision and other matter arising out of this case before any

appellate or revisional Court established by law for the time being in force, for a period of three years from the

date of assumption of charge or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/25/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 271.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट्थान राज् य सरकार, गृि

(गृ.V) जवभाग, ियपुर की अजिसूर्ना सं.एफ.19(95) गृि-5/2022, दिनांक 22.11.2022 के माध् यम से िारी

सम्मजत से यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया (तत्कालीन आंध्रा बैंक) को लगभग 13.08 करोड़ रु. की सिोष िाजन पहुुँर्ाने के

संबंि में मेससच एसएनिी ठरयल स्ट्टेट प्रा. जल., 707, पेठरस प्वाईंट, कलेक्ट्टरेट सर्कचल, बानी पाकच,ियपुर, इसके

जनिेिकगण नामतः श्री सत्य नारायण गुप्ता और श्रीमती सुिीला गुप्ता, अज्ञात लोक सेवकगण और अन्यों के जवरुद्ध

श्री िठर मोिन मीना, उप क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया, क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, ियपुर द्वारा भ्रष् टार्ार

जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 का अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथासंिोजित) की िारा 7 और

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िाराएुँ 403, 406, 409 और 420 के तित

िण्डनीय अपराि(िों) के संबंि में भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण िाखा, ियपुर में जिकायत सं. आरए0302022ए0001 के

माध्यम से दिनांक 08.03.2022 को ििच कराई गई जिकायत से उत् पन् न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा

ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में

दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के

सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त रािस्ट्थान राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/03/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2023

S.O. 271.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No.F.19(95)Home-5/2022 dated 22.11.2022, Home

(Gr.-V) Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 08.03.2022 registered vide complaint No. RA0302022A0001 at CBI, ACB, Jaipur, lodged by

Shri Hari Mohan Meena, Deputy Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Jaipur against M/s.

SNG Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., 707, Paris Point, Collectorate Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur, its Directors namely Shri

Satya Narayan Gupta and Smt. Sushila Gupta, unknown public servants of Union Bank of India and others for

causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 13.08 crores to the Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank)

punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of

2018) and section 120-B r/w sections 403, 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/03/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

484 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 272.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा

(8) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री कौिलेन्द्र प्रताप ससंि, अजिवक्ट् ता को, उत्तर प्रिेि राज्य में

लखनऊ जस्ट्थत जविेष न्यायािीि, केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो 03 के समक्ष दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन (केंद्रीय

अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् थत मामला सं. आर.सी-1(एस)/2021/सीबीआई/एससी-I/नई दिल्ली (वाराणसी में

िोिरी ित्या का मामला) का और तत्समय प्रवृत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत दकसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय के

समक्ष इस मामले से उद्भूत दकसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों के अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने के जलए, पि

ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषच की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूवचतर िो,

जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/24/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2023

S.O. 272.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Kaushalendra Pratap Singh,

Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution Case RC-1(S)/2021/CBI/SC-I/New Delhi

(Double murder case at Varanasi) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of

Investigation), before Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation 03, in the State of Uttar Pradesh at

Lucknow and any appeal, revision and other matters arising out of this case before any appellate or revisional

Court established by law for the time being in force for a period of three years from the date of assumption of

charge or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/24/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 273.— केंद्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री जप्रय रंिन, अजिविा को मुिफ्फरपुर जस्ट्थत जवर्ारण न्यायालय के

समक्ष दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन (केंद्रीय अन् वेषण ब् यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत, डाक जवभाग में ग्रामीण सेवक की

जनयुजियों से संबंजित मामलों और तत्समय प्रवृत्त दकसी जवजि द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत दकसी अपील न्यायालय या पुनरीक्षण

न्यायालय में इस मामले से उद्भूत दकसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण और अन्य मामलों के जलए अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने

िेतु पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषच से अनजिक की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो

भी पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/18/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2023

S.O. 273.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Priya Ranjan, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases relating to Gramin Dak Sevak appointments in

Department of Posts, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation),

before the Trial Court at Muzaffarpur and any appeal, revision and other matter arising out of these cases in any

Appellate or Revisional Court established by any law for the time being in force for a period of three years from

the date of the assumption of charge or till disposal of the cases, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/18/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

485

नई दिल्ली, 13 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 274.— केंद्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8)

द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्ट् तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री मौ. लतीफुर रिमान अंसारी, अजिविा को जविेष न्यायािीि, केंद्रीय

अन् वेषण ब् यूरो-II, पटना के समक्ष लंजबत दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन, (केंद्रीय अन् वेषण ब् यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत श्रीिन

घोटाले से संबंजित नीर्े िी गई सारणी में यथा उजल्लजखत मामलों के अजभयोिन का संर्ालन करने िेतु पि ग्रिण

करने की तारीख से तीन वषच की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूवचतर िो, जविेष लोक

अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुक्ट् त करती िै:--

सारणी

ि. सं.

सीबीआई मामला आरसी संख्या

(1)

(2)

1.

आरसी.12(ए)/2018 - पीएटी.,

2.

आरसी.13(ए)/2018 - पीएटी.,

3.

आरसी.14(ए)/2018 - पीएटी.,

4.

आरसी.15(ए)/2018 - पीएटी.,

5.

आरसी.16(ए)/2018 - पीएटी.,

6.

आरसी.17(ए)/2018 - पीएटी.,

7.

आरसी.18(ए)/2018 - पीएटी.,

8.

आरसी.10(ए)/2021 – पीएटी. (अन् वेषण)

9.

आरसी.5(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

10.

आरसी.6(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

11.

आरसी.7(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

12.

आरसी.8(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

13.

आरसी.9(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

14.

आरसी.10(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

15.

आरसी.11(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

16.

आरसी.12(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

17.

आरसी.13(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

18.

आरसी.14(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

19.

आरसी.15(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

20.

आरसी.16(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

21.

आरसी.17(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

22.

आरसी.18(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

23.

आरसी.19(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

24.

आरसी.20(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

[फा. सं. 225/13/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 13th January, 2023

S.O. 274.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Md. Latifur Rahman

Ansari, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of the cases relating to Srijan Scam

instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) as mentioned in the Table

below pending before Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation-II, Patna, for a period of three years from

the date of the assumption of charge or till disposal of the cases, whichever is earlier : -

TABLE

Sl. No.

CBI Case RC. No.

(1)

(2)

1.

RC.12(A)/2018-Pat.,

2.

RC.13(A)/2018-Pat.,

3.

RC.14(A)/2018-Pat.,

4.

RC.15(A)/2018-Pat.,

5.

RC.16(A)/2018-Pat.,

6.

RC.17(A)/2018-Pat.,

7.

RC.18(A)/2018-Pat.,

8.

RC.10(A)/2021-Pat. (Investigation)

9.

RC.5(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

10.

RC.6(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

11.

RC.7(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

12.

RC.8(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

13.

RC.9(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

14.

RC.10(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

15.

RC.11(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

16.

RC.12(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

17.

RC.13(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

18.

RC.14(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

19.

RC.15(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

20.

RC.16(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

21.

RC.17(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

22.

RC.18(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

23.

RC.19(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

24.

RC.20(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

[F. No. 225/13/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 275.—केन्‍दरर सरकार, एतदद्वारा ददल्लीं धवशेर् पुधलस स्थापिा अधिधियम, 1946 (1946 का

25) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठित िारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शधियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज्य सरकार,

गृह, कारागार एवं आपदा प्रबंिि धवभाग, रांिी की अधिसूििा सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.- 414/2022-4631/रांिी,

ददिांक 21.11.2022, के माध्यम से जारी सम्मधत से, बैंक को जाली भुगताि अिुदेश जमा कर अपिे धिजी खाते में

लगभग 26.55 लाख रु. की राधश का कपटपूर्ष अंतरर् करिे के संबंि में श्री अंदकत लक्ष्मीिंद जैि, पुत्र श्री लक्ष्मीिंद

जैि, वठरष्ठ लेखा अधिकारी (ई-2), लेखा प्रभारी, आंिधलक कायाषलय, रांिी, एमईसीएल के धवरुद्ध श्री श्रीकांत शमाष,

प्रबंिक (भूधवज्ञाि), ओआईसी-आंिधलक कायाषलय (पूवी अंिल), धमिरल एक्सप्लॉरेशि एंड कंसल्टेंसी धल., ऐंधसलरी

िौक, टुपुदािा, हठटया, रांिी द्वारा भारतीय दण्ड संधहता (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 409, 465, और 467 और

भ्रष्टािार धिवारर् अधिधियम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अधिधियम 16 द्वारा यथासंशोधित) की िाराएँ

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

487

13(2) सपठित िारा 13(1) (ए) के तहत दकए गए दण्डिीय अपराि(िों) के धवर्य में ददिांक 29.08.2022 को दजष

कराई गई धशकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्‍दवेर्र् तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से जुडे या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

दुष्प्प्रयास, दुष्प्प्रेरर्ा और/अथवा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या उन्‍दहीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्‍दय

अपराि का अन्‍दवेर्र् करिे के धलए ददल्ली धवशेर् पुधलस स्थापिा के सदस्यों की शधियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का

धवस्तार समस्त झारखंड राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/06/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2023

S.O. 275.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No. -10/C.B.I.-414/2022-4631/Ranchi dated

21.11.2022, Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into

the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 29.08.2022 lodged by Shri Srikant Sharma, Manager

(Geology), OIC-Zonal Office (Eastern Zone), Mineral Exploration and Consultancy Ltd., Ancillary Chowk,

Tupudana, Hatia, Ranchi against Shri Ankit Laxmichand Jain, S/o Shri Laxmichand Jain, Sr. Account Officer

(E-2), Account Incharge, ZO, Ranchi, MECL, pertaining to fraudulent transfer of funds of approx. Rs. 26.55

lakhs into his personal account by submitting forged payment instruction to bank, punishable under sections

409, 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the

course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/06/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 276.—केन्‍दर सरकार, एतद्वारा ददल्ली धवशेर् पुधलस स्थापिा अधिधियम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठित िारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शधियों का प्रयोग करते हुए महाराष्ट्र राज्य सरकार, गृह

धवभाग, मुंबई के आदेश सं. धमसलेधियस-0123/सी.आर.26/स्पेशल-3ए, ददिांक 31.01.2023 के माध्यम से जारी

सम्मधत से साईबर थािा, िागपुर धसटी, महाराष्ट्र में सूििा प्रौद्योधगकी अधिधियम, 2000 (वर्ष 2000 का 21) (वर्ष

2008 में यथासंशोधित) की िाराएं 65, 66(सी) और 66(डी) और भारतीय दण्ड संधहता, 1860 (1860 का 45)

की सपठित िाराएँ 384 और 506 तहत दण्डिीय अपराि(िों) के संबंि में ददिांक 25.01.2023 को दजष मामला

सी.आर. सं. 02/2023 से संबंधित अपराि(िों) का अन्‍दवेर्र् करिे के धलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से जुडे या उससे

संबद्ध दकसी दुष्प्प्रयास, दुष्प्प्रेरर्ा एवं/अथवा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या उन्‍दहीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न

दकसी अन्‍दय अपराि का अन्‍दवेर्र् करिे के धलए ददल्ली धवशेर् पुधलस स्थापिा के सदस्यों की शधियों और क्षेत्राधिकार

का धवस्तार समस्ति महाराष्ट्र राज्यत में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/09/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2023

S.O. 276.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. MISC-0123/C.R.26/Spl-3A dated 31.01.2023, Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) under sections 65, 66(c)

and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) (as amended in 2008) r/w sections 384 and

488 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) relating to C.R. No. 02/2023 dated 25.01.2023, registered at

Cyber Police Station, Nagpur City, Maharashtra and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or

in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/09/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 277.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष् र राज् य सरकार, गृि

जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई-2021/सी.आर.343/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 18.08.2022 के माध् यम से िारी

सम्मजत से यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया और र्ार संघीय सिस्ट्य बैंकों को लगभग 207.82 करोड़ रु. की सिोष िाजन

पहुुँर्ाने के संबंि में मेससच यजतन स्ट्टील्स इंजडया प्रा. जल., कायाचलय िोिी र्ैम्बसच, 66बी, भू-तल, अिमिाबाि स्ट्रीट,

कानैक वंडर, मुंबई, इसके जनिेिकगण नामतः श्री यजतन िगमोिन खन्ना और श्रीमती पवन यजतन खन्ना, अज्ञात लोक

सेवकगण और अन्यों के जवरुद्ध श्री टी. िीना ियाल, उप मिाप्रबंिक, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया, िाबयुि आजस्ट्तयाुँ

प्रबंिन िाखा, भूतल, भारत िाउस, एम.एस. मागच, फोटच, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की

िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 और भ्रष् टार्ार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवच िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत

िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िण्डनीय अपराि(िों) के संबंि में दिनांक 23.03.2021 को ििच कराई गई जिकायत,

जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 14.09.2022 को सीबीआई मामला आरसी2222022ए0007 ििच दकया गया िै, से

उत् पन् न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास,

िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का

अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक

14.09.2022 से, कायोत् तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट् त मिाराष् र राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/01/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2023

S.O. 277.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI-2021/C.R. 343/POL-2 dated 18.08.2022, Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 14.09.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the

offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 23.03.2021 lodged by Shri T. Deena Dayal, Deputy General

Manager, Union Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Ground Floor, Bharat House, M.S. Marg,

Fort, Mumbai against M/s Yatin Steels India Pvt. Ltd., Office at Joshi Chambers, 66 B, Ground Floor,

Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai, its Directors namely Shri Yatin Jagmohan Khanna and Smt. Pavan

Yatin Khanna, unknown public servants and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 207.82 crores to

the Union Bank of India and four other consortium member Banks, punishable under section 120B r/w section

420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) based on which a CBI case RC2222022A0007 has been registered on 14.09.2022 and

any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any

other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/01/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

489

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 278.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946

का 25) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष् र

राज् य सरकार, गृि जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई-2021/सी.आर.314/पीओएल-2, दिनांक

18.08.2022 के माध् यम से िारी सम्मजत से यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया को लगभग 53.28 करोड़ रु. की

सिोष िाजन पहुुँर्ाने के संबंि में मेससच वी.एन. ज्वेलसच, कायाचलय िी-3, िॉसपंग सेंटर, जवठलभाई रोड,

टीपीएस-III, सलंककंग रोड, बांद्रा (पजिम), मुंबई, इसके साझेिार नामतः श्री अिय सल्ला और श्री संिय

सल्ला, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के अज्ञात लोक सेवकगण और अन्यों के जवरुद्ध श्री टी. िीना ियाल, उप

मिाप्रबंिक, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया, िाबयुि आजस्ट्तयाुँ प्रबंिन िाखा, भारत िाउस, एम.एस. मागच,

फोटच, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 और

भ्रष् टार्ार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक

26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवच िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के

तित िण्डनीय अपराि(िों) के संबंि में दिनांक 17.03.2021 को ििच कराई गई जिकायत, जिसके आिार

पर दिनांक 14.09.2022 को सीबीआई मामला आरसी2222022ए0008 ििच दकया गया िै, से उत् पन् न

अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास,

िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य

अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार

का जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 14.09.2022 से, कायोत् तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट् त मिाराष् र राज् य में करती िै।।

[फा. सं. 228/02/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2023

S.O. 278.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI-2021/C.R. 314/POL-2 dated 18.08.2022, Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 14.09.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the

offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 17.03.2021 lodged by Shri T. Deena Dayal, Deputy General

Manager, Union Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Bharat House, M.S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai

against M/s. V.N. Jewellers, Office at G-3, Shopping Centre, Vithalbhai Road, TPS-III, Linking Road, Bandra

(W), Mumbai, its Partners namely Shri Ajay Salla and Sh. Sanjay Salla, unknown public servants of Union

Bank of India and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 53.28 crores to the Union Bank of India

punishable under section 120B r/w section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w

section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made

to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) based on which a CBI case RC2222022A0008 has

been registered on 14.09.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with

such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of

the same facts.

[F. No. 228/02/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 279.—केन्द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थातपना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट्थान राज्य सरकार, गृि

(गृ.V) जवभाग, ियपुर की अजिसूर्ना सं. एफ.19(103) गृि-5/2022, दिनांक 30.12.2022 के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत से सरकारी सेवक द्वारा आपराजिक षड्यंत्र करने, मूल्यवान प्रजतभूजत की कूटरर्ना करने, िोखािड़ी करने के

जलए कूटरर्ना करने, िोखािड़ी करने, कूटरजर्त िस्ट्तावेि को असली िस्ट्तावेि के रूप में उपयोग करने और

490 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

आपराजिक अवर्ार करने के संबंि में मेससच जवनायक लॉजिजस्ट्टक्ट्स इंजडया प्रा. जल., पंिीकृत पता वाडच सं. 09,

एम.िी. रोड, फैंसी बािार, गुवािाटी, जिला कामरूप; नाथद्वारा रेलवे स्ट्टेिन, अिमेर प्रभाग, उत्तरी पजिमी रेलवे

(एनडब्ल्यूआर) में तैनात अज्ञात रेलवे अजिकाठरयों तथा अन्य के जवरुद्ध भारतीय िण्ड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का

45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िाराएुँ 420, 467, 468 और 471 तथा भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988

(1988 का 49) (2018 का अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथासंिोजित) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(ए) के तित

िण्डनीय अपराि(िों) के संबंि में भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण िाखा, ियपुर में दिनांक 16.12.2022 को ििच कराई गई

जिकायत सं. सीए0302022ए0111 से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े

या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों

से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्तव रािस्ट्थान राज्य् में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/08/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2023

S.O. 279.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.19(103) Home-5/2022 dated 30.12.2022, Home

(Gr.-V) Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) punishable under

section 120B r/w sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and section 13(2)

r/w section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018),

arising out of the complaint dated 16.12.2022 registered vide complaint No. CA0302022A0111 at CBI, ACB,

Jaipur against M/s Vinayak Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Registered address at Ward No. 09, M.G. Road, Fancy

Bazar, Guwahati, Distt.-Kamrup, unknown Railway Officials posted at Nathdwara Railway Station, Ajmer

Division, NWR and others for criminal conspiracy, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of

cheating, cheating, using as genuine a forged document and criminal misconduct by public servant and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/08/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 280.—केन् द्र सरकार, एति्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट् थान राज् य सरकार, गृि

(िीआर-v) जवभाग, ियपुर की अजिसूर्ना सं. एफ. 19(44)िोम-5/2022, दिनांक 26.05.2022, के माध्यम से

िारी सम्मजत से श्री आयुष मजण जतवारी, भा.पु.से., मिा जनरीक्षक (कार्मचक.), बीएसएफ, ब् लॉक सं.10, 5वीं

मंजिल, सीिीओ कॉम् प् लैक्ट् स, लोिी रोड़, नई दिल् ली द्वारा दिनांक 22.03.2022 को (1) डॉ एस. के. झा, सीएमओ

(एसिी), सीएर् बीएसएफ, कोलकाता (2) डॉ. मृणाल ििाठरका, सीएमओ (एसिी), सीएर् बीएसएफ, िोिपुर

(3) डॉ बानी सैदकया र्ेजतया, एसपीएल. ग्रेड-I, सीएर् बीएसएफ, िालंिर (4) श्री जविम ससंि िेवठठया, पुत्र श्री

राम कुमार (5) श्री गगन िमाच, पुत्र श्री राम गोपाल िमाच (6) श्री करन ससंि कोली, पुत्र श्री िरभिन कोली (7) श्री

गुरिीत ससंि िुनेिा, पुत्र श्री मिेन् द्र ससंि िुनेिा (8) श्री मुकुल व् यास, पुत्र श्री अरसवंि व् यास तथा अन् य के जवरूद्ध

ििच कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न, भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120 बी सपठठत िारा 420 तथा

511 तथा भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49)(2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की

िारा 7(सी) तथा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 420 तथा 511 के तित मूल अपरािों तथा

भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7

के तित िण्डनीय अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

491

अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त रािस्ट् थान राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/144/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार र्ौरजसया, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2023

S.O. 280.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No.F.19(44)Home-5/2022 dated 26.05.2022, Home

(Gr.V) Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 22.03.2022 lodged by Shri Ayush Mani Tiwari, IPS, Inspector General (Pers), Border Security

Force, Block No.10, 5th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi against (1) Dr. S.K. Jha, CMO (SG),

CH BSF, Kolkata, (2) Dr. Mrinal Hazarika, CMO (SG), CH BSF, Jodhpur, (3) Dr. Bani Saikia Chetia, Spl.

Grade-I, CH BSF, Jalandhar, (4) Shri Vikram Singh Devthia, S/o Shri Ram Kumar, (5) Shri Gagan Sharma,

S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, (6) Shri Karan Singh Koli, S/o Shri Harbhajan Koli, (7) Shri Gurjeet Singh Juneja,

S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Juneja, (8) Shri Mukul Vyas, S/o Shri Arvind Vyas and others punishable under

section 120B r/w sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 7(c) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and substantive offences under sections

420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49

of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/144/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 12 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 281.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार जर्दकत्सा अिीक्षक, इंदिरा गांिी कमचर्ारी राज्य बीमा जनगम अस्ट्पताल, जझलजमल कॉलोनी, दिल्ली; 3573,

बालािी कुमार पांडा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली ,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री प्रेम

ससंि,कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के

पंर्ाट (संिभच सं. 242/2021) 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-42025/07/2023-14-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2023

S.O. 281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 242/2021) 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 Prem

Singh,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

16.12.2022.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-14-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 242/2021

Date of Passing Award- 06.12.2022

Between:

Sh. Prem Singh, S/o Sh. Parmal Singh,

R/o–E-103, Gali No.-07, Deepak Colony,

Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, 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

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 01/01/2017 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

493

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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 282.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री सुन्‍ददर वीर, ग़धिआबाद (यू.पी.) के बीि

अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस

ि.-251/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)- 20]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 251/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Sunder Veer, Ghaziabad (U.P.) which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-20]

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

494 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 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 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.

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 : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

495

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 283.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री सीता राम, ददल्ली के बीि अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट

केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -250/2021) को

जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है, जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)- 19]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 250/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Sita Ram, Delhi which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-19]

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

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

496 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 284.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री राजपाल ससंह, ग़धिआबाद (यू.पी.) के बीि

अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस

ि.-249/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)-18]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

497

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 249/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Rajpal Singh, Ghaziabad (U.P.) which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-18]

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. 249/2021

Date of Passing Award- 01.12.2022

Between:

Sh. Rajpal Singh, S/o Sh. Puran Singh,

R/o–Sarswati Vihar, Loni Dehat, 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 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

498 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 285.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री धवधपि कुमार त्यागी, ददल्ली के बीि अिुबंि

में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस

ि.-248/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)-17]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 248/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Vipin Kumar Tyagi, Delhi which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-17]

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 : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

499

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 248/2021

Date of Passing Award- 05.12.2022

Between:

Sh. Vipin Kumar Tyagi, S/o Sh. Nain Singh,

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,

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.

500 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 286.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में, केन्‍दरीय

सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री मोधहउद्दीि, ददल्ली के बीि अिुबंि में

धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -247/2021)

को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)-16]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 247/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Mohiuddin, Delhi which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-16]

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. 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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

501

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

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 287.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री सुरेश िंद, ददल्ली के बीि अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट

502 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -245/2021) को

जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)-15]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 245/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Suresh Chand, Delhi which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-15]

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,

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)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

503

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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 288.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री एसबीर ससंह, ग़धिआबाद, (यू.पी.) के बीि

अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -

244/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)-14]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 244/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

504 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Yesbir Singh, Ghaziabad (U.P.) which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-14]

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

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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

505

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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 289.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री रेवा राम शमाष, बागपत, (यू.पी.) के बीि

अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -

243/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj(एम)-13]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 243/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Rewa Ram Sharma, Bagpat (U.P.) which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-13]

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.

506 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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 : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

507

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 290.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री प्रेम ससंह, ददल्ली के बीि अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट

केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -242/2021) को

जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)-12]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 242/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Prem Singh, Delhi which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-12]

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. 242/2021

Date of Passing Award- 06.12.2022

Between:

Sh. Prem Singh, S/o Sh. Parmal Singh,

R/o–E-103, Gali No.-07, Deepak Colony,

Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, 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

Appearances:-

Claimant in person

For the claimant

(A/R)

Shri Rohit Bhagat

For the Management No.1

508 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 01/01/2017 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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 291.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री राम दकशि, ददल्ली के बीि अिुबंि में

धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -

241/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम) -11]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

509

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 241/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Ram Kishan, Delhi which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-11]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

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

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

510 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 292.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री िरेंदर कुमार त्यागी, ददल्ली के बीि अिुबंि

में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -

239/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम)-10]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 239/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Narender Kumar Tyagi, Delhi which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-10]

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 : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

511

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)

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

512 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 293 .—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री अतर ससंह, ग़धिआबाद के बीि अिुबंि में

धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -

238/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम) -9]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 238/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Atar Singh, Ghaziabad which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-9]

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. 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)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

513

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, 22 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 294.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार इंददरा गाँिी एम्प्लाइज' स्टेट इन्‍दसुरेंस कॉपोरेशि हॉधस्पटल, ददल्ली; 3573, बालाजी कुमार पांडा

धसक्योठरटी एजेंसी, िई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और श्री याम बहादुर थापा, ददल्ली के बीि अिुबंि

में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर् एवं श्रम न्‍दयायालय-2, िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (ठरफरेन्‍दस ि. -

236/2021) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 22.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-vkbZvkj (एम) -8]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023

S.O. 294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 236/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Indira Gandhi Employes’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Delhi; 3573, Balaji

514 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kumar Panda Security Agency, New Delhi and Shri Yam Bhadur Thapa, Delhi which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.02.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-8]

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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

515

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, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 295.—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 120/2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/455/2004-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 120/2005) 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 20/02/2023

[No. L-22012/455/2004 – 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. 120 OF 2005

PARTIES: Meghnath Manjhi

Vs.

Management of Dhemomain Group of Mines of M/s. ECL

516 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Shri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

03.02.2023

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-22012/455/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 01.09.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between

the employer, that is the Management of Dhemomain Group of Mines of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of Dhemomain Group of Mines in dismissing

of Sh. Meghnath Manjhi, U. G. Loader from services is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/455/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 01.09.2005 from the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 120 of 2005 was

registered on 23.09.2005 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. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appearing for the Management is ready for advancing his argument.

On call none appeared for Meghnath Manjhi, the dismissed workman. Shri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary,

Colliery Mazdoor Congress is also found absent. On a perusal of the case record I find that Notice was sent to

Meghnath Manjhi under registered post at his village address but the same has been returned unserved with a

report dated 17.11.2022 that the addressee has expired.

3. The order of reference dated 01.09.2005 has been forwarded to this Tribunal for adjudicating an

industrial dispute as to whether the action of the Management of Dhemomain Group of Mines in dismissing of

Shri Meghnath Manjhi, Under Ground Loader from services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?

4. In this case the workman had adduced evidence but no document related to his service or dismissal has

been produced. Opportunity was given to the Management to adduce evidence but evidence was closed on

13.12.2016 at the instance of learned advocate for the Management.

5. Having consider the facts and circumstances, the long absence of the workman, taken together with the

fact that he has been reported dead without any substitution of legal heirs, I hold that there is no merit in the

case and the same is liable to be disposed of in the form of No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

That a No Dispute Award be 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

517

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 296.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्द्रीय सरकार उप। महाप्रबंिक, भारत इलेक्रॉधिक्स धलधमटेड, 405, औद्योधगक क्षेत्र, िरर्-III, पंिकुला-

(हठरयार्ा) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और महासधिव, भारत इलेक्रॉधिक वकषसष यूधियि, पंिकुला, भारत

इलेक्रॉधिक्स, 405, औद्योधगक क्षेत्र, िरर्-III, पंिकुला-(हठरयार्ा), के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-2 िंडीगढ़ के पंर्ाट (संिभच सं. 6/2015) को जैसा दक

अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 24/02/2023 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-14011/05/2015-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court –2,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Dy. General Manager, Bharat Electronics Ltd., 405, Industrial Area, Phase-III, Panchkula-(Haryana)

and The General Secretary, Bharat Electronic Workers Union, Panchkula, Bharat Electronics, 405, Industrial

Area, Phase-III, Panchkula-(Haryana),which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 24/02/2023.

[No. L-14011/05/2015- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

ID No.6/2015

The General Secretary, Bharat Electronic Workers Union,

Panchkula, Bharat Electronics, 405, Industrial Area,

Phase-III, Panchkula(Haryana)-134113. ….Workers/Union

Versus

The Dy. General Manager,

Bharat Electronics Ltd., 405, Industrial Area,

Phase-III, Panchkula(Haryana)-134113. ….Respondent/Management

AWARD

Passed on:-19.12.2022

Central Government vide Notification No. L-14011/05/2015-IR(DU) Dated 07.05.2015, under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter

called the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

518 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management in issuing notice dated 04.10.2013 as per

section 9A of the ID Act regarding change/alter in the existing medical facilities under

section 9A of the ID Act is violation of Para (3), Para (15.1) and Para (19) of the MOS

dated 19.05.2010 is valid, just and legal? If not, to what relief concerned workmen are

entitled to and from which date?”

1.

Both the parties were put to notice and Workers/Union filed their statement of claim with the

averments that the present claim is an outcome of industrial dispute raised by the Bharat Electronics Workers

Union, Panchkula consequent upon served a notice of change under Section 9A of the Act, by the management

vide no.17556/821/HOA on 04.10.2013 in order to effect the changes in the medical policy, which was

implemented w.e.f. 01.11.1985 vide office order no.HO/821/009 dated 14.11.1985. The workers/union of

Bharat Electronics Panchkula has submitted its charter of demands vide letter no.967 dated 19.06.2006 for the

revision of wages and related matters including medical facilities which was due from 01.01.2007. The

management of Bharat Electronics constituted a joint wage negotiation committee(JWNC) comprising of both

parties viz. management representative and workers/union representatives. The joint wage negotiating

committee has convened 18 meetings to negotiate wages and related matters and finally in 19th meeting on 7th

and 8th May 2010 both the parties reached at an amicable settlement and signed a memorandum of

understanding on 08.05.2010. Based on this MOU every unit including Panchkula unit has signed a

memorandum of settlement under Section 12(3) and 18(3) of the ID Act 1947 and the management of

Panchkula unit has also signed a MOS dated 19.05.2010 with the Bharat Electronics Workers Union in the

presence of Ld RLC(C) and the same is registered vide no.8(57)/2010/RCH dated 19.05.2010. As per the

provision of clause 3 of the MOS the duration of settlement was fixed for 10 years i.e. from 01.01.2007 to

31.12.2016. Thereafter the management has issued a notice of change of service conditions vide letter

no.17556/821/HOA dated 04.10.2013 as per the provision of Section 9A of the ID Act showing their intension

to alter/change some of the paras of contributory medical scheme(CMA) in a negative side. It is a well settled

law that once a MOS is signed under Section 12(3) and 18(3) of the ID Act its provision cannot be altered by

way of giving notice of change under Section 9A during the currency of MOS and the provision of the MOS are

binding for both the parties until the expiry of mentioned date or even after that also until a notice of

termination under Section 19(2) of the ID Act, is given to another party of the settlement. The existing CMA

scheme was implemented w.e.f. 01.11.1985 through an office order no.HO/821/009 dated 14.11.1985 and since

then so many changes, which might not deemed as reduction in any facilities of said scheme were implemented

by the management only after consulting/discussions with the negotiating trade unions and this is the first time

when management has issued a notice under Section 9(A) of the ID Act and sought unilaterally to reduce the

medical facilities in the existing scheme. In view of the above facts, circumstances and law points, the

impugned notice of change dated 04.10.2013, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, may be set

aside in the interest of justice.

2.

Respondent/Management has filed written statement to the claim petition filed by the Union,

alleging therein that the petitioner-union is without any jurisdiction, foundation and liable to be dismissed on

the ground that there is no violation of Memorandum of Settlement dated 19.05.2010 on the part of the

respondent-management as alleged by the Union. The management reserves the right to amend, modify, repeal,

abrogate or withdraw any or all the provisions of the Office Order dated 14.11.1985 at their discretion at any

time without any notice whatsoever. In all fair manners management has issued the notice for making certain

changes in the scheme in line with Government Schemes like Employee State Insurance Scheme under ESI Act,

Central Government Health Scheme and some change in methodology of obtaining the medicines etc. in order

to avail discount on medicine purchase to control the expenditure which are rising rapidly year by year. The

notice of respondent-management under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly stipulates that

the management wants to make certain changes in the existing scheme of Contributory Medical Attendance

Revised Rules dated 14.11.1985. The reasons given for the change are quite genuine, justifiable, reasonable and

are not against the terms of medical facilities provided to the employees of the respondent-management. The

management wants to make certain changes in the scheme in line with Government Schemes like Employees

State Insurance Scheme under ESI Act, Central Government Health Scheme and some change in methodology

of obtaining the medicines etc in order to avail discount on medicine purchase to control the expenditure which

are rising rapidly year by year. The notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not a

violation of Memorandum of Settlement dated 19.05.2010 arrived at between the management and union. The

action of the management is legal, just, proper and in accordance with law, sustainable in the eyes of law. The

management reserves the right to amend, modify, repeal, abrogate or withdraw any or all the provisions of the

Office Order dated 14.11.1985 at their discretion at any time without any notice whatsoever. In order to make

the changes, notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act was given and the Union was invited before

the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation but no amicable conciliation proceedings were concluded.

Changes have been made by the respondent-management under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

519

in the methodology of obtaining the medicines, etc. in order to avail discount on medicine purchase to control

the expenditure which is rising rapidly year by year and the same are quite reasonable. It is therefore,

respectfully prayed that in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the union may

kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs in the interest of natural justice, equity and fair play.

3.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence. In support of the case of Union, Sh. Rajesh Kumar,

General Secretary of the Union has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A

along with documents Ex.W-1 to W-8 and has been cross-examined by Sh. Devender Singla, Manager-HR of

the respondent-management.

4.

The respondent-management has examined Sh. Davinder Kumar Singla(Deputy General

Manager(HR&A), who examined himself as MW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.MW1/A along with

document Ex.M-1(colly) and has been cross-examined by Sh. Rajesh Kumar,(General Secretary of the Union).

5.

On 13.12.2022 during the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal, Sh. Rajesh

Kumar,(General Secretary of the Union has filed an application for closure of the case. It is submitted on behalf

of Sh. Rajesh Kumar(General Secretary of the Union), that since the matter was pending on issuing a notice on

behalf of the respondent and that notice has been withdrawn and matter has taken back on the side of the

respondent. He is willing to withdraw the case and made a request to close the case. In view of the application

moved by the Union, there is no need to proceed with the matter further.

6.

It is now well settled position in law that any settlement arrived at between the parties is legally

binding upon both the parties in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7.

In view of the application moved by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, General Secretary of the Union, the present

reference made by the Ministry is dismissed as withdrawn. The application moved by Sh. Rajesh Kumar,

General Secretary of the Union shall remain the integral part of the Award.

8.

Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication of the same as required under

Section 17(2) of the Act.

J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 297.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में, केन्‍दरीय

सरकार धिदेशक, राष्ट्रीय कृधर् अिुसंिाि प्रबंिि अकादमी (एिएएआरएम), राजेंर िगर, हैदराबाद, के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध धियोजकों और अध्यक्ष, राष्ट्रीय कृधर् अिुसंिाि प्रबंिि अकादमी (एिएएआरएम) अस्थायी धस्थधत श्रधमक संघ,

दकस्मतपुर, राजेंर िगर, हैदराबाद, के बीि अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर्- सह- श्रम

न्‍दयायालय-हैदराबाद के पंिाट (संदभष सं. 78/2015) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है

जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 23.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/115/2015-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78/2015) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum- Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The Director, National Academy of Agricultural Research Management (NAARM),

Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad and The President, National Academy of Agricultural Research Management

(NAARM) Temporary Status Workers Union, Kismatpur, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad, which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.02.2023.

[No. L-42011/115/2015-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

520 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: - Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of December, 2022

Industrial Dispute No. 78/2015

Between:

The President,

National Academy of Agricultural

Research Management (NAARM)

Temporary Status Workers Union,

Kismatpur, Rajendra Nagar,

Hyderabad.

…. Petitioner

AND

The Director,

National Academy of Agricultural Research

Management (NAARM), Rajendra Nagar,

Hyderabad

….. Respondent

Appearance:-

For the Petitioner

: Shri Ranjith Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent : Smt C Vani Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New

Delhi vide order No. L-42011/115/2015-IR(DU) dated 23.09.2015 whereunder this Tribunal is required to

adjudicate the dispute i.e.,

“Whether the action of management of National Academy of Agricultural Research

Management

(NAAARM),

Rajendra

nagar,

Hyderabad

regarding

non-

implementation of paid festival Holidays to their Casual Labour (Temporary

Status) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

After receiving the above said reference, it was registered as ID No. 78/2015 in this Tribunal and

notices were issued to both the parties and secured their presence.

2.

During the pendency of proceeding, most of the members of the petitioner union have come to

settlement after discussions with the respondent. As such, the members of the petitioner union have filed their

affidavits to the effect that they are not interested in continuing with the proceedings. They also prayed that

claim regarding deponent to close as deposed in the affidavit as withdrawn and also prayed for rest of nine

members of union (Sl Nos.1,2,3,4,5,10,15,16 and 36) to raise fresh dispute and pass such order namely 1) K

Maryamma, 2) K Anjaiah, 3) B Rajaiah, 4) MC Kistaiah, 5) D Ramulu, 6) L Narsimha 7) P Venkat Rao, 8) V

Lakshmi and 9) Noorjahan.

3.

The members of the petitioner union have filed their affidavit with a prayer to close the claim as

withdrawn. Since most of the members of petitioner union wants to withdraw their claim, in view of their

settlement. In such circumstances, I disposed of the reference in terms of the prayer as made in their affidavit

dated 18.11.2022.

4.

As far as the claim of remaining nine claimant members of union i.e. Sl. Nos.1,2,3,4,5,10,15,16 and 36

is concerned, since most of the members of the union have withdrawn their claim, remaining nine members of

union, if they feel aggrieved, are at liberty to file fresh claim as an individual.

5.

The reference is thus disposed of.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

521

Typed by Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the court to my dictation and corrected by me on this the

15th day of December, 2022.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 298 .—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार धिदेशक, राष्ट्रीय कृधर् अिुसंिाि अकादमी, (एिएएआरएम),राजेंर िगर, हैदराबाद ;

महाधिदेशक,भारतीय कृधर् अिुसंिाि पठरर्द (आईसीएआर), कृधर् भवि, िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

धियोजकों और श्री के मठरयम्मा, कामगार और अन्‍दय 36, राष्ट्रीय कृधर् अिुसंिाि अकादमी, (एिएएआरएम), राजेंर

िगर, हैदराबाद, के बीि अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर्- सह- श्रम न्‍दयायालय-हैदराबाद के

पंिाट (संदभष सं. 1/2015) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 23.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-66--vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

-Labour Court –Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Director,National Academy of Agricultural Research, (NAARM), Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad ;

The Director General,The Indian Counsel for Agricultural Research (ICAR),Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi and Shri

K. Maryamma,Worker & Others 36, National Academy of Agricultural Research, (NAARM), Rajendra Nagar,

Hyderabad, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.02.2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-66-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

522 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present: - Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 15th day of December, 2022

M. P. No. 1/2015

Between:

Sl.No.

Name of the Worker

1

K. Maryamma

2

K. Anjaiah

3

B. Rajaiah

4

M.C. Kistaiah

5

D. Ramulu

6

M.Satyanaryana

7

D. Srisailam

8

B. Ratnaiah

9

D. Babaiah

10

L. Naraismha

11.

K.Somson

12

K. Shamulu

13

K. satyanarayana

14.

K. Narsimha

15.

P. Venkat Rao

16

V. Lakshmi

17

K. Andalau

18

M.S. Ravi

19

N. Krishna

20

P. Amrutha

21

K. Lakshmi

22

L. Chandramma

23

G.Satyanarayana

24.

B. Raju

25

MD. Sadat

26

T. Srinivas

27

E. Yadamma

28

S.Laxmamma

29

P. Venkatesh

30

G. Ramulu

31

P. Yadaiah

32

J Pramila

33

M. Laxmamma

34

G. Ramulu

35

M. Sharada

36

Noorjahan

37

N. Yadagiri

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

523

C/o National Academy of Agricultural Research

Management (NAARM)

Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad

….Petitioner

1. The Director,

National Academy of Agricultural

Research Management (NAARM),

Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad

2. The Director General,

The Indian Counsel for

Agricultural Research (ICAR),

Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-1.

…Respondents

Appearance:-

For the Petitioner

:

Shri Y. Ranjith Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent

:

Smt C Vani Reddy, Advocate

ORDER

This petition under Sec.33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been filed by 37 Petitioners

seeking a direction to the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.24,80,379/- towards the unpaid festival holidays

payments and worked wages on festival holidays.

2. During the pendency of proceeding, most of the members of the petitioner union have come to

settlement after discussions with the respondent. As such, the members of the petitioner union have filed their

affidavits to the effect that they are not interested in continuing with the proceedings. They also prayed that

claim regarding deponent to close as deposed in the affidavit as withdrawn and also prayed for rest of nine

members of union (Sl. Nos.1,2,3,4,5,10,15,16 and 36) to raise fresh dispute and pass such order namely 1) K

Maryamma, 2) K Anjaiah, 3) B Rajaiah, 4) MC Kistaiah, 5) D Ramulu, 6) L Narsimha 7) P Venkat Rao, 8) V

Lakshmi and 9) Noorjahan.

3. The members of the petitioner union have filed their affidavit with a prayer to close the claim as

withdrawn. Since most of the members of petitioner union wants to withdraw their claim, in view of their

settlement. In such circumstances, I disposed of the miscellaneous petition in terms of the prayer as made in

their affidavit dated 18.11.2022.

4. As far as the claim of remaining nine claimant members of union i.e. Sl. Nos.1,2,3,4,5,10,15,16 and 36

is concerned, since most of the members of the union have withdrawn their claim, remaining nine members of

union, if they feel aggrieved, are at liberty to file fresh claim as an individual.

Therefore, Miscellaneous petition is closed as withdrawn in view of the memo filed by the petitioners

concerned.

Ordered accordingly.

Typed by Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the court to my dictation and corrected by me on this the

15th day of December, 2022.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

524 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 299 .—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रबंि धिदेशक, मेससष एस्जय एठरक्सि प्राइवेट धलधमटेड,पटपडगंज औद्योधगक क्षेत्र, ददल्ली;

शाखा प्रबंिक/अंिल प्रमुख,मेससष एस्जे एठरक्सि प्राइवेट धलधमटेड, हजरतगंज, लखिऊ, प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों श्री उपेंर िाथ धतवारी, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] लखिऊ के पंर्ाट (संिभच सं. 58/2015) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया

गया है, को प्रकाजित करती िै जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/01/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ

था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-67-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2015) 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 Managing Director, M/s Essjay Ericsson Private Limited, Patparganj Industrial

Area, Delhi ;Branch Manager/Circle Head, M/s Essjay Ericsson Private Limited, Hazratganj, Lucknow and Shri

Upendra Nath Tiwari, Worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 27/01/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-67-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present : Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 58/2015

BETWEEN

Upendra Nath Tiwari S/o Sri Parmanand Tiwari,

R/o Village Bela Paschim

Distt. Sultanpur UP – 227805

AND

1. M/s Essjay Ericsson Private Limited

Registered Office at 210 F.I.E.

Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi – 110092

Through its Managing Director

2. Branch Manager/Circle Head

M/s Essjay Ericsson Private Limited

3ed Floor, Shalimar Logics

04 Rana Pratap Marg

Behind Arif Castles Hotel

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

525

Hazratganj, Lucknow – 226001.

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. 58/2015 has been registered on 24.09.2015.

Case of the claimant:

In the statement of claim filed by the claimant, it has been pleaded that he had been appointed on the

post of Assistant Engineer in Grade C vide appointment letter dated 11.04.2013 and joined his services after

fulfilling all the requisite formalities and he worked continuously up to his termination.

During his employment he worked up to the satisfaction of his employers and general public, without

calling for any complaint etc; however, the employers stated harassing him in January, 2015 and did not release

his annual increment in spite of the fact that he had completed two years of continuous service.

So he approached to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow vide his representation

dated 27.10.2015 for redressal of his grievances, his services had been terminated by the employers vide letter

dated 10.03.2015.

It has been pleaded by the claimant that the employers have terminated his services, invoking clause 14

of the employment agreement in an unjustified manner, in violation of the principles of natural justice as neither

any charge sheet had been issued nor any inquiry had been held against the workman before issuance of letter of

termination dated 10.03.2015; and when he came to know about his termination, contacted Circle Head, who

instructed the workman to submit his resignation and as per directions of the Circle Head, the workman

tendered his resignation on 11.03.2015, which was accepted by the Authorized Signatory on the very same day.

In view of the said background, workman has alleged that his services have been terminated in

violation of the provisions of Section 25 F, 25 N & 25 Q of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as he has

competed 240 days of continuous service and he had neither been given any notice nor notice pay in lieu thereof

or any retrenchment compensation at the time of his termination of his services.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his termination be declared illegal, be reinstated with

consequential benefits, including back wages.

Case of the respondent:

The management in their written statement it has been denied the claim of the workman; with

submission that the workman worked with the opposite parties for a total period of two years and ten months

and during his employment the behavior of the workman was unprofessional and his performance was not

satisfactory in accordance with the requirements of his position on expected norms and guidelines.

On many occasions it was found that the workman was not present at allocated route which is serious

misconduct in managing the affairs of operation and maintenance works under telecommunication business that

directly affects upon services provided to the customers; moreover, the workman remained unauthorized absent.

The management also stated that the workman had been counselled by his seniors on time and again to

improve his conduct but the workman deliberately adopted confrontation approach with his superiors and

finally tendered his resignation willingly with request to accept the same and relieve him with immediate effect;

accordingly, his resignation was accepted; and his full and final settlement was not paid in light of his e-mail

dated 01.01.2016; whereby the workman requested not to deposit any money with regard to his pending full and

final settlement of dues. The management has submitted that since the workman himself tendered his

resignation, therefore, his case is not covered with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act.

Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of

any merit.

Findings and conclusion:

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Preet Verma, none for claimant.

From perusal of the record the position which emerge out is that after filing of the Statement of Claim and

written statement.

On behalf of the claimant neither rejoinder affidavit nor any oral/documentary evidence have been

filed till date.

526 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 11.02.2021.

Even today neither the workman nor his authorized representative is present.

Accordingly, after hearing Sri Preet Verma, 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, iabad 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

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 300.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में, केन्‍दरीय

सरकार एलएसजी स्काई शेफ (इंधडया) प्रा. धलधमटेड, बैंगलोर इंटरिेशिल एयरपोटष, देविहल्ली, बैंगलोर, के प्रबंितंत्र

के संबद्ध धियोजकों और एलएसजी स्काई शेफ स्टाफ एंड वकषसष यूधियि (आर), शबरी िगर रोड, बैंगलोर, के बीि

अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर्- सह- श्रम न्‍दयायालय- बैंगलोर के पंिाट (संदभष सं. 08/2013)

को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

19.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/148/2012-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

527

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore International Airport, Devanahalli, Bangalore and LSG Sky

Chefs Staff and Workers Union (R), Shabari Nagar Road, Bangalore, which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 19.02.2023.

[No. L-42011/148/2012-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

At BENGALURU

DATED

: 17th JANUARY 2023

Present : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

C R No. 08/2013

I Party

II Party

LSG Sky Chefs Staff and Workers

Union (R), No. 141, 7th Cross, Shabari

Nagar Road, Ramakrishna Hegde Road,

Bangalore – 560 075.

LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Bangalore International Airport,

Devanahalli,

Bangalore – 560 300.

Appearances

I Party :

Kum. Maitreyi Krishnan

Advocate

II Party :

Sh. K R Anand

Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-42011/148/2012-IR(DU) dated

15.02.2013 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) (14 of 1947) referred the following

Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of LSG Skychefs (India)Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore in

transferring 06 workmen enmasse is malafide or can it be attributable to unfair labour practice?

To what relief the said union is entitled to?”

2. After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of

Industrial Dispute parties filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement wherein they have agreed that they have

signed voluntarily and satisfied with amount so received from the management and approached the tribunal to

accept the settlement. Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.

3. Perused the record, parties have filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.12.2022 in the present

matter voluntarily and prayed to pass consent Award in terms of the settlement. The Settlement has been duly

signed by both the parties. Therefore, in view of the above. I dispose off reference in terms of prayer made in

Joint Memorandum filed on 26.12.2022. The reference is thus disposed off. This is may Award. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17th January 2023)

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

528 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 301 .—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 01/2011) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/53/2010-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2011) 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 20/02/2023

[No. L-22012/53/2010 – 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. 01 OF 2011

PARTIES: Ragu Gond

Vs.

Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman : Shri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management :

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal

Dated:

06.02.2023

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-22012/53/2010-IR(CM-II) dated 23.12.2010 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

529

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, in not regularizing Shri Ragu Gond, UGL in terms

with the appointment order is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman entitled

for? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/53/2010-IR(CM-II) dated 23.12.2010 from the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 01 of 2011 was registered

on 09.12.2011 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. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited is present. The case was fixed up on 23.01.2023 for appearance of Ragu Gond and for

evidence. The workman was represented by Mr. S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.

On repeated call at 11.55 AM none appeared for the workman.

3. Industrial dispute involved in this Reference case is whether the action of the Management of J. K.

Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, in not regularizing Shri Ragu Gond,

UGL in terms with the appointment order is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman entitled for?

4. Since the workman, Ragu Gond did not appear on consecutive dates and union representative, Mr. S.

K. Pandey did not turn up, it appears to me that the adjudication of the dispute has no relevance and the

Reference case is disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be 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, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 302 .—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-

59/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/252/2005-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2006) 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 20/02/2023.

[No. L-22012/252/2005 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

530 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 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. 59 OF 2006

PARTIES: Surajlal Pasi

Vs.

General Manager (Personnel), Sanctoria of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: General Secretary, Coal Mines Security Guard Association.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

DATED:

03.02.2023

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-22012/252/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 24.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between

the employer, that is the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of ECL in not protecting the pay being

drawn by Shri Surajlal Pasi as Underground Loader consequent upon his being

appointed as Security Guard in Cat.I in Grade ‘C’ is just and legal? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled? ”

1. After receiving Order L-22012/252/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 24.08.2006 of the aforesaid Reference

framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference

case No. 59 of 2006 was registered on 18.09.2006, 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 is fixed up today for appearance of Surajlal Pasi and hearing of argument, in default the case

shall be disposed of in accordance with law and materials available on record. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate

for the Management is preset. Surajlal Pasi is found absent on call. The Notice issued to Surajlal Pasi under

registered post has been returned with an endorsement of the Postman dated 24.11.2023 that the addressee could

not be located at the given address. General Secretary, Coal Mines Security Guard Association who had been

conducting this case on behalf of the workman is also found absent on call. It is 01:00 PM now. The record is

taken up for final disposal.

3. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment has referred this industrial dispute

under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for

adjudication of the issue as to whether the action of the Management of ECL in not protecting the pay being

drawn by Shri Surajlal Pasi as Underground Loader consequent upon his being appointed as Security Guard in

Category -I in Grade ‘C’ is just and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?

4. Surajlal Pasi has filed his Affidavit-in-chief and was also cross-examined. It appeared from his

evidence that in the year 1990 he met with an accident in Mines and was given some light job up to 20.02.1993

and thereafter regularised as a Security Guard (Trainee) from 01.03.1993 in the initial basic of Category-I.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

531

According to the workman he was getting less wages after his regularisation. On his representation before the

Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited he was transferred to Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area to

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, Headquarters. The contention of the workman is that in similar casespay

protection is given to the workmen in terms of letter no. ECL/CMD/C-6/WBE-7/2364 dated 22.09.1994 and

letter no. ECL/CMD/C-6/WB-42/184 dated 13.01.1998. The workman accordingly applied before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Apcar Garden, Asansol for redressal. The workman categorically denied that

he made any application before the Management of the company for change of his designation during the

course of his service and had asserted that he never gave any undertaking that he would accept lower wages

than what he was getting at the time of his service as a Under Ground Loader in Group -V. Further contention is

that the Management deployed him as a Security Guard, as per their own requirement. Therefore, he is entitled

to protection of wages due to such conversion from Piece Rate, Group -VA to Time Rate (Security Guard

Trainee, Category -I).

5. In course of his cross-examination the workman deposed that he did not get any compensation due to

the accident. He also denied that he prayed for any light work. The Management of the company did not

confront the workman with any document that it was at the instance of the workman his nature of work was

converted from Piece Rate to Time Rate.

6. In this case Management was given opportunity to adduce evidence but they have not come out with

any clarification as to why the pay of the workman has not been protected or was reduced. It is also not the case

of the Management that the pay of the workman has not been reduced. Under such circumstances the Reference

case is decided in favour of the workman Surajlal Pasi. He is entitled to get pay protection w.e.f. 01.03.1993 i.e.

from the date of his regularization as Security Guard (Trainee). The Reference is accordingly disposed of.

Hence,

ORDERED

The Reference case is disposed of in favour of Surajlal Pasi. An Award be drawn up directing the

General Manager (Personnel), Sanctoria of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited to grant pay protection to the

workman w.e.f. 01.03.1993 on his being regularized to the post of Security Guard (Trainee). The dues be paid

to the workman within two months 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, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 303.—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 83/1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/377/98-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/1999) 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 20/02/2023

[No. L-22012/377/98 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

532 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 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. 83 OF 1999

PARTIES: Durgadas Karmakar

Vs.

Management of Jhanjra Area of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Shri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated: 03.02.2023

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-22012/377/98/IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of Jhanjra Area of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh.

Durgadas Karmakar, Security Guard is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the

workman entitled? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/377/98/IR(CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 from the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 83 of 1999 was registered

on 17.09.2001 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. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate on behalf of Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited filed is

present. The case is fixed for appearance of the workman, Durgadas Karmakar and for evidence of Workman

Witness.

3. Record reveals that Shri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress had been

representing the workman but he has not appeared to take any step. The workman is unrepresented on

consecutive dates.

4. The order of reference dated 07.07.1999 was directed to this Tribunal for adjudicating an industrial

dispute as to whether

the action of the Management of Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in

dismissing Durgadas Karmakar, Security Guard is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?

5. After registration of this Reference case written statement have been filed by both parties.

Subsequently no evidence has been adduced by the workman and remained unrepresented. Considering such

long absence of the workman, it is presumed that he is disinclined to proceed further with this case.

Accordingly, the case is disposed in the form of No dispute Award.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

533

Hence,

ORDERED

That a No Dispute Award be 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, 24 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 304.—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 14/2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/4/2010-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2023

S.O. 304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2010) 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 20/02/2023

[No. L-22012/4/2010 – 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. 14 OF 2010

PARTIES: Tufani Harijan

Vs.

Nakrakonda Colliery, Bankola Area of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Shri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

DATED:

06.02.2023

534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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-22012/4/2010-IR(CM-II) dated 29.03.2010 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management Nakrakonda Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of Nakrakonda Colliery of Bankola Area of M/s.

ECL in dismissing Sri Tufani Harijan w.e.f. 10.03.2008 is legal and justified? To what relief

is the workman concerned entitled? ”

1. After receiving Order L-22012/4/2010-IR(CM-II) dated 29.03.2010 of the aforesaid Reference framed

by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case

No. 14 of 2010 was registered on 16.04.2010. Notices were issued to the Agent, Nakrakonda Colliery, Bankola

Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and the Joint Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress (Affiliated to

HMS), representing the workman, directing them to appear and file their written statements along with relevant

documents and list of witnesses in support of their respective claims.

2. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate appeared for the Management on 11.05.2010 and Shri S. K.

Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress appeared on 27.06.2012 and filed written statement for

the workman. Management filed their written statement on 12.08.2015. Dismissed workman Tufani Harijan

filed his Affidavit-in-chief and was cross-examined on 14.01.2016. Opportunity was given to the Management

to adduce evidence in this case and after long laps of time the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

(hereinafter referred as M/s. ECL) filed Affidavit-in-chief of Mr. Anuj Lakra, Deputy Manager (Personnel),

Nakrakonda Kumardihi B Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. ECL and also produced some documents on

behalf of the Management which has been marked as Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-5.

3. In his Affidavit-in-chief workman has stated that he was an employee of M/s. ECL and was posted at

Nakrakonda Colliery at Bankola Area of M/s. ECL. Due to suffering from Typhoid and fever from 15.03.2007

he underwent medical treatment under Bankola Area Hospital of M/s. ECL and the matter of his illness was

informed to the Employer through co-worker. After he was declared fit, he reported to his place of work for

resumption of duty but was not allowed to join. The Employer company of M/s. ECL issued a Charge Sheet

against him bearing no. NKR/AGT/PER/07/193 dated 08.06.2007 for his alleged unauthorized absence from

duty w.e.f. 15.03.2007. According to the workman he was not served with any copy of Charge Sheet, Notice of

enquiry or any second Show Cause Notice before such a harsh step was taken against him. The Enquiry Officer

ignored the fact that the absence of the workman from duty for three (3) months was beyond his control, and

found him guilty on the ground of unauthorized absence. The workman contended that in his thirty-seven (37)

years of employment no Enquiry Proceeding was held against him on earlier occasion as such the order of

dismissal passed against him by the General Manager of Bankola Area of M/s. ECL vide Order no.

BA/PD/DIS/643 dated 10.03.2008 is unjustified and illegal. In his written statement the workman prayed for

setting aside the order of dismissal.

4. The counter case of Management of Nakrakonda Colliery of M/s. ECL, as disclosed in their written

statement is that, Tufani Harijan was a habitual absentee as a result he was Chargesheeted. Notice of enquiry

were sent to him on four occasions at his home address at Vill: Parita, Po: Masda, Dist: Gajipur (UP) but he did

not participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte and submitted his report.

After perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the General Manager of Bankola Area of M/s. ECL issued a

second Show Cause Notice dated 14.01.2008 to Tufani Harijan. No reply was submitted in response to the

second Show Cause Notice and eventually an order of dismissal was passed against the guilty workman.

5. It would be pertinent at this stage to consider the evidence on record to find out if the Order of

Dismissal passed against the workman is legal and justified.

6. It is apparent from the Affidavit-in-chief of the workman is that he was absent from his duty from

15.03.2007. Though he stated that he was suffering from Typhoid and Fever w.e.f. 15.03.2007 and underwent

treatment at Bankola Area Hospital of M/s. ECL, the workman did not state for what length of time he had been

under medical treatment. The workman neither produced medical documents in connection with his alleged

medical treatment since 15.03.2007 nor did he produced any certificate issued by the Medical Officer at

Bankola Area Hospital of M/s. ECL, declaring him fit for resumption of duty. It is also clear that no other

witness nor any co-worker has been examined by Tufani Harijan in support of his contention that he intimated

the Management of M/s. ECL regarding his prolonged illness. Though the workman in course of his evidence

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

535

stated that he was not served with Charge Sheet, Notice of enquiry or second Show cause notice. He has quoted

number of Charge Sheet dated 08.06.2007 in his written statement. During cross-examination the Workman

Witness -1 stated that he will not summon the doctor who treated him. It is undisputed that the workman did not

participate in the Enquiry Proceeding. Therefore, he had no occasion of filing any medical document relating to

his treatment before the Enquiry Officer. When he was given opportunity to file the same before this Tribunal,

he did not produce any document relating to his illness. Bearing this evidence in mind I have no hesitation to

hold that the workman failed to adduce any cogent evidence that due to illness he was unable to attend his duty.

7. Mr. Anuj Lakra (MW-1) has produced the copy of Charge Sheet dated 07/08.06.2007 as Exhibit M-1,

Four Notices of enquiry as Exhibit M-2 series all addressed to Tufani Harijan, Report of Domestic Enquiry as

Exhibit M-3 prepared by Mr. J. Mukherjee, Enquiry Officer who was a Senior Personnel Officer at Nakrakonda

Colliery of M/s. ECL, a second Show cause notice issued by the General Manager dated 14.01.2008 as Exhibit

M-4, and a copy of letter communicating termination of the workman issued by the General Manager of

Bankola Area as Exhibit M-5. The Charge Sheet clearly states that the concerned workman had absented since

15.03.2007 without any sanctioned leave or prior permission. Such absence amounted to misconduct as per

provisions of the Certified Standing Order. After notice was sent to the workman on four occasions informing

about the date fixed for enquiry, the workman did not turn up and finally the enquiry commenced on

18.08.2007. The workman still did not turn up after passage of five months from Charge Sheet. The

Management representative produced witnesses who made their statements. Mr. P. K. Dutta, Timekeeper

examined as witness no. 1 and Mr. B. J. Gein, Leave Records Clerk was examined as witness no. 2. Tufani

Harijan did not appear. On the basis of the materials placed before the Enquiry Officer arrived at a finding that

the charge levelled against the workman had been established. The workman has remained absent from duty

unauthorizedly and without valid cause. It was also observed that due to such absence the Colliery and

Company has suffered immense loss. The charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of the

report of the Enquiry Officer the General Manager issued a second Show cause notice dated 14.01.2008

addressed to the workman, forwarding therewith a copy of Enquiry Proceeding and findings of the Enquiry

Officer. He was directed to submit his objection, if any, against the finding within three days from receipt of the

letter. The workman failed to respond to the notice and ultimately by letter dated 10.03.2008 (Ext. M-5) the

General Manager after considering the entire merit of the case and the gravity of charge established against the

workman terminated him from employment with immediate effect.

8. From the material on record I find that there are no extenuating circumstances in favour of workman

due to which the findings against him can be set aside. The workman had remained absent for a long period

without intimating the competent authority in any manner. There appears to be absolute lack of accountability

on the part of the workman. I find that Management of M/s. ECL had taken pain in issuing four Notices of

enquiry and also second Show Cause Notice but the workman did not respond. Even in course of considering

the merit of the industrial dispute the workman was unable to satisfy his claims of being under medical

treatment.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances I hold that the dismissal of Tufani Harijan by the

Management of Nakrakonda Colliery of M/s. ECL suffers from no illegality. The same appears to be justified.

The Reference case is accordingly decided against the workman.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the industrial dispute is decided against the workman, Tufani Harijan. He is not entitled to any

relief in this case. An award be drawn up in light of the above finding. 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, 27 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 305.—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

536 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 58/2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/267/2005-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023

S.O. 305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2006) 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 24/02/2023

[No. L-22012/267/2005 – 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. 58 OF 2006

PARTIES: Shankar Bhuia

Vs.

Management of New Kenda Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Shri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

10.02.2023

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-22012/267/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 22.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between

the employer, that is the Management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Mr. Shankar Bhuia, U.G. Loader, U.M. No.

508535 w.e.f. 5.3.2003 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled? ”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

537

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/267/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 22.08.2006 from the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 58 of 2006 was registered

on 18.09.2006 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 is fixed up today for evidence of Management Witness. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for

the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited submitted that Mr. Guru Charan, Senior Officer

(Personnel), New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed Affidavit-in-

chief but the witness could not turn up today.

3. The record reveals that no step has been taken on behalf of the workman for the third consecutive date.

Shri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress was notified, directing him to appear and

take proper step for evidence of Workman Witness. Notice was issued on 29.09.2022 under registered post but

the workman remained unrepresented.

4. On a perusal the record it appears that the Industrial Dispute between the parties referred for

adjudication is whether the action of the Management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Mr. Shankar Bhuia, U.G. Loader, U.M. No. 508535 w.e.f. 5.3.2003 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief is the workman entitled?

5. The workman does not appear to be interested in pursuing this case any further and the workman

representative is also not diligent in his representation. Accordingly, the Reference is disposed of in the form of

No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be 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, 27 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 306.—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-

35/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/115/2012-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023

S.O. 306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2012) 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 24/02/2023

[No. L-22012/115/2012 -IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

538 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 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. 35 oF 2012

PARTIES: Lachman Nuniya

Vs.

Management of Bhanora Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Union.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

06.02.2023

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-22012/115/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 26.09.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between

the employer, that is the Management of Bhanora 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 Bhanora Colliery is proper, fair and

justified not to give increment to Sri Lachman Nuniya, Driver from 1990 to 1994. What

relief Management can provide? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/115/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 26.09.2012 from the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 35 of 2012 was registered

on 18.10.2012 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. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Bhanora Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed a

Memorandum of Settlement in Form ‘H’ dated 06.02.2023. Mr. Apurba Biswas, Manager (Personnel),

Bhanora-Girmint Group of Mines, Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited appeared in person. Mr.

Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, representing the workman submitted that the workman

has agreed to the settlement on the basis of calculation of dues made on 04.12.2022. Considered the

submission. It appears to me that Industrial Dispute referred for adjudication has been resolved. Let the case be

disposed of in favour of the workman, Lachman Nunia in terms of Memorandum of Settlement in Form ‘H’

dated 06.02.2023. Let the Memorandum of Settlement in three (3) pages be treated as a part of the Award. The

Reference case is disposed of.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Reference case is disposed of in favour of the workman. An Award be passed treating the

Memorandum of Settlement in three pages as a part of the Award. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent

to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi for information and necessary action.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

539

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 307.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky;] कानपुर ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 15/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-01-2023 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/35/2017-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023

S.O. 307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31/01/2023

[No. L-22011/35/2017– IR (CM-II]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 15 of 2018

L-22011/35/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 29.01.2018

BETWEEN

Sri Umesh Mandal S/o Sri Ganga Thakur

R/o-Vill- Khadka Telwa, P.O. Nauhatta,

Distt- Saharsa, Bihar-

AND

1. The Area Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

District Officer, Golcha Compound, Haldwani

2. The General Manager (Region)

Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,

At-2nd floor, APS Oberai Tower, Byepas Rd,

Near Kargi Chowk, Dehradun-

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in letter No. L-22011/35/2017- IR(CM-II) dated 29.01.2018

540 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

1.“Whether the management of FCI is justified in terminating the service of Sri

Umesh Mandal without following the provisions of law? If not what specific relief

and benefit should be given by the FCI management or to reinstate the workman

with specific benefits?”

On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 20th February 2018 fixing

13.04.2018 for filing of statement of claim. Authorized Representative of the claimant workman filed statement

of claim on 26.09.2018 after several opportunities were provided. On 18.09.2019 O.P management filed the

written statement and case is fixed for filing of rejoinder by the claimant workman.Afterwards several dates

were fixed for filing of rejoinder by claimant workman but when failed case was fixed for filing of evidence of

parties and finally for arguments.

On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing rejoinder,evidence

and finally arguments. None appeared on behalf of the claimant workman before this Tribunal. Despite ample

opportunities to the claimant workman for submitting rejoinder, evidence and argument ; the claimant workman

failed to present the case before the Tribunal. On 22.12.2022 the case was reserved for final award for non-

appearance of the claimant workman.

From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant workman is not interested in

prosecuting the case further before this Tribunal.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 19.01.2023 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 308.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k

esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky;] कानपुर ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 22/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/30/2017-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023

S.O. 308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2023

[No. L-22011/30/2017– IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 22 of 2018

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

541

L-22011/30/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 30.01.2018

BETWEEN

Sri Awadhesh Prasad S/o Sri Jagdish Sharma

R/o-Vill-East of Loco Shed,

PO- Kayasth Tola, Ward No. 28, Distt- Saharsa,

Bihar

AND

1. The Area Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

District Officer, Golcha Compound, Haldwani

2. The General Manager (Region)

Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,

At-2nd floor, APS Oberai Tower, Byepas Rd,

Near Kargi Chowk, Dehradun-

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour in letter No. L-22011/30/2017- IR(CM-II) dated 30.01.2018

SCHEDULE

1. “Whether the management of FCI is justified in terminating the services of Sri

Awadhesh Prasad Handling Labour w.e.f. 18.09.2012 without following the

provisions of law? If not what specific relief and benefit should be given by the

FCI management or to reinstate the workman with specific benefits?”

On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 22th February 2018 fixing

27.04.2018 for filing of statement of claim. Authorized Representative of the claimant workman filed statement

of claim on 31.05.2019. On 18.09.2019 O.P management filed the written statement and case was fixed for

filing of rejoinder by the claimant workman.Afterwards several dates were fixed for filing of rejoinder by

claimant workman but when he failed case was fixed for filing of evidence of parties and finally for arguments.

On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing rejoinder,evidence

and finally arguments none appeared on behalf of the claimant workman before this Tribunal. Despite ample

opportunities to the claimant workman for submitting rejoinder, evidence and argument ; the claimant workman

failed to present the case before the Tribunal. On 22.12.2022 the case was reserved for final award for non-

appearance of the claimant workman.

From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant workman is not interested in

prosecuting the case further before this Tribunal.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 20.01.2023

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 309.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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;] कानपुर ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 16/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/33/2017-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

542 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023

S.O. 309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8/02/2023

[No. L-22011/33/2017– IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Present: SOMA SHEKHAR JENA HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 16 of 2018

L-22011/33/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 29.01.2018

BETWEEN

Sri Subodh Bihari

S/o Sri Kaleshwar Paswan

R/o-Vill. Masaudhi Diha,

Thana & P.O-Masaudhi,

Distt- Patna, Bihar.

AND

1. The Area Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

District Officer, Golcha Compound, Haldwani

2. The General Manager (Region)

Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,

At-2nd floor, APS Oberai Tower, Byepas Rd,

Near Kargi Chowk, Dehradun-

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour in letter No. L-22011/33/2017- IR(CM-II) dated 29.01.2018

SCHEDULE

1. “Whether the management of FCI is justified in terminating the services of

Sri Subodh Bihari without following the provisions of law? If not what specific relief

and benefit should be given by the FCI management or to reinstate the workman

with specific benefits?”

On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 20th February 2018 fixing

13.04.2018 for filing of statement of claim. Authorized Representative of the claimant workman filed statement

of claim on 04.07.2019. On 18.09.2019 O.P management filed the written statement and case was fixed for

filing of rejoinder by the claimant workman.Afterwards several dates were fixed for filing of rejoinder by

claimant workman but when he failed case was fixed for filing of evidence of parties and finally for arguments.

On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing rejoinder,evidence

and finally arguments none appeared on behalf of the claimant workman before this Tribunal. Despite ample

opportunities to the claimant workman for submitting rejoinder, evidence and argument ; the claimant workman

failed to present the case before the Tribunal. On 22.12.2022 the case was reserved for final award for non-

appearance of the claimant workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

543

From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant workman is not interested in

prosecuting the case further before this Tribunal.

Hence in the given circumstances the reference stands disposed of as of ‘NIL’ award.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 20.01.2023

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 310.—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 19/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/112/2005-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2023

S.O. 310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2006) 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 24/02/2023

[No. L-22012/112/2005 – 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. 19 OF 2006

PARTIES: Budhan Majhi.

Vs.

Management of Dhemomain Colliery of M/s. ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Shri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.

544 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

07.02.2023

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-22012/112/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 11.07.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between

the employer, that is the Management of Dhemomain Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Dhemomain Colliery under M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh. Budhan Majhi, Trammer is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the individual is entitled to? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/112/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 11.07.2006 from the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 19 of 2006 was

registered on 09.08.2006 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 is fixed up today for evidence of Management Witness. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate who

usually represents M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited submitted that Management Witness is ready for his

examination. The workman, Budhan Majhi is found absent on call. Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative is

not found available. It is strange to find that though the General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress was

directed to come ready on prior occasion, he has not complied.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

545

3. This Industrial Dispute was referred for adjudicating, “whether the action of the management of

Dhemomain Colliery under M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh. Budhan Majhi, Trammer is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the individual is entitled to?”

4. The workman has adduced evidence in this case and stated that he was absent from duty from

19.10.1996 to 01.05.1997 due to illness. Subsequently he was not allowed to join his duty and was

chargesheeted. He alleged that opportunity was not given to him to defend his case and Principle of Natural

Justice was denied. He further claimed that no second Show Case Notice was issued to him and his dismissal

was illegal. In course of cross-examination, the witness failed to produce any document of illness. Prime facie it

appears that the workman could not establish any ground for absence from duty for such a long period.

5. The Management Witness could have adduced evidence in support of dismissal but the workman is not

diligent in conducting the case before the Tribunal. Under such circumstance, the Reference case is dismissed in

the form of No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be 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, 28 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 311.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्द्रीय सरकार मेससच इम्प्रेिन सर्वचस प्रा. जलजमटेड, कीर्तच नगर, औद्योजगक क्षेत्र, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और श्री बृिमोिन थपजलयाल, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-

सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंर्ाट (संिभच सं. 49/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को

प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 24.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/29/2020-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

546 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2023

S.O. 311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to M/s Impression Service Pvt. Ltd., Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi, and Shri Brij Mohan

Thapliyal, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

24.02.2023.

[No. L-42011/29/2020-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,

NEW DELHI.

Present : Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.) Presiding officer

CGIT, Delhi-1

ID No. 49/2020

Shri Brij Mohan Thapliyal

S/o Lt. Sh. Suresha Nand,

R/o H.No.D-45 Gali No.14, Pusta Road,

West Karawal Nagar

Delhi-110094.

….Claimant

Versus

The Management of M/s Impression Service Pvt. Ltd.,

Registered Office at WZ-8/7, K(FF) Kirti Nagar,

Industrial Area New Delhi,

New Delhi-110015.

….Management

None for the claimant

Sh. Saurav Sharma, A/R for the management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No.L-42011/29/2020-IR(DU) dated 17.07.2020 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Impression Service Pvt. Ltd. in terminating

the services of Sh.Brij Mohan Thapliyal w.e.f. 16.11.2017 as raised through New Delhi

General Mazdoor Union, vide letter dated 12.12.2017 is just, fair and legal? If not, what

relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date? What other directions, if

any, are necessary in the matter ?”

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 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

547

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 in his appearance nor 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.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

Date: 09.02.2023

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 312.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार जनिेिक, जमराि िासूस और सुरक्षा सेवा प्रा. जलजमटेड, कम्युजनटी सेंटर नारायण इंडजस्ट्रयल, एठरया फेि-1,

नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिासजर्व, सिंिुस्ट्तान इंिीजनयररंग एंड िनरल मििूर यूजनयन,

सुल्तानपुर, दिल्ली, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली

के पंर्ाट (संिभच सं. 33/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 24.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/66/2020-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2023

S.O. 312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Director, Miraz Detective and Security Service Pvt. Ltd., Community Centre Narain Industrial,

Area Phase-I, New Delhi, and The General Secretary, Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union,

Sultanpur, Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

24.02.2023.

[No. L-42011/66/2020-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT DELHI –1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

Present : Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding officer

CGIT, Delhi-1

ID No. 33/2021

The General Secretary,

Hindustan Engineering &

General Mazdoor Union,

D-2/24, Sultanpur,

Delhi-110030.

…Claimant

Versus

The Director,

Miraz Detective and Security Service Pvt. Ltd.,

548 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3rd Floor, 42, Community Centre Narain Industrial,

Area Phase-I, New Delhi-110028.

….Management

None for the claimant

None for the management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No.L-42011/66/2020-IR(DU) dated 08.09.2020 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Miraz Detective and Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

(Contractor of Miranda House College, University of Delhi) in terminating the services of the

workmen Sh. Ram Rang S/o Sh. Parasnath w.e.f. 09.07.2018 is just, fair and legal? If not, what

relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date? What other directions, if any,

are necessary in the matter ?”

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 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 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 in his appearance nor 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.

JUSTICE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.) Presiding Officer

Date: 09.02.2023

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 313.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,

केन्द्रीय सरकार मैससच दिल्ली मेरो रेल कॉपोरेिन, मेरो भवन, फायर जिगेड लैंड,बाराखंबा रोड, नई दिल्ली; एम/एस

िे कुमार इंफ्रा प्रोिेक्ट्ट्स जलजमटेड, सराय काले खां, दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री परिुराम व 20

अन्य,कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के

पंर्ाट (संिभच सं. 27/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 24.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/117/2020-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2023

S.O. 313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

549

Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Land, Barakhamba Road, New

Delhi ; M/s J. Kumar Infra Projects Ltd., Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi, and Shri Parsuram and 20 others, Worker,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 24.02.2023.

[No. L-42011/117/2020-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

Present : Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.) Presiding officer,

CGIT, Delhi-1

ID No. 27/2021

Shri Parsuram and 20 others

Rept. By Y.B.Singh and Sh.Puneet Tyagi,

(Regd. 1027) 8/440, Trilokpuri,

Delhi-110091.

….Claiman

Versus

1.

M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,

Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Land,

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

2.

M/s J.Kumar Infra Projects Ltd.,

Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi-110013.

Management…

None for the claimant

Shri Nitesh Sharma, AR for the management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No.42011/117/2020-IR(DU) dated 06.11.2020 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:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the termination of services of the workers (list attached) by the management of M/s

J.Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. (contractor) under M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, New Delhi as

raised by U.P.L.F. is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what reliefs the disputants are 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, Claimant union 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 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.

550 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor 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.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

Date: 07.02.2023

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 314.—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 08/2010) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/55/2009-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2023

S.O. 314.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/2010) 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 28/02/2023

[No. L-22012/55/2009 – 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. 08 oF 2010

PARTIES: Gaya Prasad Harijan

Vs.

Management of 1 & 2 Incline, Jhanjra Area 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:

16.02.2023

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-22012/55/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 21.01.2010 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of 1 and 2 Incline, Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

551

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management in imposing penalty of stoppage of 3

increments on Shri Gaya Prasad Harijan is legal and justified? To what relief the

workman concerned entitled for? ”

1. After receiving Order L-22012/55/2009-IR(CM-II) dated 21.01.2010 of the aforesaid Reference

framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference

case No. 08 of 2010 was registered on 11.02.2010, 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 on 20.01.2023 for hearing of argument. The fact of the case in brief is

that Gaya Prasad Harijan, a Face Crew bearing U.M. No. 693712 is a permanent employee of 1 and 2 Incline at

Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred as M/s. ECL). He was absent from duty

w.e.f. 17.03.2004 for which he was issued Charge Sheet bearing no. 298 dated 30.04.2004 and the Management

of Jhanjra Area of M/s. ECL initiated a Domestic Enquiry against the workman for his unauthorised absence on

a charge of violation of clause 26.23 and 26.29 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to the Company

which relates to absence from duty beyond ten (10) days without sanction of leave or sufficient cause or

overstaying beyond sanctioned leave without valid reason, and habitual low attendance or absence from duty

without sufficient cause.

3. The workman participated in the Domestic Enquiry. His defence was that due to illness he was unable

to attend his duty, but he was compelled to sit idle from 30.03.2004 till 03.03.2005 i.e. eleven (11) months

without wages and after finding him guilty of the charge the Management stopped three (3) increments in his

pay, thereby subjected him two punishments which is illegal and unjustified. According to the workman if he

was allowed to resume his duty at the time of issuance of the Charge Sheet, he would not have to sit idle for

eleven (11) months without wages. It has been contended that the workman should get the benefit of increments

deducted along with wages paid for the period he was prevented from attending duty and all other consequential

benefits.

4. The Management of M/s. ECL in their written statement contended inter alia that the instant Industrial

Dispute raised by the workman is bad in law, that the concerned workman has no locus standi to raise the

dispute through the union of which is he is not a member and that Gaya Prasad Harijan being a habitual

absentee was warned five times on earlier occasions from September, 1998 to July, 1999 and on the sixth

occasion he was found guilty and his three annual increments were stopped. It is urged that the above

misconduct of the employee, a habitual absentee the action taken by the Management is just, fair and

appropriate and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

5. In support of his case the workman filed an affidavit-in-chief and was cross-examined on behalf of the

Management. In his affidavit-in-chief the workman has stated that he could not attended his duty from

17.03.2004 to 30.03.2004 due to his illness. When he went to report for duty he was not allowed to join and the

Management issued Charge Sheet against him alleging unauthorised absence. The Enquiry Proceeding took

eleven months for its completion and the Management did not allow him to join his duty. It is further averred

that the punishment imposed against him was disproportionate to his alleged fault of absence for thirteen days.

The case of the Management was supported by the evidence of Mr. Alaric Oneal Lyndem, Deputy Manager

(Personnel) of Jhanjra 1 and 2 Colliery of M/s. ECL (Management Witness -1) who deposed that the

Management conducted a Departmental Enquiry and the workman was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer who

submitted his report. The Management of the company thereafter imposed punishment by stoppage of three

annual increments. In course of cross-examination Management Witness -1 produced a copy of the Charge

Sheet (Exhibit M-I), a copy of the Notice of Enquiry addressed to Gaya Prasad Harijan asking him to participate

in the enquiry (Exhibit M-II), photocopy of the Enquiry Proceeding in two sheet (Exhibit M-III), a copy of the

Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer (Exhibit M-IV), and a copy of the Order of Punishment

(Exhibit M-V). In course of cross-examination the witness stated that the person concern was absent on seven

earlier occasions for which he was warned on six occasions and on one occasion three increments of the

workman was stopped. At the time of enquiry, the workman submitted a Medical Certificate dated 12.11.2004

issued by a private Medical Practitioner i.e. three days prior to holding of the enquiry dated 15.11.2004.

6. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the Management of M/s. ECL argued that the workman is a

habitual absentee and remained absent from 17.03.2004 to 30.05.2004 for which Charge Sheet was issued

against him. Previously he had been warned on six occasions and three annual increments of pay were stopped

in the year 1996. The workman participated in the enquiry and claimed that he was absent from his duty due to

552 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

his illness and produced a Sick Certificate from Dr. U. S. Banerjee, Asansol, a private Medical Practitioner. The

Enquiry Report revealed that during cross-examination the workman did not send any information regarding his

illness and he did not produce any treatment paper to prove the genuinity of the Sick Certificate of the private

Medical Practitioner. Learned advocate for M/s. ECL submitted that due to such continuous disruption of duty

by unauthorised absence the workman had been found guilty of the charge and he was allowed to join duty with

stoppage of three annual increments. It is argued that the punishment is not disproportionate to his guilt.

7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative argued that the workman was suffering from illness and two

punishments have been imposed against him for a single offence. It is urged that stoppage of three annual

increment with cumulative effect is liable to be set aside and the workman should be paid his legitimate dues.

8. I have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The workman in his

affidavit-in-chief disclosed that he was absent only from 17.03.2004 till 30.03.2004 for which Charge Sheet was

issued against him. On a perusal of the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. U. S. Banerjee in favour of Gaya

Prasad Harijan (Exhibit M-VI) it appears that he was allegedly suffering from Hepatitis and was under his

treatment from 17.03.2004 to 12.11.2004 and had been advised to take bed rest until he recovered. The

workman was declared fit for duty on 13.11.2004. It is therefore evident from this document that the statement

made by the workman in para – five (5) of his affidavit-in-chief is incorrect and false. It would not have been

possible for the workman to report for his duty on 30.03.2004 if the content of this Certificate is treated to be

genuine and correct. The workman could not produce any other document in support of Medical Certificate nor

did he examine the doctor. The Enquiry Proceeding also reveals that he is a habitual absentee and the Charge

Sheet issued against him (Exhibit M-I) has clearly disclosed the seven instances where he had been warned for

his absence along with stoppage of three annual increments.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that

the charge against Gaya Prasad Harijan regarding violation of clause 26.23 and 26.29 of the Certified Standing

Order has been substantiated against him.

10. In as much for the quantum of punishment is concerned it appears to me that the workman was

permitted to join his duty and his three annual increments were stopped by letter dated 30.01.2005 (Exhibit M-

V). No formal order of suspension was issued against the workman and he has suffered a financial loss in

respect of his monthly wages for eleven months. The workman himself claimed to have been under medical

treatment till 12.11.2004. Therefore, the argument advanced for the workman that he was forced to sit idle and

was deprived of his pay for that period is unfounded and hence not accepted.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances the punishment is deemed appropriate if one (1) annual

increment of the workman is stopped with cumulative effect instead of stopping three (3) annual increments.

The period of absence was for nearly one year therefore the workman could not have earned one increment

during his absence from duty. The order of the Competent Authority dated 22.01.2005 has not been produced

before this Tribunal which may have disclosed the reason of such stoppage of increments. The letter of the

Manager, Jhanjra Project of M/s. ECL dated 30.01.2005 communicating the decision of the Competent

Authority regarding stoppage of three (3) annual increments of Gaya Prasad Harijan from the date of his

resumption in duty is found harsh and disproportionate to the charge established. It appears appropriate if only

one (1) annual increment of the derelicting workman is stopped w.e.f. his date of resumption of duty. The

Reference case is accordingly disposed of in favour of the workman. An Award is drawn up in favour of the

workman in light of the above findings.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Reference case is disposed in favour of the workman. An Award be drawn up setting aside the

order of the Competent Authority dated 22.01.2005 whereby, three (3) annual increments of the workman were

stopped. He shall be entitled to receive the arrear of two (2) annual increments w.e.f. the date of his resumption

in his duty after conclusion of the impugned Enquiry Proceeding. There shall be stoppage of only one (1)

annual increment from the pay of workman. 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

553

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 315 .—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 60/2004) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/391/2003-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2023

S.O. 315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2004) 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 28/02/2023

[No. L-22012/391/2003-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SIGH, 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. 60 OF 2004

PARTIES: R. Mohanti and Seven Others

Vs.

Management of Jambad O.C.P., Kajora Area 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: 10.02.2023

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-22012/391/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 28.10.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between

the employer, that is the Management of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Jambad O.C.P. under Kajora Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited in denying regularisation to Sh. R. Mohanti and 7 others as

E.P. Helper with retrospective effect and consequential benefits is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to? ”

554 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/391/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 28.10.2004 from the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 60 of 2004 was registered

on 08.11.2004 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 01.02.2023 for producing the workmen witness for their cross-examination.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative on the third consecutive date failed to produce a single workman out

of eight (8) workmen he was representing. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate represented the Management of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited.

3. It appears to me that the concerned workmen are not eager to proceed due to which they remained

absent even after specific direction. The Reference case is accordingly disposed of in the form of No Dispute

Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be 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, 28 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 316.—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 34/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-02-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/82/2018-vkbZvkj (सी.एम-II)]

रािेन्द्र ससंि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2023

S.O. 316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2018) 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 28/02/2023

[No. L-22012/82/2018 – 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. 34 oF 2018

PARTIES: Mr. Bidhan Chandra Ghoshal and Ms. Rinki Kumari

Vs.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

555

Management of Kajora Area of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen: Bidhan Chandra Ghoshal.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

DATED:

15.02.2023

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-22012/82/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 05.11.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. ECL, in spite of regular attendance of

Sri Bidhan Chandra Ghoshal and availing tour program at Kolkata, C.L. on 4-06-2014

signed by Sales Manager and Addl. General Manager, allegedly stopping of salary for

the period from 13-05-2014 to 03-04-2014 in respect of Sri Bidhan Chandra Ghoshal and

Rinki Kumari employees of Kajora Area Office of M/s. ECL is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief Sri Bidhan Chandra Ghoshal & Rinki Kumari is entitled? ”

1. After receiving Order L-22012/82/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 05.11.2018 of the aforesaid Reference

framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference

case No. 34 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 through their authorized

representatives.

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited is present. A written statement has also been filed on behalf of the Management dated 19.03.2019. The

record reveals that out of two aggrieved persons Mr. Bidhan Chandra Ghoshal had appeared on 04.02.2019 but

discontinued to take steps until Notice was issued afresh. Ms. Rinki Kumari, the co-employee is absent even after

second notice.

3. Instant Industrial Dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudicating the question as to

“whether the action of the Management of M/s. ECL, in spite of regular attendance of Sri Bidhan Chandra

Ghoshal and availing tour program at Kolkata, C.L. on 04-06-2014 signed by Sales Manager and Addl. General

Manager, allegedly stopping of salary for the period from 13-05-2014 to 03-04-2014 in respect of Sri Bidhan

Chandra Ghoshal and Rinki Kumari employees of Kajora Area Office of M/s. ECL is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief Sri Bidhan Chandra Ghoshal & Rinki Kumari is entitled?”

4. In Order dated 25.11.2022 it had been pointed out by this Tribunal that the Schedule disclosing

stopping of salary from 13.05.2014 to 03.04.2014 is ambiguous and self-defeating. Explanation was sought for as

to why this Reference case shall not be disposed of in the form of No Dispute Award. Bidhan Chandra Ghoshal

has appeared today but no explanation has been submitted. Already four (4) years have passed since the

Reference case has been registered and two (2) consecutive Notices issued to the workmen. Union representative

of Koyala Khadan Shramik Congress has not appeared and no written statement has been filed on behalf of the

workman. The Schedule is incomprehensive in nature as it does not disclose a proper time frame for which salary

was stopped. Mr. Ghoshal submitted that they were transferred to a different place but they continued to work at

their previous place of posting, however salary was not paid to the two of them from 13.05.2014 to 03.07.2014.

5. In their written statement the General Manager of Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has

stated in para – seven (7) that Management is not liable for payment of wages w.e.f. 13.05.2014 to 03.07.2014 as

the two workmen were transferred by Order dated 08.05.2014 and subsequently released by Order dated

556 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.05.2014. It is submitted by the learned advocate of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited that since these workmen

were officially not posted at that place and they had not complied the order of transfer they are not entitled to

payment for their willful disobedience of the order.

6. To my mind the aggrieved petitioners have no merit in their case as they did not officially function at

their previous place of posting between 13.05.2014 to 03.07.2014. The general principle under the Payment of

Wage Act is that there should be “no pay for no work”. The Reference case is accordingly dismissed against the

workman Mr. Bidhan Chandra Ghoshal and Ms. Rinki Kumari

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Reference case is disposed against the workmen. An Award be drawn up in light of my above

findings. 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, 28 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 317.—औद्योधगक धववाद अधिधियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरर् में,

केन्‍दरीय सरकार धिदेशक/बागवािी (डीआर),बागवािी प्रभाग-V, सीपीडब्लल्यूडी (बागवािी),आईपी एस्टेट, िई

ददल्ली,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध धियोजकों और महासधिव, सीपीडब्लल्यूडी मजदूर यूधियि, शाहजहाँ रोड, िई ददल्ली, के

बीि अिुबंि में धिर्दष्ट केन्‍दरीय सरकार औद्योधगक अधिकरर्- सह- श्रम न्‍दयायालय-1 िई ददल्ली के पंिाट (संदभष

संख्या 180/2017) को जैसा दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकाधशत करती है जो केन्‍दरीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 24.02.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/50/2017-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2023

S.O. 317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 180/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Director/ Horticulture (DR),Horticulture Division-V, CPWD(Hort.), IP Estate, New Delhi, and

The General Secretary, CPWD Mazdoor Union, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 24.02.2023.

[No. L-42011/50/2017-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURTDELHI -

ROOM NO. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

Present : Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding officer

CGIT, Delhi-1

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

557

In ID. No. 180/2017

The General Secretary, CPWD

Mazdoor Union,

C/o Room No. 95, Barrack No. 1/11,

Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi-110011 …..Claimant (Applicant)

Versus

The Director/ Horticulture (DR)

Horticulture Division-V, CPWD(Hort.)

B-412, IP Estate,

New Delhi-110002. ….Management (Opposite party)

Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant (Applicant).

Shri Atul Bhardwaj, A/R for the management (Opposite party).

Case cited and relied distinguish

Sl No.

Para No.

Page No.

1. D.N. Banerjee V. P.R. Mukherjee

(1952) 2SCC 619 AIR 1953 SC 58 (61)

31

31

2. Central Provinces Transport Services

Ltd V. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan

1956 SCR 956

37

34

3. Dhavangaihra Chemical Works

Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Saurashtra,

AIR 1957 SC 274

19(e)

23

4. Central Provinces Transport Service

Ltd V. Raghunath Gopal Pathwardhan

(AIR 1957 SC 104,109)

31

31

5. Bihar V. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal

AIR 1961 SC 304

19(a), 38

20, 37

6. Bombay Union of Journalists V.

‘Hindu’, Bombay 1962(3) SCR 893

35, 37

33, 34

7. Bombay Union of Journalists V.

The ‘Hindu’, Bombay AIR

1963 SC 318

31

31

8. Workmen V. Dharam Pal Premchand

(Saughandhi) (1965) 3SCR 394:

AIR 1966 SC 182

36, 37

33, 34

9. Workmen of Indian Express (P)

Ltd. vs The Management (1969)

558 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1 SCC 228

37

34

10. Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd.

Vs. Management of Indian Express

Newspaper Private Ltd. AIR 1970 SC 737

36

33

11. The Commissioner of Income Tax

V. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.

(1992) 4 SCC 363

19(e)

23

12.

Steel Authority of India Ltd V. National

Union Water Front Workersand others

(2001) 7 SCC1

5(iv),19(a), 54

7, 20, 49

13.

J.H. Jadhav vs M/S. Forbes Gokak Ltd

(2005) 3SCC 2002

36

33

14.

M/s Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited

V. State of U.P. and others, 2003

Lab I.C. 2630

19(a), 19(e), 59 20, 23, 55

15.

Workmen V. Coal of India Ltd

(2004) 3 SCC 54)

19(e)

23

16.

Workmen of Nilgiri Market Society

V. State of Tamilnadu (2004) 3

SCC 514

19(e)

23

17.

Nil Giri Co-op. Marketing Society

Ltd V. State of Tamilnadu 2004

last suit (SC) 142

63

58

18.

The Delhi High Court in WP NO.

13023 of 2005 workmen of

MCD V. MCD

19(a)

20

19.

Haldia Refinary Canteen Employees

Union V. India Oil Corporation Ltd.

(2005) 5 SCC 51)

19(e)

23

21.

State of Karnataka and others V.

K.G.S.D Canteen Employees Welfare

Association & others (2006) 1 SCC 567

19(e)

23

22.

State of Karnataka V. Umadevi &

others (2006) 4 SCC 1

19(e)

23

23.

Surender Prasad Tewari V. UP Rajya

Krishi 3981 of 2006 by Supreme Court

19(e)

23

24.

International Airport Authority

of India V. International Air Cargo

workers and another (2009) 13 SCC 374

61

57

25.

Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

559

Rajnand Gao V. Bhart Lala and

another (2011)(1) SCC 635

19(e), 41,64

23, 38, 60

26.

Devinder Singh V. Municipal Council

Sanaur (2011) 6 SCC 584

26

28

27.

Union of India and another V.

Arulmozhi Iniarasu (2011) 9 SCC 1

19(e)

23

28.

Balwant Rai Salija V. Air India Ltd.

(2014) 9 SCC 407

19(e, 60, 62

23, 56, 58

29.

K.V. Anil Mithra vs. Sree

Shankaracharya University of sanskrit

and another (CA No.9067 of the 2014)

43,48, 51

40, 45, 47

30.

Bharat Sancharnigam Ltd V. Bhurumal

2014 SCC 177

50, 51

46, 47

31.

State of Uttarakhand V. Sureshwati

2021 (168) FLR 488 (SC)

41

38

32.

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd V. Ramcharan

and others (Civil Appeal No. R446-R447

of 2022)

55

52

33.

Punjab Land Development and

reclamation Corporation Ltd.

Chandigarh V. Presiding Officer

44, 47

44, 45

AWARD

1. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Delhi-1, received the Letter No. L-

42011/50/2017 Dated 06.06.2017 from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India with Reference for

adjudication of an Industrial Dispute between the employer the management of Division-V CPWD

(Horticulture) New Delhi and their employee Sh. Sanjay Kumar in following terms: -

‘Whether, Sh. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Singh is entitled to be treated as direct employee of

CPWD alongwith with all allowances and benefits equivalent to the regular counters parts as his employment

in the category of Mali as contract labour is sham and bogus? If so, whether the workman is entitled to be

treated as direct employee of CPWD w.e.f20.11.2010 and also reinstated w.e.f. 13.04.2016 with full back wages

alongwith continuity of service? What other relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this

respect’.

2. The Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Delhi-1

(which shall hereinafter be called as the ‘Tribunal’ only) taken up the Reference as fresh on 27.08.2017 and

ordered to register the same as Industrial Dispute 180/2017. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The

Director Horticulture (DR) Horticulture Division V, New Delhi (which shall hereinafter be called as ‘CPWD’

only) for filing their written statement on 22.08.2017.

3. The claimant ‘Labour Union’ who raised the Present Industrial Dispute relating to the cause of

workman Sh. Sanjay Kumar referred by the Ministry of Labour (shall herein after be called as the ‘claimant’

only). Put representation before the tribunal through it’s Authorized Representative Sh. B.K. Prasad, the

General Secretary, CPWD, Mazdoor Union, New Delhi from the very stage of registration of I.D. Case

aforesaid (shall herein after be called as ‘AR of the Workman’ only). The CPWD has representation through Sh.

Atul Bhardwaj their Authorized Representative, who shall hereinafter be called as ‘AR of the management’

only, wherever needed. The claimant Union raised the Industrial Dispute for the cause of Labour Sh. Sanjay

Kumar (who shall be called as the ‘concerned workman’ only, wherever needed).

560 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. With the prior permission of the Tribunal the AR of the workman filed the statement of claim on

01.09.2017 providing copy thereof to the AR of the management who in turn filed the written statement in

defence for CPWD on 30.10.2017. Though the tribunal provided opportunity to the AR of the concerned

workman for filing rejoinder, if any, before framing of the issues, but no rejoinder is filed by the said AR.

Consequently, the issues were framed on 31.01.2018 which are reproduced hereunder: -

(i)

Whether the reference is not legally maintainable, in view of the preliminary objections?

(ii)

In terms of reference?

FACTUAL MATRIX

5. (i) The Industrial Dispute referred by the Ministry of Labour for adjudication is with regard to the ‘concerned

Workman’ (Sanjay Kumar) to whom the claimant (union) has pleaded in the statement of claim, employed and

exploited through the fake contractor w.e.f. 20.11.2000. The workman is said to had performing his duty under

the Deputy Director Division – V, CPWD Sub division-35 Pushpvihar, New Delhi. The workman is

handicapped with 60% disability. He was performing duty on perennial nature of job as contract labour, though

not permissible under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (which shall

hereinafter be referred as CLRA Act only wherever is needed). It is alleged in the statement of claim by the

claimant that the workman was not being paid even the minimum wages of unskilled workman though

performing the work of semiskilled workman and entitled to the equal pay for equal work like the daily rated

workmen who were directly working under the management CPWD.

5.(ii) That the regular Malis directly working under the CPWD were getting the wages in regular pay

scale along with all allowances but the concerned workman was denied such benefits by the CPWD and

it’s contractor. The regular Malis were getting earned leave of 30 days and casual leaves of 8 days but the

said workman is denied this facility also by CPWD and its contractor.

5.(iii) The employment of the concerned workman by the contractor is said to had been made against the

provisions of the CLRA Act as such was illegal, unfair and a camouflage therefore he was entitled to be

treated as direct employee of the management CPWD. The workman was removed from the service by

the CPWD without following the provisions of Section-25F, 25G & 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act,

1947 (Shall here in after be called as the ‘I.D. Act’ only). When the matter of illegal termination from

service was raised before the conciliation officer the CPWD by filling written statement justified the

illegal termination of service protecting their contractor. The CPWD shown the Cause of

Removal/Termination from the service by the contractor needful to save the workman from criminal

prosecution on the complaint of a lady of the locality relating to eve teasing. The copy of the complaint by

the complainant lady to the police station Saket, New Delhi is placed with the written statement. The copy

of another letter by the complainant lady addressed to the concerned Police Station is also placed with the

written statement to show her consent/ agreement not to prosecute the workman, if he is removed from the

work place of his employment. The said letters are made Annexure by both the parties to the present

industrial dispute case with their respective pleadings also. According to the claimant this shows that

removal is done by the contractor on the behest of CPWD without holding any enquiry and also without

serving one month’s notice or compensation in lieu of the notice therefore, the same is illegal and

unjustified and the workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity in service.

5.(iv) Annexing the photostate copies of one office order dated 25.05.2015 of the CPWD and a format to

be filed in compliance with the said office order as Annexure ‘B’ & ‘C’ to the claim statement which are

with regard to the directions issued by the Superintendent Engineer CPWD on 25.05.2015 in compliance

of the labour laws and model rules for workers employed by contractors and CPWD contractor’s labour

regulation respectively. The fact of a settlement dated 15.09.1986 between the Director General Works

CPWD and its workmen through the General Secretary CPWD Mazdoor Union in which the parties to the

settlement

agreed

that,

before

allotting

maintenance

work

to

the

Contractors.

Chief

Engineers/Superintendent Engineers will hold discussions in future with the representative of CPWD

Mazdoor Union, in pursuance of the memorandum of settlement dated 5.09.1986 entered in accordance

with Section-12 of I.D. Act. The management CPWD did not obey the instructions of Director General

Works CPWD which was widely circulated amongst all who were subject to the aforesaid settlement. The

violation of Rule-25(v)(a) of the Central Rules 1971which provides that if the contract labour performs

the same and similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the

establishment the wages, holidays and hours of work as well as other conditions of service of the

workman of the contractor shall be the same. The contractor neither had license for engagement of

contract labours nor the management of CPWD being principal employer procured registration as

required under the CLRA Act to engage contract labours through contractors. Therefore for the reason of

the violation of the said Act the ‘workman’ may be treated as the direct employee of the management. For

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

561

the same reason the contract was sham camouflage and illegal therefore the workman has to be treated as

direct employees of the management of CPWD. The responsibility for payment of wages lies on the

principal employer the CPWD management in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within

prescribe period or make short payment. Referring the celebrated Constitution Bench judgment of the

Apex Court in SAIL ( Steel Authority of India Ltd and others V. National Waterfront Workers and

others (2001 (7) SCC1) it is further stated that non grant of regularisation status of workman is illegal and

unjustified therefore it is prayed from this tribunal to award and declare the contract of Sh. Sanjay Kumar

(the concerned workman) illegal and camouflage and accordingly to award wages of regular Mali with

effect from 20.11.2010 and also to award the reinstatement as Mali directly under the management of

CPWD with effect from 13.04.2016 with full backwages in continuity of service alongwith all

consequential benefits.

5.(v) The management CPWD has raised a material preliminary objection as to the non joinder of parties

as the different contractors who might have been employers of the workman during the alleged period

from 20.11.2000 are necessary party for the proper and fair adjudication of the case. The relationship of

employer and employee and that of a master and servant was existing between the workman and his real

employer the contractor. There has never been such relationships of employer and employee and master

and servant in between the concerned workman and the answering management CPWD. The Contract

involving the present workman and other labours of the contractor to whom the CPWD awarded the

contract through the competent authority, was done inviting open tenders as per the provisions of Law.

The present workman had never been appointed nor recruited directly in the employment of CPWD

management. The present workman has never worked under the direct supervision and guidance of the

CPWD official. The present workman being an employee of the contractor agency does not come within

the definition of `workman' under clause (s) of Section 2 of the I.D. Act. The present industrial dispute is

also suffering from the serious infirmity of non espousal, any espousal list has not been provided which is

an essential pre requirement of the case. None of the employee of the management CPWD had attended

any meeting of the so called claimant union prior to raising the present Industrial Dispute before this

tribunal. No prior notice of demand is served upon the management.

Evidence required and adduced by the parties before the Tribunal.

6.

The concerned workman through the claimant union has a very definite case of his employment as

contract labour through the fake contractor right from 20.11.2000. Before the conciliation officer the date of his

alleged engagement as contract labour is stated in the ‘Reference’ by the Ministry of Labour Government of

India, is 20.11.2010. The anomaly in alleged dates of employment is even not tried to be rectified and the

vagueness is left as such. No documentary evidence in this regard is produced before the tribunal at the stage of

evidence. Even no oral evidence of the workman or the claimant union is deposed that which one out of the two

stated dates i.e. 20.11.2000 and 20.11.2010 is correct. The claimant union vide statement of claim prepared and

filed (obviously entering the date 06.06.2015) before the conciliation officer, sought the reference of industrial

dispute as to the termination of service of the workman done on 13.04.2016, states the date of entry in

employment as contract labour 20.11.2000. The anomaly and discrepancy in the date of employment as contract

labour in CPWD through the contractor makes the pleading in that regard uncertain, more inspecific, vague and

superlative. Considering any date as the date of entry in employment other than that referred in the ‘Reference’

would be to go beyond the scope of ‘Reference’. For the above reason the tribunal will have the only option

then to adhere with the date of employment as contract labour in the CPWD through the contractor, stated in the

reference it self-i.e. 20.11.2010. The tribunal has to see whether the said date also could have been established

by the evidence of the claimant who has burden of pleading and proving the fact of the employment of the

workman as such in the CPWD with all certaining and unequivocally.

7.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant union and the workman also to establish and prove the fact

that he (concerned workman) as contract labour had become the regular employee of the principal employer in

course of the time and that his engagement/employment through a contractor is a sham contract and mere

camouflage. These are question of fact which has to be established by the contract labour on the basis of the

requisite materials and evidence. This tribunal finds it necessary to advert to the evidence adduced and

produced of the claimant which correspond to the relevant pleading.

8.

The claimant has made some photostate papers as Annexure A1(in colly) termed as “some of the

personal details of the workman” in the statement of claim filed before the tribunal, (marked as Exhibit WW1/1

in the evidence) are described herein below: -

8. (i) Photocopy of the passbook of Bank Account in the name of the workman (Sanjay Kumar) issued

from the Punjab and Sind Bank, Pushpvihar Branch, New Delhi of which internal pages bear the account

562 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

statement of debit and credit for the period commencing from 5/2015 upto 4/2016, has concern with the

payment of wages.

8. (ii)

photocopy of a Ration Card in the name of the concerned workman issued by the concerned

Food Supply Officer of the locality of the place of dwelling of the workman (having no concern with the

issue of employment and termination of the workman).

8. (iii) Photocopy of medical and disability certificate issued by the Neurosurgeon of “Dr. Ram

Manohar Lohia Hospital’’ Dated 14.12.2001 certifying the present workman permanently disabled to the

extent of 60% by reason of Dysarthria and Right Hemiparesis.

8. (iv)

photocopy of hand written write up, seems to be a prologue of the case under the Reference,

addressed to unknown and unidentified addressee, undated in the name of Sanjay Kumar. Neither

admitted and owned in evidence by the workman concerned nor proved placing original before the

Tribunal in the course of oral examination.

8. (v) Two photostate documents one, the office order issued from the office of Superintending

Engineer (C&M) Dated 25.05.2015 under the caption "compliance of labour laws and model Rules for

workmen employed by the contractors and CPWD contractors’ Labour regulation to be complied by the

contractors (Annexure B Exhibit WW1/2) and two, the office order of the same date prescribing a

format relating to compliance of Labour Laws and model Rules for workers employed by contractors

and CPWD contractors’ Labour regulation to be complied by the contractor issued to all Chief

Engineers to submit the filled up format through the DGs of the respective sub region, the contract wise

Labour records of work being executed in their zones duly verified by SEs and ARs Concerned:

(Annexure C Exhibit WW1/3).

8. (V) (i) Exhibit WW1/2 (Annexure B) requires the Contract Labour under it’s clauses 3&4 to have

smart card of ESI, registration under Building and other construction worker Act,1996. On the other

hand, under clause 5 of the office order (Annexure C Exhibit WW1/3), the contractor is required to

maintain register of the workmen employed by the Contractor, Muster Roll, Register of Wages, Wages

Slip, Employment Card, Service Certificate, Register of Deductions and Register of Overtime etc.

8. (V) (ii) In view of the aforesaid office order placed by the claimant of workman is legally expected to

have the said may be construed that a documents as stated in the office order Annexure B (Ex.WW1/2)

and The Contractor who employed the said workman has to maintain and preserve the documents stated

in the clause (3 & 4) of the Annexure B (Exhibit WW 1/2) aforesaid. The said documents which are

necessary to establish the employment by the contractor with specific date of employment and the

contractor who employed him are the documentary evidence legally and factually supposed to be in

custody and possession of the concerned workman. There is no pleading to this effect in the statement of

claim linking the contractor who employed the present workman. The contractor is the best person to be

treated as the “cusodialegis” having custody and possession of the documents prescribed in Clause (5) of

the office order. They certainly be required in evidence to prove and establish the employment of the

workman with specific date of employment, wages paid, deduction made statutory of ESI, EPF and

attendance on the work place etc. With a particular contractor.

8. (V) (iii) Neither the workman concerned has stated in oral evidence nor the claimant union has placed

on record of the case and proved such facts by the relevant evidence as referred herein above, before the

tribunal. Even neither the concerned contractor who employed the workman for the first time nor the

contractor under whose service the concerned workman was removed from the service on 13.04.2016 is

made party to the claim, with whom the documents maintained and preserved under the law (prescribed

in clause (5) of the Annexure B Exhibit WW1/2).

Effect of the Non Joinder of the contractor in the claim over the evidence.

8.(V) (iii)

The non joinder of the contractor though he is a necessary party with regard to the status,

rights and statutory benefits of the workman employed by him appears to have been done knowingly and

willingly with an ulterior motive to save the claim, avoiding the evidence to come on record under this

misconception that, as skipping to do so he may shift the burden of adducing evidence relevant to the issues of

duration of service, over the tribunal itself and also upon the opposite party the CPWD. The burden to plead and

prove lying upon the workman can not be shifted to prove the workman’s employment with specific date of

employment. The joinder of the contractor is also necessary to look into the fakeness of the contract between

the contractor and the principal employer CPWD for the purpose of holding whether the same is sham, mere to

camouflage and smoke screen the employment of contract labour in the category of work in CPWD if

prohibited under the CLRA Act 1970 and the Central Rules 1971 framed there under.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

563

8.(V)(iv) The Management has taken plea of non joinder of parties specifically pleading the non impleadment

of a particular contractor or contractors out from those anonymous and various contractors alleged to had

employed the concerned workman as contract labour in the job allotted to them by the CPWD or somewhere

else. The absence of the Contractor creates hinderance in proper adjudication of the issue pertaining to that

specific contract whether sham and merely a camouflage. Though the plea of non joinder of necessary party was

raised at the very initial stage by the CPWD in it’s written statement of defence as preliminary objection but

neither the defect of non joinders is removed by the claimant nor rejoinder is filed by the claimant to meet out

the said plea specifically taken by the management. The adverse inference must be drawn against the claimant if

the evidence which might have been brought by the ‘non party’ (the contractor) if he/ they would have been

made party to the claim, being best person and custodian to possess such evidence, could not be made available

to the tribunal for it’s consideration on relevant issues.

8.(V)(v) Annexure D to the statement of claim a photostate copy of the explanation submitted by the Assistant

Superintendent (Garden) Garden Division V CPWD submitted before the Assistant Labour Commissioner New

Delhi (the conciliation officer) in the matter of grievance raised by the workman concerned before him. The

said Annexure D is admitted and proved in the evidence by the claimant before the tribunal (marked Exhibit

WW1/4). The explanation confines the status of the concerned workman as ‘Contract Labour’ employed by the

contractor Virendra Singh under the Contract No. 6600H/HD-5/2015-2016 alongwith 6 other labourers w.e.f.

01.01.2016. The explanation aforesaid is accompanied with 3 Sheets of extracts of an attendance register in

respect of work site “playground Green belt Sector 1 to 5 Pushpavihar, New Delhi, maintained by the contractor

for the periods 01.01.2016 to 31.01.2016, From 01.02.2016 to 29.02.2016 and From 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016.

The attendance sheets so proved and admitted by the claimant union on behalf of the workman establish the fact

of concerned workman Sanjay Kumar’s being last in the list of 7 contract labourers of the contractor Virendra

Singh. As such the pleading before the conciliation officer submitted by the CPWD Annexure D (Exhibit

WW1/4 is admitted in evidence by the workman and deserves to be taken as reliable evidence also. More over

to ascertain the date of commencement of service the date referred in the Reference, 20.11.2010 would be

relevant and adhering thereto the tribunal is to decide and find out whether the claimant becomes successful in

proving the date of entrance in service of the contractor as contract labour.

In Cross Examination of the claimant witness: -

9.

The said witness Sanjay Kumar the workman though submitted his affidavit of statement in

examination in chief and reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim but he seems not subjected to

the cross examinations himself. Without seeking permission from the Presiding Officer the statement in cross

examination of the Authorized Representative B.K. Prasad is recorded as it is obvious from the note at the

bottom of the statement dated 08.08.2018 in cross examination of the witness Sanjay Kumar to the effect,

“statement of Sh. B.K. Prasad, AR for the workman without oath”. The workman was not subjected to the cross

examination, further finds obvious reason that the Annexure A (Colly) to the statement of claim contains

‘Disability Certificate’ issued by the Neurosurgeon of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi on

14.12.2011 annexed with the statement of claim by the workman. It is intended, to show his hospitalization

since 04.01.1996 till 08.02.1996 with head injury. After discharge also his suffering persisted with the

‘Dysarthria’ and ‘Right Hemiparesis’ causing a disability assessed at 60% and likely to be permanent. The

symptom of above disability as medically known, may affect speech that is slurred, slow and difficult to

produce and/or understand. The Authorized Representative of the workman told the tribunal that he (Workman)

is unable to speak in clear words. This resulted him not to face the oral examination therefore the Authorized

Representative presented himself in his place. Such a manner of oral examination in evidence is not permissible,

unless otherwise ordered by the court in accordance with Sec.119 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 which runs

as under: -

Witness unable to communicate verbally. –– A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any

other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written

and the signs made in open Court, evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence: Provided that if the

witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special

educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be video graphed.

As such the portion of the statement in chief in affidavit, if not verified and could be testified with regards that’s

veracity cannot be relied as credible evidence.

10.

However the claimant witness stated he had no Appointment Letter to show that he was engaged by

CPWD. He admits in cross examination that no representation was made by him to the CPWD relating to the

non issuance of Appointment Letter. Resiling from his pleading the witness denied the suggestion in cross

examination by CPWD that he was engaged by a contractor and the contractor was paying his salary. The

supervision of work by contractor is also denied to be true.

564 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

The claimant witness vaguely stated in cross examination that, he is not aware whether he submitted

any application in CPWD at the time of his engagement. Contrary to the fact pleaded in the statement of claim

he comes with a new case (not pleaded in the claim) in the cross examination only that he was engaged by one

Junior Engineer Rajender Singh (without his specific detail and description in the CPWD), likewise he further

named one ‘Jitender Kumar’ as the JE who removed him from service. However, when suggested he vaguely

replied that he is not aware that a Junior Engineer has power to appoint or terminate from the job he was doing.

12.

The document of the CPWD not rebutted rather relied in evidence by the claimant union further shows

that the concerned workman was earlier engaged as labour on work site of Andrews Ganj Park in maintenance

work but by reason of complaints of people of the locality as to the quarellsom, and cantankerous behaviour he

was withdrawn by the contractor there from and deployed in Pushpvihar as labourer in maintenance work. On

21.03.2016 a lady of house neighbouring to the work place, Quarter No. 11 A Type 2 Sector 4 Pushpvihar

lodged a complaint in the Police Station Saket alleging her eve teasing. The complaint was later on withdrawn

by the victim lady on the undertaking by the contractor to withdraw him from there. The complaint and

withdrawal of complaint in writing are placed by the claimant as attachment of the written reply Annexure E

(Colly) as received from the contractor Virendra Singh the Custodia Legis thereof and proved in evidence, by

the Exhibit WW1/5.

13.

The claimant in cross examination of the management witness has not asked question as to the

officer/official of CPWD if any to control and superwise the workman of the working place.

14.

The CPWD alongwith written statement has made photocopy of Book No. 84/DD/3.5.5/15-16

referring Contract No. 66/DD/3.5.5/2015-16 for the work Horticulture works in Sector-IV & V, Pushpvihar,

New Delhi for 2015-16 for maintenance of playground and green belt in entire garden. This contract is for the

period 2016 to 2017. The name of contractor is entered ‘Virendra Kumar’. The said document is proved in

evidence by the management witness also which bears Exhibit marked as MW 1/1. This would not be out of

place to mention at this moment that the aforesaid document has not been rebulted by way of filing rejoinder by

the claimant. Even in cross examination of management witness, no Question is put before him by the

workman’s Authorized Representative (The General Secretary of the claimant union) thrashing it’s genuineness

and existence as well as whether the CPWD had rightly entered in the contract. The said proved document is

coupled with copy of letters by Director (garden) bearing date 28.12.2015 and 01.01.2016 where by the

contractor Virendra Kumar is called to fulfil the legal formalities of execution of the contract within 15 days.

15.

There is no pleading in the statement of claim filed by the claimant for the workman to the effect that

he was employed by the contractor for the CPWD in an activity which require full time work for the major

portion of the working hours in a day or for longer period. It is also not pleaded that Gardening maintenance

work in which the workman was employed as labour is the core activity of the CPWD and not incidental there

to. The workman simply says the work in which he was employed by the contractor is perennial nature of the

work in CPWD. Admittedly it is alleged in the claim statement that the workman was exploited by the

contractor for a long since 20.11.2000 by employing him as contract labour in perennial nature of job, but

grievance if any had never been raised prior to his removal from service in April 2016 before the appropriate

Government (it's designated officer) either by himself or through the labour union. If the job is of Perennial

Nature where employment of contract labour is prohibited under the CLRA Act is a question of fact to be

decided by the Appropriate Government. There is no such pleading or evidence on record of the case before the

Tribunal that the appropriate Government had occasion to decide that question.

16.

In oral evidence the management has produced Sh. Abid Husain Director Horticulture Division- V.

Who proved his affidavit and the documents MW1/1 & MW1/2. He deposed on the basis of the official record.

The witness aforesaid has deposed that the concerned workman was not being paid by the CPWD the wages of

regular mali because he was in the employment of the contractor, who was doing work allotted to him by

CPWD under the contract.

17.

In statement in chief the affidavit of management witness in Para 7 asserts that neither the management

have employed the concerned workman nor have paid him salary. In Para 9 it’s said that the management had

not engaged the workman hence question as to the payment of minimum wages does not arise. The workman

never complained about the payment of wages by the contractor below the minimum wages rates to the CPWD.

In Para 10, the witness deposed that it is wrong to say that there was the direct control and supervision of

official of management of CPWD.

18.

This would be remarkable here that the claimant did not expose and subject the management witness to

any question so as to thrashout the above statement on oath relating the pay master or in whose supervision and

control of which of the employee of CPWD over the workman was working likewise no question is asked to

carve out from cross examination as to the manner of recruitment and number of vacancy of malis or other

workmen in the CPWD as well as the nature of work taken by the contractor in the job given to him by the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

565

CPWD. As such no material state of things could have been carved out from the management witness. The facts

deposed in the affidavit (statement in examination in chief) of the management witness Abid Husian Dy.

Director Horticulture in CPWD shall be reliable in answering the reference to the extent of not contradicted and

uncontroverted statement of facts.

Arguments

19.

The learned Authorized Representative of the workman to support his plea of the existence of

employer employee relationship between the CPWD and the workman put vehemence on the rule 25 (v) (a) of

the CLRA Rules 1971 which provides…..

Employed by the contractor/perform the same and similar kind of work as the workman directly employed by

the Principal Employer of the Establishment, the wages rates, holidays hours of work and other conditions of

service of the workman of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workman directly employed by

the Principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work”.

19 (a). Reliance is further placed on by the AR of the workman the Apex Court judgment in SAIL (Supra)

quoting it’s Para 125 (5) (VI) which is reproduced here under: -

“if the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be

treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the service of the contract

labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the

light of para no. 6 hereunder.

To support his argument on the consequential relief of equal pay for equal work reliance is placed on the

judgement of Apex Court in SAIL (Supra) and Surender Singh and others V. The Engineer in chief CPWD.

On the issue of maintainability of claim for the want of prior demand notice to the establishment the judgement

of Apex Court State of Bihar V. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal AIR 1961 SC 304 and of the Delhi High Court in WP

NO. 13023 of 2005 workmen of MCD V. MCD and M/s Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited V. State of U.P. and

others, 2003 Lab I.C. 2630 are relied on.

19. (b) The learned A.R. for the CPWD management argued that the workman was not employed by the

management but was engaged by the contractor who is licensed contractor under the CLRA Act and it was his

choice and direction to recruit the person to whom he prefers. CPWD management though principal employer

had no say or any kind of supervision or control on the employees employed by the contracts. The CPWD

management beside it’s core activity of public works of construction and maintenance of their building has to

employ apart from regular workmen a number of contractors for performing some specific jobs for the purpose

of which several contractor are usually involved in certain various projects. It is further argued that all the

regular jobs under the core activity of the management are performed by the regular workmen and employees. It

is denied that the job done by the concerned workman was perennial in nature.

19.(c)

Apart of the core activity the management is entrusted by the Government with some other jobs which

have no nexus with the core activities and required to give such jobs on contract. The CPWD management is

concerned with such jobs entrusted to the contractors only to the extent of ascertaining the agreed number of

workmen are present and with the result achieved within the targetted time limit. The contractor who are

licensed under the CLRA Act are eligible to participate in open tender process floated by the CPWD for

nonperennial/permanent jobs to carry the same. After scruitiny one of them is scheted on the basis of lowest

minimum cost tendered by him on a year to year contract basis. The contractor so selected is paid a lump sum

amount to bring his workmen in such a number (contract labours) and his tools and equipment as the work

demanded. The workmen so employed were under the control and supervision of the contractor.

19.(d)

It is further argued that the notification prohibiting the category of work in which the concerned

workman was engaged by the contractor as contract labour has not been issued at any point of time of such

employment of the concerned workman by the Appropriate Government under Section-10 (1) of the CLRA Act.

The work performed by the present workman as contractor's labour was not overlaping with the work of regular

employees of the management CPWD. It is therefore vehemently argued that the contract between the principal

employer management CPWD and the contractor was not a sham and camauflage. He submitted that simply by

enactment of CLRA Act if the contract labour was engaged in connection with the work entrusted to the

contractor by the principal employer it does not culminate in any master servant relationship between the

principal employed and the contract labour.

19(e).

Both the parties have also submitted their respective written argument in addition to the oral

arguments. After providing the Authorized Representatives a lengthy hearing and going through their respective

566 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

written Arguments. I proceed to analyse the facts and issues involved in the case for reaching at a conclusive

answer to the reference point wise and categorically.

-

The Authorized Representative of the CPWD relied on the judgement of Apex Court in State of

Karnataka V. Umadevi 2 others (2006) 4 SCC1, Surender Prasad Tewari V. UP Rajya Krishi 3981 of 2006 by

Supreme Court , Workmen V. Coal of India Ltd (2004) 3 SCC 54), Haldia Refinary Canteen Employees

Union V. India Oil Corporation Ltd.(2005) 5 SCC 51), Balwant Rai Salija (2014) 9 SCC 407, Dhavangaihra

Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957 SC 274, Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills V. Bharat

Lal (2011)1 SCC 635, Workmen of Nilgiri Market Society V. State of Tamilnadu (2004) 3 SCC 514, State of

Karnataka V. Umadevi & others (2006) 4 SCC 1, Union of India and another V. Arulmozhi Iniarasu (2011)

9 SCC 1, State of Karnataka and others V. K.G.S.D Canteen Employees Welfare Association & others (2006)

1 SCC 567, The Commissioner of Income Tax V. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363, Bharat

Heavy Electricals Ltd V. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & others.

Direct Employee and the Contract Labour: -

20.

In the reference, claim statement, evidence and the argument of the workman’s Authorized

Representative the words “Direct Employee” are emphatically used to treat his status as the Employee of the

CPWD, though employed/by the contractor. Literally a person who works as an employee of an establishment

and is paid salary by it, rather than being employed through an agency is said to be direct employee. When the

employment in which an employer has the authority to appointment and of Termination, has direct day to day

supervision of the worker, pay the wages is said to have direct employee. The company or the establishment

issues advertisement prescribing eligibility criteria for the appointment of suitable candidate in the vacancy, in

already created and sanctioned posts, such recruited candidate on having been appointed is called Direct

Employee of the establishment. To the contrary the ‘Contract Labour’ refers to that employed person, hired to

work in a company/establishment through a contractor for a specific job and definite time. These contract

workers are not directly recruited by the company/establishment but through a contractor. In respect of such

contract labour the company/establishment is addressed as the Principal Employee. Since the work done by the

contract labour is of temporary nature, their employment is not fixed with a particular contractor. Once the

contractor’s agreement cases with the principal employer they have to lose their job.

21.

The contention that the concerned workman be treated as a Direct workman of CPWD finds no force

from the documentary and oral evidence of the workman. The management witness of CPWD reiterating the

status of the workman as contract labour employed by the contractor ‘Virendra Kumar’ a non party to the claim.

Filed by the workman. The workman filed an affidavit before the tribunal as statement in examination in chief

with regard to the geninity. The pleading and evidence by the Management witness of the CPWD with regard to

the genuinity of the Contract, producing copy of the papers extract from the registration Book of having the

details of the contract between the CPWD and the contractor Virendra Kumar is not controverted by the

workman by filing rejoinder against the written statement of the CPWD and confronting the said witness in

cross examination on the above documentary evidence and fact. So as to thrash on the credibility of the

documents. Likewise the attendance register filed as Annexure with the claim statement and in evidence also

prove the workman having worked from the paid 01.01.2016 to 31.01.2016 (31 days) 01.02.2016 to 29.02.2016

(29 days) and 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 (31days) a total period of working 91 days only). No other evidence is

available on record to prove and establish the continuity in service, since 20.11.2000 or even from the date

20.11.2010 stated in the reference.

22.

In view of the fact pleaded by the claimant and that proved by him in the course of evidence adduced

before the Tribunal the workman Sanjay Kumar is primafaci established a ‘contract labour’ employed by the

Contractor Virendra Kumar in the period commencing from 01.01.2016 upto the date of his removal from

contractual service by the contractor on 13.04.2016.

Whether the contract labour ‘Sanjay Kumar’ is workman as defined in the I.D. Act and can raise an Industrial

Dispute before the Tribunal.

23.

The ‘workman’ is defined under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act which runs as under:-

2 (s)

“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an

industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection

with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that

dispute, but does not include any such person-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

567

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy

Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii)

who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii)

who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per

mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested

in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

In view of the definition of ‘workman’ in I.D. Act the Industrial Tribunal is required to see whether the person

concerned is ‘workman’. For this purpose, it is to be find out that whether the Test of Employment for doing the

work as specified in the definition is satisfied by the concerned person. In the present case the Sanjay Kumar the

contract labour is employed by the contractor for doing the work of maintenance of Garden/playground

belonging beloved by CPWD (Master Employer) under a contract with it, undoubtedly he is a ‘workman’ as

defined in the I.D.Act with regard to the CPWD if any industrial dispute arises.

24.

A definition of ‘workman’ similar to that given in Section 2 (s) of the I.D.Act in incorporated in the

CLRA Act, Section 2 (i) of which runs as under

2(1)(i) "workman" means any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do any

skilled, semi-skilled or un-skilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether

the terms of employment be express or implied, but does not include any such person-

(A) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(B) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem

or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by' reason of the powers vested in him?

functions mainly of a managerial nature; or

(C) who is an out worker, that is to say, a person to whom any articles and materials are given out by or on

behalf of' the principal employer to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired,

adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the .trade or business of the principal employer

and the process is to be carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises, not being

premises under the control and management of the principal employer.

Admittedly the contract labour Sanjay Kumar comes within the ambit of words ‘Any person employed to do

manual work by the contractor in connection with the work entrusted to him by the establishment CPWD. The

said contract labours so employed does not fall in any excepted categories of the employees as excluded in the

above definition. Further in Section 2 (1)(b) of the CLRA Act, by……..effect a ‘contract labour’ shall also be

treated a ‘workman’, the said Section 2(1)(b) is quoted here under:-

2(1)(b) a workman shall be deemed to be employed as "contract labour" in or in connection with the work-of:-

an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or

without the knowledge of the principal employer.

25.

While this tribunal has opined on the basis of facts and evidence laid before it ‘Sanjay Kumar’ for the

cause of whom the claimant labour union sought the present ‘Reference’ is a “contract labour”, the next

question arises as to whether he is a ‘workman’ as defined in the I.D. Act and is entitled to raise in the

circumstances of the claim an “Industrial Dispute” as to his termination from employment by the contractor? It

would be pertinent to look into the amended provision of Section 2(a) (ii) (substituted vide Act No. 24 of 2010)

which runs as under:-

Section 2(a)(ii): - in relation to any industrial dispute, including the state public sector undertaking, subsidiary

companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State

Government, the State Government:

Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor and the contract labour employed through the

contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, the appropriate Government shall be

the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, which has control over such industrial

establishment.

26.

By virtue of the aforesaid proviso appended with Section 2(a)(ii) Dispute between the contractor and

his contract labour employed in any industrial establishment also comes within the ambit of industrial dispute if

related to terminate, remove or discharge of the contract labour relating to work of manual labour in the present

case the dispute is admitted and proved by the claimant and not controverted by the CPWD. In the above

568 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

context concerned person Sanjay Kumar, as held by the Apex Court in Devinder Singh V. Municipal Council

Sanaur (2011) 6 SCC 584 held, a contract labour falls within the definition ‘workman’.

27.

The contractor (employer of the workman) is in business of doing the work entrusted to him, deploying

his contract labours in the premises of the principal employer CPWD, which comes within the definition of

Industry as defined in SCC 2(j) of the I.D. Act.

2(j):-

“industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes

any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.

In view of the provision referred hereinabove the contract labour Sanjay Kumar would be treated as workmen in

relation to industrial dispute if any.

The Dispute

28.

The service of the concerned workman is explained by the CPWD to have been terminated by the

contractor for the reason of an incident of ‘eve teasing’ complained against him by a lady of the neighbouring

house of the locality where the workplace (the Garden) situated. The termination of the service of a workman is

definded as ‘Retrenchment’ under Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act where runs as under 2(oo):-

2(oo) - “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb)

termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a

stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or.

(c)

termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.

29.

It is not the case of the CPWD that the termination of the service of the workman falls under any of the

exception of the Sec.2(oo) therefore it would not be wrong to say that the workman Sanjay Kumar is retrenched

from the service on 13.04.2016 may come within the ambit of ‘Industrial Dispute’ and accordingly contract

labour can raise such Dispute before the Tribunal in the manner prescribed under the I.D. Act if the same could

be transformed in to “Industrial Dispute” in accordance with law.

30.

‘Industrial Dispute’ is defined in Section(k) of the I.D. Act which runs as under:-

“industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers

and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment

or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.

In view of the above provision when the contract labour employed by the contractor for the work interested by

the CPWD, is his employee and had complaint against his employer (the contractor) with regard to his removal

(termination) from such contractual employment and other terms and conditions of labour, he has an actionable

Industrial Dispute not only against the contractor but also the principle employer CPWD.

Individual Dispute and Industrial Dispute

31.

Though the Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act is incorporated in such language to cover widely a dispute

between the employer and a single workman the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Transport Service Ltd V.

Raghunath Gopal Pathwardhan (AIR 1957 SC 104,109) has held that the scheme of the I.D. Act appears to

contemplate that the machinery provided under the Act should be in motion to settle only such disputes as

involve the right of the workmen as a class and not a dispute touching the individual rights of a workman. In

D.N. Banerjee V. P.R. Mukherjee (1952) 2SCC 619 AIR 1953 SC 58 (61) the Apex Court further held that the

Dispute must be such as would affect large group of workmen and employer ranged on opposite sides. The

‘Dispute’ or ‘Difference’ must be real and not imaginary or ideological. As it is specified in the definition itself

the Dispute must relate to employment, non-employment or conditions of labour. In D.N. Banerjee’s Case

(Supra) and “Bombay Union of Journalists V. The ‘Hindu’, Bombay AIR 1963 SC 318 held, the applicability

of the I.D. Act to an ‘Individual Dispute’, as distinguished from a ‘Dispute’ involving a group of workmen in

excluded, unless the workmen as a body, or a considerable Section of them make common cause with the

Individual Workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

569

32.

Here in the present case there is neither pleading nor evidence on record to show that the Dispute as

after raised relating to the regularisation and equal wages ….. etc. the termination of employment of the

concerned workman is common with other workmen working as contract labour likely circumstanced and

employed through the contractor in the park/playground of the CPWD. The admitted case of claimant union is

the cause of “sole contract labour” (The Workman Sanjay Kumar) undoubtedly the Dispute raised for and on

behalf of the workman concerned is ‘Individual Dispute’ with his contractor in nature. Even the claimant union

has viewer raised voice against the illegal employment through the contractor in CPWD after the CLRA Act

came into force for and on behalf of its member the workmen.

33.

When the reference is received, the Tribunal commenced the proceeding in respect of the Dispute then

the management CPWD raised two preliminary objection first, the Disputes an Individual Dispute and Second

the reference is not maintainable for the want of espousal by the union or by a body of appreciable number of

the workmen of the establishment. By virtue of the judicial verdicts the said preliminary objection are therefore

being decided with the final disposal of the reference.

Individual Dispute when become Industrial Dispute

34.

The ‘Individual Dispute’ with regard to the termination of employment of a Single Contract labour by

the contractor who had to perform the work entrusted by CPWD, is raised by the Claimant Union (CPWD

Majdoor Union) through it’s General Secretary (the A.R of the workmen) before the conciliation officer and

sought reference of the dispute to this Industrial Tribunal. In the present case there is no pleading in the

statement of claim filed by the claimant union that the claimant labour union whether registered or unregistered

and recognized labour union for CPWD. Whether the concerned workman is member of the claimant union, or

of any other labour union of the same establishment or member of any of the labour union, the list of members

workmen is also not placed on record of the case. No resolution passed by the executive body of the union or

body of workmen in considerable number of member of the establishment (CPWD) is placed on record. Even

no evidence oral or documentary in this regard is adduced before the Tribunal. Moreover there is a complete

lack of pleading and evidence both as to whether the claimant union themselves is directly and subsequently

interested in the dispute.

35.

In Bombay Union of Journalists V. ‘Hindu’, Bombay 1962(3) SCR 893 the Apex Court in clear terms

laid down the test of an industrial dispute whether at the date of the reference the dispute was taken up and

supported by a union, or by an appreciable number of workmen. There being no doubt if the union having taken

up the cause of the workman concerned before the reference, but it is not to established by evidence on record

of the case before the tribunal that the workmen made representation to it and/or the executive body of the

union made any resolution authorising the office bearers of the union to initiate proceeding before the

conciliation officer, in accordance of which the General Secretary initiated the proceeding before the

conciliation officer. In these circumstances it is not possible to appreciate how the claimant union made the

espousal of the dispute which was individual to convert into an Industrial Dispute.

36.

In J.H. Jadhav vs M/S. Forbes Gokak Ltd (2005) 3SCC 2002 relying on it’s earlier decision in

Workmen V. Dharam Pal Premchand (Saughandhi) (1965) 3SCR 394: AIR 1966 SC 182. The Apex Court

held, ‘Locus Classicus’ is decision of Apex Court, where it was held, for the purpose of Sec.2(k) it must be

shown that:-

The definition of "Industrial Dispute" in Section 2(k) of the Act shows that an Industrial Dispute means any

dispute or difference between an employer and employers or between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of the

employment or with the condition of labour, of any person. The definition has been the subject matter of several

decisions of this Court and the law is well settled. The locus classicus is the decision in Workmen of M/s.

Dharampal Premchand(Saughandhi) Vs. M/s. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi)(Supra) where it was

held that for the purposes of Section 2(k) it must be shown that (1) the dispute is connected with the employment

or non employment of a workman. (2) the dispute between a single workman and his employer was sponsored

or espoused by the Union of workmen or by a number of workmen. The phrase "the union" merely indicates the

Union to which the employee belongs even though it may be a Union of a minority of the workmen. (3) the

establishment had no union on its own and some of the employees had joined the Union of another

establishment belonging to the same industry. In such a case it would be open to that Union to take up the cause

of the workmen if it is sufficiently representative of those workmen, despite the fact that such Union was not

exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned. An illustration of what had been

anticipated in Dharam Pal's case is to be found in the Workmen of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs.

Management of Indian Express Newspaper Private Ltd. AIR 1970 SC 737 where an 'outside' union was held

to be sufficiently representative to espouse the cause.

570 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

37.

In Workmen of Indian Express (P) Ltd. vs The Management (1969) 1 SCC 228 in Para-7 the Apex

Court held relying upon it’s decision in Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd V. Raghunath Gopal

Patwardhan 1956 SCR 956 noted that

The next question is whether the cause of a workman in a particular establishment in an industry can be

sponsored by a union which is not of workmen of that establishment but is one of which membership is open to

workmen of other establishments is that industry. In Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath

Gopal Patwardhan (1956 SCR 956), this court noted that decided cases in India disclosed three views as to the

meaning of an industrial dispute: (1) a dispute between an employer and a single workman cannot be an

industrial dispute, (2) it can be an industrial dispute, and (3) it cannot per se be an industrial dispute but may

become one if taken up by a trade union or a number of workmen. After discussing the scope of industrial

dispute as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act it observed that the preponderance of judicial opinion was clearly

in favour of the last of the three views and that there was considerable reason behind it. In the Newspapers Ltd.

v. The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P. (1957 SCR 754), the third respondent was employed as a lino typist by the

appellant company. On an allegation of incompetence, he was dismissed from service. His case was not taken

up by any union of workers of the appellant company, nor by any of the unions of workmen employed in similar

or allied trades. But the U.P. Working Journalists Union, Lucknow, with which the third respondent had no

concern, took the matter to the Conciliation Board. On a reference being made to the Industrial Tribunal by the

Government the legality of that reference was challenged by the appellant company on the ground that the said

dispute could not be treated as an industrial dispute under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which

defined by Section 2 an industrial dispute as having the same meaning assigned to it in Section 2(k) of the

Central Act. This court upheld the contention observing that the notification referring the said dispute

proceeded on an assumption that a dispute existed between the employer and "his workmen", that Tajammul

Hussain, the workman concerned, could not be described as "workman" nor could the U.P. Working Journalists

Union be called "his workman" nor was there any evidence to show that a dispute had got transformed into an

industrial dispute. The question whether the union sponsoring a dispute must be the union of workmen in the

establishment in which the workman concerned is employed or not had not so far arisen. It seems such a

question arose for the first time in the case of Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay (supra).

The decision in that case laid down - (1) that the Industrial Disputes Act excluded its application to an

individual dispute as distinguished from a dispute involving a group of workmen unless such a dispute is made

a common cause by a body or a considerable section of workmen and (2) the members of a union who are not

workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is sought to be raised cannot by their support convert an

individual dispute into an industrial dispute. Persons who seek to support the cause must themselves be directly

and substantially interested in the dispute and persons who are not the employees of the same employer cannot

be regarded as so interested. The court held that the dispute there being prima facie an individual dispute it was

necessary in order to convert it into an industrial dispute that it should be taken up by a union of the employees

or by an appreciable number of employees of Hindu, Bombay. The Bombay Union of Journalists not being a

union of the employees of the Hindu, Bombay, but a union of all employees in the industry of journalism in

Bombay, its support of the cause of the workman concerned would not convert the individual dispute into an

industrial dispute. The members of such a union cannot be said to be persons substantially and directly

interested in the dispute between the workman concerned and his employer, the Hindu Bombay. But in

Workmen v. M/s. Dharampal Premchand, this court, after reviewing the previous decisions, distinguished the

case of Hindu, Bombay and held that notwithstanding the width of the words used in Section 2(k) of the Act a

dispute raised by an individual workman cannot become an industrial dispute, unless it is supported either by

his union or in the absence of a union by a number of workmen, that a union may validly raise a dispute though

it may be a minority union of the workmen employed in an establishment, that if there was no union of workmen

in an establishment a group of employees can raise the dispute which becomes an industrial dispute even

though it is a dispute relating to an individual workman and lastly that where the workmen of an establishment

have no union of their own and some or all of then have joined a union of another establishment belonging to

the same industry, if such a union takes up the cause of the workman working in an establishment which has no

union of its own, the dispute would become an industrial dispute if such a union can claim a representative

character in a way that its support would make the dispute an industrial dispute.

38.

The decisions of the Apex Court is state of Bihar v. Kripuashower Jaiswal (supra) referred in support

of his argument by the AR of the workmen does not relate with the transformation of individual dispute into one

industrial dispute hence, not applicable on the circumstance of the present case.

39.

The General Secretary of the claimant union who filed the statement of claim has not produced himself

as witness to prove the fact of espousal of the Individual Dispute of the single workman as against the CPWD

by placing and proving the minutes of the meeting of executives of the union and the resolution authorising him

to initiate the proceeding, therefore the claimant union remained unsuccessful in establishing it having

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

571

representative character for espousal of the Dispute so as to transform the same from Individual Dispute to

Industrial Dispute.

40.

In view of the above discussion the claimant Labour Union ‘CPWD Mazdoor Union’ is not found to

have espoused the Dispute of the concerned workman so as to transform the same to an Industrial Dispute under

Section 2 (k) Industrial Dispute Act.

Termination of the Employment of the ‘Workman’ concerned if Retrenchment under the I.D. Act.

41.

In the present case though the ‘concerned workman’ is said to have been in employment as contract

labour since 20.11.2000 and in the reference made to this tribunal for adjudication is stated 20.11.2010 but the

claimant labour union neither placed any documentary evidence or oral witness to prove the concerned

workman’s entry in employment as contract labour of a contractor on any of the two aforesaid dates. However,

the tribunal adheres itself with the date stated in the ‘reference’ so as to restrain itself from traversing beyond

the scope of the reference, no evidence is brought on record to prove the date of initial entry in employment

20.11.2010 as stated in the reference. In the judgments of Apex Court in “State of Uttarakhand V. Sureshwati

2021 (168) FLR 488 (SC) and Bengar Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon V. Bharat Lala and others (2011)

1 SCC 635 it is held that “onus is upon the workman to establish his relation with the employer on the basis of

number of days he has served lies heavily upon the workman”.

42.

In the preceding Paras of this award, relating to ‘Evidences’ by the claimant this tribunal has already

recorded it’s view on the basis of three sheets of attendance register (Annexed in Colly) which are proved in the

oral evidence of the workman and the non rebuttal of the fact of commencement of the concerned workman’s

employment under the contractor ‘Virendra Kumar’ pleaded in the written statement of the management

(CPWD) with details of his contract having been in employment from 01.01.2016 to 30.04.2016 only.

In

the context of the above pleaded and proved facts by the parties to the Industrial Dispute case it would be

pertinent to look the provision relating to the Termination of Service of a workman which is termed under the

I.D. Act as Retrenchment defined in Section 2 (oo): -

Section 2 (oo): - “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb)

termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a

stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or.

(c)

termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.

42.

It is not admitted by the Management (CPWD) that the concerned workman is directly employed by

him but the admitted case of the parties is that the employment of the concerned workman was ceased off by

removal (termination) from service on 13.04.2016.

43.

In K.V. Anil Mithra & Another V. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Another the Apex

Court in Para 22,23,24 &25 held as under: -

22:-

The term ‘retrenchment’ leaves no manner of doubt that the termination of the workman for any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action are being termed as

retrenchment with certain exceptions and it is not dependent upon the nature of employment and the procedure

pursuant to which the workman has entered into service. In continuation thereof, the condition precedent for

retrenchment has been defined under Section 25F of the Act 1947 which postulates that workman employed in

any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year can be retrenched by the employer

after clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F have been complied with and both the clauses (a) and (b) of Section

25F have been held by this Court to be mandatory and its non-observance is held to be void ab initio bad and

what is being the continuous service has been defined under Section 25B of the Act 1947. It may be relevant to

quote Section 25B and clause (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act 1947 which are reproduced as under:— 25B.

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter (1) a workman shall be said to be in

continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be

572 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-

out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not

in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be

deemed to be in continuous service under an employer— (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a

period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has

actually worked under the employer for not less than— (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a

workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a

period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference

to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than— (i) ninety -five

days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any

other case. Explanation. —For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually

worked under an employer shall include the days on which— (i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as

permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946),

or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment; (ii) he has been on leave

with full wages, earned in the previous years; (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by

accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and (iv) in the case of a female, she has been on

maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.] 25F.

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the

period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the

notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days' average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six

months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as

may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

23:-

The scheme of the Act 1947 contemplates that the workman employed even as a daily wager or in any

capacity, if has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination

and if the employer wants to terminate the services of such a workman, his services could be terminated after

due compliance of the twin clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act 1947 and to its non-observance held

the termination to be void ab initio bad and so far as the consequential effect of non-observance of the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act 1947, may lead to grant of relief of reinstatement with full back wages and

continuity of service in favour of retrenched workman, the same would not mean that the relief would be

granted automatically but the workman is entitled for appropriate relief for non-observance of the mandatory

requirement of Section 25F of the Act, 1947 in the facts and circumstances of each case.

24:-

The salient fact which has to be considered is whether the employee who has been retrenched is a

workman under Section 2(s) and is employed in an industry defined under Section 2(j) and who has been in

continuous service for more than one year can be retrenched provided the employer complies with the twin

conditions provided under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act 1947 before the retrenchment is given

effect to. The nature of employment and the manner in which the workman has been employed is not significant

for consideration while invoking the mandatory compliance of Section 25F of the Act 1947.

25:-

This can be noticed from the term ‘retrenchment’ as defined under Section 2 (oo) which in unequivocal

terms clearly postulates that termination of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever provided it

does not fall in any of the exception clause of Section 2(oo), every termination is a retrenchment and the

employer is under an obligation to comply with the twin conditions of Section 25F of the Act 1947 before the

retrenchment is given effect to obviously in reference to such termination where the workman has served for

more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination given effect to as defined

under Section 25B of the Act.

44.

A constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘Punjab Land Development and reclamation

Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh V. Presiding Officer’ Lab Labour Court Chandigarh and others 3 SCC 682, the

Apex Court Held: -

14: -

The precise question to be decided, therefore, is whether on a proper construction of the definition of

“retrenchment” in Section 2(oo) of the Act, it means termination by the employer of the service of a workman

as surplus labour for any reason whatsoever, or it means termination by the employer of the service of a

workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action,

and those expressly excluded by the definition. In other words, the question has to be decided is whether the

word “retrenchment” in the definition has to be understood in its narrow, natural and contextual meaning or in

its wider literal meaning.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

573

45.

On the basis of case laws cited herein above, undoubtedly, from proved fact, the service of the

workman had been terminated, it will be termed to be a retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act

because it does not fall under any of those excepted situation under the said Section. He was contract labour

employed by the contractor ‘Virendra Kumar’ to whom the work of maintenance of one playground/Green belt

(Garden of ‘Pushpvihar’ was given under the contract between contractor and the CPWD for the period 2016-

2017 for one year commencing form the date of contract.

46.

It has already been viewed by this tribunal that the concerned workman was a workman as defined in

Section 2 (s) of the I.D Act, as such workman his service was terminated by the contractor who employed him

may amount retrenchment as defined in Section 2 (oo). In the particular circumstance of the present case the

CPWD being the principal employer, in the absence of the ‘contractor’ by reason of his non impleadment in the

case though necessary party, explained on his behalf on the basis of explanation sought from him to submit

before the conciliation officer prior to the reference is made by the Appropriate Government to this tribunal,

that the concerned workman on the police complaint lodged by an women of neighbouring House in the locality

of the workplace (Pushpvihar Playground & Garden) dated 21.03.2016, against him of eve teasing, removed

from the work of maintenance and employment also from the work running there to perform the work given to

the contractor by the CPWD and the work was kept continuing with rest of the contract labour to perform

within targetted time.

47.

The tribunal shall not go to investigate and find out against the incident of the concerned workman or

to probe why his service was terminated while adjudicating the dispute under the I.D.Act, for the simple reason

it would be have effect, if done so, to go beyond the scope of reference. Moreover the Apex Court in Punjab

Land Development and Reclamation Corporation (supra) case in para 14 (quoted in the preceding para) has

cleared, that termination for any reason whatsoever under section 2(oo) may be in contextual meaning of a case

termination of any reason otherwise than as a punishment inflected by way of disciplinary action.

48.

In Para 30 of the K.V. Anil Mithra vs. Sree Shankaracharya University of sanskrit and another (CA

No.9067 of the 2014) decided on 27th October 2021 the Apex Court has observed. In every retrenchment the

employer is not under any obligation with the twin conditions referred to under clauses (a) and (b) of Section

25F of the Act but in a case where the workman has been in continuous service for more than 240 days in the

proceeding 12 months before the alleged date of termination as contemplated under Section 25 B, the employer

is under an obligation to comply with the twin condition referred to under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of

the Act 1947.

49.

In the facts and circumstances found proved on evidence, it can not be said that the concerned

workman had completed 240 days in service as contract labour within 12 months preceding the alleged date of

his termination from service by the contractor. Moreover, he had not successfully stood on his case of having

been in service of various contractors as contract labour right from 20.11.2000, and more particularly since

20.11.2010 (the date of entry in employment as contract labour) referred in the reference made to this tribunal

by the appropriate government). None of contractors under whom the concerned workman alleges to have

worked as contract labour for doing the work of CPWD or any other establishment is named, detailed and

described in material and specific terms and is/are not impleaded in the claim statement before the tribunal.

Nothing has been pleaded and proved beyond and contrary to the admitted and established fact proved on

evidence also that the workman concerned has not even worked for 240 days in 12 months preceding his

termination on 13.04.2016.

50.

In the above context the finding of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sancharnigam Ltd.

V. Bhurumal 2014 (7) SCC 177 are relevant on the question of appropriate relief, the workman may be entitled

with regard to the non compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, they are quoted here under:-

25(F)

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. - No workman employed in any industry who has

been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until-

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu

of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous

service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed

manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.]

574 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

51.

The facts of present case of termination of service of the workman who was a contract labour when

measured on the touch stone of the rationals laid down by the Apex Court in K.V. Anil Mithra vs. Sree

Shankaracharya University of sanskrit and another (Supra) and the Bharat Sarcharnigam Ltd (Supra) the

workman concerned is not entitled to the retrenchment compensation and reinstatement in service with back

wages from the CPWD Management.

Whether should be treated and declared direct and regular Mali of the CPWD.

52.

The Ministry of Labour Government of India formulated the first question for adjudication by this

Tribunal is to the effect that whether ‘Sanjay Kumar’ the concerned workman is entitled to be treated as direct

employee of CPWD alongwith all allowances and benefit equivalent to their counter parts as his employment in

the category of Mali as contract labour is sham and bogus? Obviously from the facts pleaded in the claim

statement the entry in service of Mali in the Pushpvihar playground and green belt garden which is one of the

premises of CPWD is through the contractor. Admittedly he is not directly recruited and appointed by the

CPWD through it’s process under the prescribed Service Rules and manner of selection for appointment. In

evidence also the claimant witness has proved his entry in service through the contractor as contract labour.

53.

According to CPWD the present matter pertains only one workman out of the seven who were engaged

by the contractor in the work of maintenance in the playground/Green Belt (garden) owned and occupied by the

CPWD since 01.01.2015. The concerned workman employed on contract basis by the contractor under the

contract with CPWD and was working at various places since the aforesaid date. The claimant union contended

that the job which this workman performed and attended to was perennial in nature as well as squarely covered

under Section-10 of the CLRA Act therefore the CPWD is not supposed to employ contract labour in their

establishment for the work of maintenance of garden. The work carried on by the CPWD in their Garden is

permanent and perennial in nature. It is further argued that the concerned workman involved in the reference

became the regular and direct employee of the CPWD and entitled to get the status of the regular worker with

all consequential benefits and privileges. The claimant union has also argued that the CPWD management has

it's own direct and regular employees who do the same and similar nature of work as that done by the concerned

workman. However, this workman was being paid less wages than the direct worker doing similar nature of

work, therefore the concerned workman was entitled to same wages equal wages as paid to the direct workers. It

is further argued that the work of the present workman was supervised, controlled and administrated by the

CPWD management itself. The contractor employed by the management was proxy only. The so called contract

between the CPWD management and the contractor was sham and more camauflage to deprive the concerned

workman of benefits available to permanent workmen in the same category of work in the CPWD management.

Therefore, the workman involved in the reference was entitled to be declared as direct and permanent workman

of the CPWD management right from the date of his joining i.e. 20.11.2010 (as referred in the reference) and

entitled to be reinstatement w.e.f. 13.04.2016 (the date of removal) as such with continuity in service with all

consequential benefits attached to the post of permanent workman directly employed by the management.

54.

The CLRA Act provides for the abolition of contract labour by the Central Government in Appropriate

cases under Section 10 of the Act. Neither the act nor the rules framed by the Central Government (or by any

other appropriate government) provide that upon abolition of the contract labour, the labours would be directly

absorbed in the establishment which is principal employer. The SAIL Vardict constitution Bench Judgment of

the Supreme Court, in Steel Authority of India Ltd V. National Union Water Front Workers and others

(2001) 7 SCC1 is an authority on this point. The relevant paras are being quoted here under :

“65.

The contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, exhaustively set out above, can conveniently be

dealt with under the following two issues :

A. Whether the concept of automatic absorption of contract labour in the establishment of the principal

employer on issuance of the abolition notification, is implied in Section 10 of the CLRA Act; and

B. Whether on a contractor engaging contract labour in connection with the work entrusted to him by a

principal employer, the relationship of master and servant between him (the principal employer) and the

contract labour, emerges.

108

The next issue that remains to be dealt with is:

B. Whether on a contractor engaging contract labour in connection with the work entrusted to him by a

principal employer, the relationship of master and servant between him (the principal employer) and the

contract labour emerges.

120. We have also perused all the Rule and Forms prescribed thereunder. It is clear that at various stages there

is involvement of the principal employer. On exhaustive consideration of the provisions of the CLRA Act we

have held above that neither they contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and servant between the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

575

principal employer and the contract labour nor can such relationship be implied from the provisions of the Act

on issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, a fortiorari much less can such a relationship be

found to exist from the Rules and the Forms made thereunder.

125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus: (1) (a) Before January 28, 1986, the determination of

the question whether Central Government or the State Government, is the appropriate Government in relation

to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression appropriate Government as stood in

the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under

the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry; or the

establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or

insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate

Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the

establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government,

(b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the question referred to

above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the concerned Central

Government company/undertaking or any undertaking is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is

carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (b) by railway company; or (c) by

specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government otherwise in

relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated,

will be the appropriate Government.

(2) (a) A notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any

process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate Government : (1)

after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and;

(2) having regard to

(i) conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment in question; and

(ii) other relevant factors including those mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10;

(b) inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on December 9, 1976 does not

satisfy the afore-said requirements of Section 10, it is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the date of

this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment no order passed or no action

taken giving effect to the said notification on or before the date of this judgment, shall be called in question in

any tribunal or court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and/or it has been

implemented.

(3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary

implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate

Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order

absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment;

(4) We over-rule the judgment of this court in Air Indias case (supra) prospectively and declare that any

direction issued by any industrial adjudicator/any court including High Court, for absorption of contract

labour following the judgment in Air Indias case (supra), shall hold good and that the same shall not be set

aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to

and it has become final.

(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or

for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere

ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the

benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract

labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the

services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to the conditions as may be specified by it

for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.

(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in

respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting

employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such

576 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular

workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary,

by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at

the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic

qualifications other than technical qualifications.

55.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd V. Ramcharan and others (Civil Appeal

No. R446-R447 of 2022) beside on 5th December 2022 in Para 4.1 as held that there is no provision under

section 10 of the CLRA Act that the workers/employees by the contractor automatically become the employees

of the appellant and the employees of the contractor shall be entitled for automatic absorption and\are they

become the employees of the principal employer considering the SAIL Verdict (Supra) framed two Questions

for consideration.

A

whether the concept of automatic absorption of contract labour in the establishment of the principal

employer on issuance of the abolition notification is employed in Section 10 CLRA Act, and

B

whether a contractor engaging contract labour in connection with the word entrusted to him by a

principal employer, the relationship of master and servant between him (The Principal) and the contract labour

emerges.

56.

The Apex Court gone through the entire Para-125 of the SAIL Verdict summarized in Para-4.5 as

follows:-

Thus, as observed and held by this court, neither Section-10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act,

expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption Government under sub-section (1) of

Section-10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or any other work in any

establishment and consequently, the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It has further been observed and held by this Court in the

aforesaid decision that on issuance of prohibition notification under Section-10(1) of the CLRA Act, prohibiting

employment of contract labour or otherwise, in case of an Industrial Dispute brought before it by any contract

labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether

the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for

the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a

mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of

the benefits thereunder.

57.

In the present matter before the Tribunal the case of the claimant union does not pertains to any

notification issued by the Central Government (Appropriate Government) under Section-10 (1) of the CRLA

Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in the category of work in the CPWD, in which the concerned

workman was engaged. It is not pleaded anywhere in the statement of claim submitted before the tribunal by the

claimant union. Even no averment to the effect that whether the work performed by the workman concerned if

and how perennial in nature, whether it is done through the regular workmen in the establishment and whether it

is sufficient to employ considerable number of the full time workmen and whether the work was incidental to

and necessary for the Industry Section-10 of the CLRA Act being relating to the issue is extracted here under: -

"Section-10” Prohibition of employment of contract labour.-(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this

Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State

Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation

or other work in any establishment. (2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an

establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided

for the contract labour that establishment and other relevant factors, such as-

(a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade,

business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment;

(b)

whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is so of sufficient duration having regard to

the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment;

(c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment

similar thereto;

(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen.

Explanation. - If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature,

the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

577

58.

In the present case neither any notification under Section-10(1) of CLRA Act has been issued

prohibiting the contract labour nor there are pleading as to which kind of alleged wrongs or short coming by

reason of which and/or even findings to the effect that the contract is Sham and bogus and/or camouflage. More

over the alleged fact of supervision and control by the principal employer is not proved on evidences adduced

before the tribunal by the workman so far as the contractor who engaged the workman in concerned was proved

the pay master for the payment of salary and had also not been negatived by any documentary or oral evidence.

59.

In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd V. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola (Supra) the Industrial Dispute

referred to the Industrial Tribunal was to the following effect: -

Whether termination of services of workman Sh. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, helper by the employer, with

effect from 13.11.2001 is justified and/or as per law? If not, what benefit/relief the concerned workman is

entitled for and with what other a relief?

The labour court by an award dated 01.11.2009 held referring to a notification dated 24.04.1990 under the

CLRA Act that the workmen will not be deployed to do the work mentioned in the notification. It was also held

on the basis of admission by the employers representative that the supervision, superintendence and

administrative control of the workman was with the principal employer.

60.

The present case admittedly does not involve any notification under Section 10(1) for the abolition of

contract labour and prohibition in any category of work with regard to the CPWD. The Apex Court in the case

of BHEL(Supra) gone through the entire pleading and evidences laid by the workman and observed that, ‘it is

clear that the labour court has arrived at a conclusion which no reasonable person could possibly arrived and it

could had said that ‘undisputedly’, the labour that was employed through contractor were performing identical

duties as regular employees and that, therefore, without any evidence, it can be said that they were under the

control, Management and Guidance of BHEL, secondly, when it said that alleged contracts that were awarded

in favour of contractors and how many labours, in what type of work etc. where asked for not furnished, is also

directly contrary to evidence laid on behalf of the BHEL in which such documents were specifically provided.

Lastly considering the earlier decisions of the Apx Court in Balwant Rai Saluju V. Air India Ltd (2014) Supra

Para-65 (which is referred herein below in succeeding paras) held there is nothing on facts to show that the

contract labour that is engaged, even dehors a provisional notification, is in the facts of this case sham. The

appeal in the case before Hon’ble Apex Court is allowed. Setting aside the labour court awards.

61.

Explaining the expression “Control and Supervision” the Apex Court in the case of International

Airport Authority of India V. International Air Cargo workers and another (2009) 13 SCC 374 in Para 38 &

39 of the judgement laid down the tests to find out that in fact there is a direct employment. It has further been

observed in Para 38 & 39 as under:-

“38”

The tests that are applied to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor

may not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a

mere camouflage. For example, if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the

contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, if the salary is

paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision

and control lies with the contractor.

“39”

The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such

labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is

to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the

contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will

work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the

worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the

principal employer but this is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor.

62.

Further in the case of Balwant Rai Saluja and another V. Air India Ltd. and others (Supra) the above

cited view of the law has been relied in Para 65 as under:-

“65” The Vodafone case (supra), further made reference to a decision of the US Supreme Court in United

States v. Best foods [141 L Ed 2d 43: 524 US 51 (1998)]. In that case, the US Supreme Court explained that as

a general principle of corporate law a parent corporation is not liable for the acts of its subsidiary. The US

Supreme Court went on to explain that corporate veil can be pierced and the parent company can be held liable

for the conduct of its subsidiary, only if it is shown that the corporal form is misused to accomplish certain

wrongful purposes, and further that the parent company is directly a participant in the wrong complained of.

578 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mere ownership, parental control, management, etc. of a subsidiary was held not to be sufficient to pierce the

status of their relationship and, to hold parent company liable.

63.

In Nil Giri Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd V. State of Tamilnadu 2004 last suit (SC) 142 the Apex

Court has observed as under.

It is submitted by the Respondents- Unions that, the documents executed between petitioner and the Contractors

are bogus, sham, concocted, fraudulent and inadmissible in evidence. The same have been prepared to avoid

the statutory liability to give permanency benefits to these workmen and to deprive them of their legitimate

rights of equal work equal pay at par with the permanent employees of the petitioner. They submitted that, many

alleged contractors have come and gone in last 20 years but the concerned workmen involved in the Reference

have been continued in service. Had these concerned workmen been the employees of somebody else, their

service would have been terminated at the time of changing the contractor and or terminating the earlier

alleged contracts with the contractors.

The learned counsel for the Unions contended that though the notification dated 9th December, 1976 may have

been abolished, however the notification dated 30th January, 1996 is very much in existence. The said

notification is in respect of the Petitioner Company. The said notification covers the workers in this petition

who are working in the establishment of the Petitioner. Though, the members of the Respondents are covered by

the notification dated 30th January,1996, however, in breach of this notification, the petitioner continues to

employ contract labour including the workmen concerned with this petition. Out of the 37 employees, 21 are

working as a valve operator, 13 are working in housekeeping in plant area and 3 are working as helpers

(Maintenance), all of which as per the 1996 notification are prohibited jobs. The employment of contract labour

in specified jobs was prohibited as per the notification w.e.f. 01st March, 1996, yet the Petitioner continues to

treat the workmen concerned as contract labour. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that

nowhere in the evidence, the petitioner has denied that the workmen concerned are not squarely covered by the

notification dt. 30th January, 1996.

64.

In the General Manager(OST), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnand Gao V. Bhart Lala and

another (2011)(1) SCC 635 it was held that the well recognised test of ‘control and supervision’ is explained in

Para 12 as follows:-

The expression “Control and Supervision” in the context of contract labour was explained by this court in

International Airport Authority of India V. International Air Cargo Workers’ union thus: (SCC p. 388, paras

38-39.

“38.

if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work

under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a

direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the

employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.

39.

The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such

labour is assigned/ allotted/ sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker

is to be assigned / allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of

the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee

will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns / sends

the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker to works under the supervision and control of the

principal employer but that is secondary control.”

65.

From this judgment it is clear that when it is proved in a case that the contractor pays the workman

their wages secondly the principal employer cannot be said to control and supervise the work of the employees

merely because he directs the workman of the contractor ‘what to do’ after the contractor assigns/allots the

employee to the principal employer. Precisely it explains the supervision and control of the principal employer

that is secondary in nature as such control is exercised only after such workman has been assigned to the

principal employer do a particular work. In the proved and admitted circumstances of the case in hand the

contractor retained control and supervision over the workman to whom he employed to the work entrusted to

him by the principal employer under the contract between them.

66.

In the case of entering into contract between principal employer and the contractor to whom the work

is allotted by the principal contract employer to be done through the ‘contract labours’ employed by him for a

category of work under the said contract the Industrial adjudicator may have the occasion to decide whether it is

sham and camouflage, only when the concerned contractor (s) are impleaded in the claim before it. The

description and details of such contractor must be specifically pleaded in the claim with his impledment. The

burden of pleading in this regard lies on the claimant union and the workman heavily. If would have been is

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

579

done, then only the tribunal could have find itself in a position to force the management to produce the relevant

document relating to the concerned ‘contract’ alleged to be sham and camouflage on the facts of the case. To

declare illegal, void, sham and camouflage a non existent contract before it, the tribunal is not competent to give

an omnibus finding for all contracts which had been or existing between the principal employer and the

contractor irrespective of pre require conditions under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. The claim of the present

case is almost speculative and uncertain with regard to which of the contractors and for which period they

entered into the contract with CPWD for which category of work to be done. The pleading is vague and

uncertain basing the claim before the tribunal on the misconception of an omnibus prohibition of works to be

done through the ‘contract labours’ for all kinds and categories of work in the establishment, simply for the only

reason of the enactment of CLRA Act 1970 and Rules of 1971 framed thereunder. The present case is not

relating to any contract between the principal employer (CPWD Management) and the concerned contractor

whose contract labour was employed to do the work allotted to the contractor under such contract despite

prohibition notification, if any issued by the Central Government, prohibiting contract labour in a particular

category of works or categories of work in the establishment CPWD. Except the enactment of the CLRA Act no

other ground for declaring the ‘contract’ Sham, is pleaded and proved in the claim before the Tribunal viz the

availability of vacant post in CPWD, the non recruitment of regular and direct workmen by it and to save the

expenses and statutory wages payable to the workers on their regular recruitment, entering into the contract with

contractor to perform the ‘core activity’ of the establishment through contract labours, description and number

of similarly circumstanced contract labours in the claim etc. It is not denied that payment in the bank account of

the workman and other 6 contract labours like him were not made by the contractor. The allegation of paying

below the minimum wages though pleaded but without evidence of person/authority who was paying so,

whether the principal employer or the contractor. When the CPWD with all certainty asserted in it’s written

statement that the master payer was the ‘contractor’ and no complaint of paying less than minimum wages

received by the management at any point of time, the same is neither rebulted through the rejoinder nor proved

in evidence by the workman.

67.

There is no ground legally or factually pleaded and/or proved by the claimant and workman to

whereupon the contract may be declared and adjudicated by this Tribunal to be sham and mere camouflage.

68.

The number of contract labours employed the CPWD or the contractor to do the work entrusted by the

CPWD is necessary to describe with complete detail in the claim statement so as to attract the applicably of the

CLRA Act order the subject matter of the present case. The section 1 (4) & (5) of the CLRA Act provides:-

“1.(4) It applies-

(a) to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen, art employed or were employed on any day of the

preceding twelve months as contract labour.

(b) to every contractor who employs or who employed on any day of the preceding twelve months twenty or

more workmen.

Provided that the appropriate Government may, after giving not less than two months' notice of its intention so

to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment or contractor

employing such number of workmen less than twenty as may be specified in the notification.

1.(5) (a) It shall not apply to establishments in which work only of an intermittent or casual nature is

performed.

(b) If a question arises whether work performed in an establishment is of an intermittent or casual nature, the

appropriate Government shall decide that question after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case

may be, a State Board, and its decision shall be final.

Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, work performed in an establishment shall not be deemed to be

of an intermittent nature-

(i) if it was, performed for more than one hundred and twenty days in the preceding twelve months, or

(ii) if it is of a seasonal character and is performed for more than sixty days in a year”.

69.

The facts and circumstances proved and admitted in evidence by the parties to the ‘dispute’ establish

that the contractor who was entrusted by the CPWD the job work of maintenance of Garden/Playground of

Pushpvihar had employed a total number of 7 contract labours including the concerned workman Sanjay Kumar

in the proved period of his employment commencing from 01.01.2016 upto the date of his termination

13.04.2016. It is not pleaded and proved whether CPWD had also employed the contract labour in addition to

those employed by the contractor ‘Virendra Kumar’ and if yes, then how many contract labours. As such in the

present case the subject matter does not find applicability of the CLRA Act.

580 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 4, 2023/ PHALGUNA 13, 1944

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1.

Admittedly, there is no notification of prohibition under Section 10 (1) of the CLRA Act issued by the

Appropriate Government (the Central Government) in respect of the management (CPWD) prohibiting

employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in CPWD.

2.

Maintenance of Garden is not a ‘work’ which may be treated as the core activity of the management

(CPWD), moreover, the appropriate government has not declared the same as the work of perennial

nature. The said work comes witness the ambit to the other works entrusted to the CPWD by the

government.

3.

The ‘work’ of maintenance of playground/green belt in Pushpvihar was the subject matter of contract

between the CPWD and the contractor.

4.

The contractor to whom the CPWD entrusted the said work under a contract was selected in due course

of inviting open tenders and after scrutiny of the lowest bid the successful contractor was asked to fulfill

the tenders of executions of the contract.

5.

For the year 2016-2017 the contractor so selected was ‘Virendra Kumar’ as pleaded in written statement

by the management which remained unrebulted by the claimant by way of rejoinder to the written

statement or proved otherwise in the evidence of the claimant.

6.

The said contractor as pleaded and proved by the management employed 7 contract labour to perform the

work under contract including ‘Sanjay Kumar’ on 01.01.2016.

7.

Sanjay Kumar is the concerned contract labour for whose Single cause the claimant union sought the

reference from the appropriate government and submitted the statement of claim in this tribunal (the

industrial adjudication).

8.

Sanjay Kumar the contract labour is proved to have been employed by the contractor on 01.01.2016 and

admittedly terminated from employment as such on 13.04.2016 by the contractor. The claimant remained

unsuccessful in establishing the master servant relationship the concerned workman and the management

CPWD.

9.

The claimant remained unsuccessful in proving the employment of Sanjay Kumar as contract labour

employed by various contractors since 20.11.2006 or more specifically since 20.11.2010.

10.

Admittedly during the period commencing from 01.01.2016 upto 13.04.2016 the concerned contract

labour ‘Sanjay Kumar’ imparted manual labour on his employment by the contractor in the

garden/playground Pushpvihar belonging to the management (CPWD) as such he comes within the

ambit of ‘workman’ as defined I.D. Act and also under the CLRA Act.

11.

The work of ‘Concerned Workmen’ alongwith other 6 contract labours was controlled and supervised by

the contractor himself and not by any officer/official of the CPWD. The contractor who employed him

was also ‘pay master’.

12.

None of the contractors alleged by the claimant to have employed the concerned workman as contract

labour for doing the work in CPWD premises are impleaded named, detailed and described in the

statement of claim. There is no specific description of them in the body of the claim statement also.

13. The concerned workman is admittedly and proved not have been recruited directly by the CPWD.

14. No ground other than the enactment of CLRA Act is taken by the claimant to declare the contract of

employing contract labours entered between the CPWD and the contractor is proved.

15. No hours of work in a day and the amount of wages paid to the concerned workman in plead and proved

by the claimant. If is also not pleaded and proved that the regular employees of CPWD were employed to

do the same work with the contract labour in a consolidated and integrated way on the workplace.

16. Neither the length of duration of employment as contract labour in the premises owned by CPWD is

proved nor the control and supervision of work of the contract labours by the CPWD is proved by the

claimant.

17. The espousal of claim of the single workman is not proved by the claimant union. Even the claimant

General Secretary of the union could have proved his representative character for the cause of the single

workman but the same is not done.

18. The concerned workman is not proved the member of claimant union nor of any other union of the same

establishment or of any other labour union.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मार्च 4, 2023/ फाल्गुन 13, 1944

581

19. The claim of the concerned workman arose as individual dispute and remained as such without having

bears transformed legally into an ‘industrial dispute’.

20. Longevity of service could not be proved at least for 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination

13.04.2016. The concerned workman is not entitled to the retrenchment compensation from CPWD as

workman of the principal employer.

21. Contractor(s) are not made party, therefore relief of compensation against the anonymous non parties can

not be granted against them behind the back and against the unknown person.

22. For the reason of not seeking declaration against any specific and particular contractor/contractors, relief

becomes inspecific, abstract and general against non existent contracts on record of the case. It can not be

possible to declare such abstract contractors sham, bogus and camouflage.

23.

Claim is found baseless. The concerned workman Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Singh R/o E-42,

Kondli, Delhi, shall not be treated as direct employee of the management to be regularized in the services

of regular Mali in the establishment of CPWD. He being not regularly recruited and appointed in

substantive and existing vacancy not entitled to the pay scale and other facility and benefits like the

regular and direct counterpart of the management (CPWD). He remained unsuccessful in establishing

master servant relationship between him and the management CPWD. He was employed and removed

from service by the contractor therefore he cannot be reinstated on the post of mali in the service of

CPWD. There is no automatic absorption and regularization of contract labour in the concept in CLRA

Act, of the service of the principal employer herein the present case the CPWD simply by reasons of

enactment of CLRA Act, 1970, unless a notification of prohibition of employment of contract labours is

issued by the appropriate government (the Central Government) u/s 10(1) of the CLRA Act in the

category of work having been done by the concerned workman. Admittedly such notification is not issued

in respect of the work in question relating to CPWD establishment.

70.

The tribunal has not found any occassion and reason to declaree any contract sham and camouflage,

entered in between the contractor and the establishment CPWD for the want of specification of impugned

contract in the claim and the relief sought therein.

ORDER

The reference is answered aforesaid terms claim being baseless is rejected. An award is, accordingly

passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government of Publication.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), 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: 2023.03.14 15:03:01 +05'30'