2666 GI/2023
(1297)
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. 18]
नई दिल् ली, अप्रैल 30—मई 6, 2023, िजनवार/ वैिाख 10,— वैिाख 16, 1945
No. 18]
NEW DELHI, APRIL 30—MAY 6, 2023, SATURDAY/ VAISAKHA 10,— VAISAKHA 16, 1945
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िै जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भागII—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड(ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्राल
(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2023
का.आ. 670.—भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम अजिजन म, 1956 (1956 का 31) की िारा 4 द्वारा प्रित्त
िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम (एलआईसी) के प्रबंि जनिेिक
श्री जसद्धा थ मोिन्ती (िन्म जतज : 8.6.1963) को ृि का का थभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से दिनांक 29.6.2024
तक एलआईसी के अध् क्ष के ृि ृर और इसके ृश्चात दिनांक 7.6.2025 तक अ ाथत उनके 62 वर्थ की आ ु प्राप्त
करने की तारीख तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम के मु् का थकारी
अजिकारी और प्रबंि जनिेिक के ृि ृर 2,25,000 रुृए (जन त) के वेतनमान में जन ुि करती िै।
[फा. सं. ए-11011/02/2023-बीमा-I]
जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12052023-245829
CG-DL-W-12052023-245829
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12052023-245829
CG-DL-W-12052023-245829
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12052023-245829
CG-DL-W-12052023-245829
1298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2023
S.O. 670.— In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act,
1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Siddhartha Mohanty (DoB: 8.6.1963), Managing
Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) as Chairperson, LIC for a period with effect from the date
of assumption of charge of the office till 29.6.2024, thereafter, as Chief Executive Officer and Managing
Director till 7.6.2025 i.e. upto the date of his attaining the of 62 years, or until further orders, whichever is
earlier in the pay scale of Rs. 2,25,000/- (fixed).
[F. No. A-11011/02/2023-Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2023
का.आ. 671.—बीमा जवजन ामक और जवकास प्राजिकरण अजिजन म, 1999 (1999 का 41) की िारा 4
द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री जब्णु चरण ृटना क, भूतृूवथ प्रबंि
जनिेिक, भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम को ृि का का थभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से बास वर्थ की आ ु प्राप्त करने
तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, चार लाख रुृए प्रजतमाि (आवास और कार की सुजविा के जबना) के
समेदकत वेतन ृैकेि ृर भारती बीमा जवजन ामक और जवकास प्राजिकरण में ृूणथकाजलक सिस्ट् (िीवन) के ृि ृर
जन ुि करती िै।
[फा. सं. आर-12011/01/2022-बीमा-I]
जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2023
S.O. 671.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Bishnu Charan Patnaik, Former
Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India as Whole-time Member (Life) in the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority of India, on a consolidated pay package of four lakh rupees per month (without facility of
house and car), with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post till attaining the age of sixty-two years, or
until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. R-12011/01/2022-Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 672 .— बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अिथन और अंतरण) अजिजन म, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-
िारा (3) के खंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ूजन न बैंक
आफ इंजड ा के का थृालक जनिेिक, श्री रिनीि कनाथटक (िन्म जतज िः 14.7.1970) को का थभार ग्रिण करने की
तारीख से तीन वर्थ की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, बैंक आफ इंजड ा के प्रबंि जनिेिक
एवं मु् का थकारी अजिकारी के ृि ृर जन ुि करती िै।
[ईफा. सं. 4/2/2022-बीओ-I]
जवि िंकर जतवारी, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 29 th April, 2023
S.O. 672.— In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9
of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby
appoints Shri Rajneesh Karnatak (DoB: 14.7.1970), Executive Director, Union Bank of India as Managing
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1299
Director and Chief Executive Officer, Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from the date of
assumption of office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 4/2/2022-BO.I]
VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 673.— बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अिथन और अंतरण) अजिजन म, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-
िारा (3) के खंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री संिीव
चड्ढा के स्ट् ान ृर बैंक आफ बड़़ौिा के का थृालक जनिेिक, श्री िेबित्त चंि (िन्म जतज िः 31.1.1971) को दिनांक
1.7.2023 को ा उसके ृश्चात का थभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्थ की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों
तक, िो भी ृिले िो, बैंक आफ बड़़ौिा के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु् का थकारी अजिकारी के ृि ृर जन ुि करती िै।
[ईफा. सं. 4/2/2022-बीओ-I]
जवि िंकर जतवारी, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2023
S.O. 673.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9
of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby
appoints Shri Debadatta Chand (DoB: 31.1.1971), Executive Director, Bank of Baroda as Managing Director
and Chief Executive Officer, Bank of Baroda for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption
of office on or after 1.7.2023, or until further orders, whichever is earlier, vice Shri Sanjiv Chadha.
[eF. No. 4/2/2022-BO.I]
VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2023
का. आ. 674.— बीमांकक अजिजन म, 2006 (2006 का 35) की िारा 12 की उृ-िारा (2) के खंड (ख)
(i) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, जवत्त मंत्राल का प्रजतनजतजित्व करने के जलए
श्री स़ौरभ जमश्रा के स्ट् ान ृर श्री मुकेि कुमार बंसल, सं ुि सजचव, जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और
अगले आिेिों तक भारती बीमांकक संस्ट् ान ृररर्ि के सिस्ट् के प ृ में नाजमत करती िै।
[फा. सं. ए-11011/04/2022-बीमा-I]
जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2023
S.O. 674.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b)(i) of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the
Actuaries Act, 2006 (35 of 2006), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal, Joint
Secretary, Department of Financial Services as a member of the Council of the Institute of Actuaries of India to
represent the Ministry of Finance, with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Saurabh Mishra.
[F. No. A-11011/04/2022-Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
1300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
कार्मथक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल
(कार्मथक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2022
का. आ. 675.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिारा् र राय सरकार, गषि
जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई-1622/सी.आर.734/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 16.09.2022 के माध् म से िारी
सम्मजत से श्री कोरे, अिीक्षक, केन् री िीएसटी, ि ससंगृुर के जवप द्ध श्री अजमत वी जेले, माजलक, मेससथ स्ट् वराि
फ़र्टथलाइजसथ, ि ससंगृुर द्वारा भ्र् टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16
द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िंडनी अृराि(िों) से संबंजित दिनांक 16.09.2022 को ििथ कराई गई
जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 16.09.2022 को सीबीआई मामला आरसी ृुणे/2022/ए/0005 ििथ दक ा
ग ा िै, से उत् ृन् न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी
िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा एवं/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्
अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का
जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 16.09.2022 से, का ोत् तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट् त मिारा् र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/127/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel And Training)
New Delhi, the 28th November, 2022
S.O. 675.—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-1622/C.R.734/POL-2 dated 16.09.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 16.09.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 16.09.2022 lodged by Shri Amit V Zele, Proprietor of M/s. Swaraj
Fertilizers at Jaysingpur against Shri Kore, Superintendent, Central GST, Jaysingpur punishable under section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI
Case RC PUNE/2022/A/0005 has been registered on 16.09.2022 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. 228/127/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2022
का. आ. 676.—केन् र सरकार,एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राय सरकार,
गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 327/ ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 19.04.2022, के माध् म से
िारी सम्मजत से श्री िु् ंत िािव, जनवासी फ्लैट सं. 509, तरंगन अृाटथमैंट, एमआईडीसी, बारामती, ृुणे द्वारा
दिनांक 19.04.2022 को भ्र् टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा
ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित श्री कुलिीृक िमाथ, अिीक्षक, केन् री िीएसटी, रेंि-I, बारामती, ृुणे-।।
आ ुक् ताल के जवप द्ध, ििथ कराई गई जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 19.04.2022 को सीबीआई मामला
आरसी ृुणे/1222022ए0001 ििथ दक ा ग ा िै, से उत् ृन् न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेर्ण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े
ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1301
से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और
क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत् तर प्रभाव अ ाथत दिनांक 19.04.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/122/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 28th November, 2022
S.O. 676.—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 1622/C.R. 327/POL-2 dated 19.04.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 19.04.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 19.04.2022 lodged by Shri Dushant Jadhav, R/o Flat No.509,
Tarangan Apartment, MIDC, Baramati, Pune against Shri Kuldeepak Sharma, Superintendent, Central GST,
Range-1, Baramati, Pune-II Commissionerate under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of
1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC PUNE/1222022A0001 has been
registered on 19.04.2022 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. 228/122/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2022
का. आ. 677.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म,1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राय सरकार, गषि
जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 660/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 05.08.2022के माध् म से िारी
सम्मजत से, श्री गोसवंि कुमार, सुरक्षा अजिकारी, मेससथ ूटीजलटी ृॉवरटेक जल., सोलाृुर के जवप द्ध श्री कय् ूम
उस्ट्मानसाब बलोलखान, माजलक, मेससथ मिाराष्ट्र कॉन्रैक्टर & सप्ला र, बेगमृे , सोलाृुर िो ररला ंस
इन्रास्ट्रक्चर जलजमटेड और एनटीृीसी जलजमटेड, भारत सरकार का एक उृक्रम, का सं ुि उृक्रम कंृनी िै, द्वारा
दिनांक 05.08.2022 को भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49)(2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा
ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित ििथ कराई गई जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 05.08.2022 को एक
सीबीआई मामला आरसी1222022ए0004 ििथ दक ा ग ा िै, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेर्ण त ा ऐसे
अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए
गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों
की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 05.08.2022 से)समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में
करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/125/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2022
S.O. 677.— 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 1622/C.R. 660/POL-2 dated 05.08.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 05.08.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 05.08.2022 lodged by Shri Qayyum Usmansab Balol khan, Prop.
of M/s Maharashtra Contractor & Supplier, Begampeth, Solapur against Shri Govind Kumar, Safety Officer,
M/s. Utility Powertech Ltd., Solapur, which is a joint venture company of Reliance Infrastructure Limited and
1302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
NTPC Limited, a Government of India Enterprises under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC1222022A0004 has been
registered on 05.08.2022 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. 228/125/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2022
का. आ. 678.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राय सरकार,
गषि जवभाग, मुंबईके आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सीआर 730/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 15.09.2022, के माध् म से
िारी सम्मजत से, (1) श्री संतोर् ससंि, जनवासी, आवास सं. एमक् ू-160, राम नगर, घुगस, तिसील एवं जिला-
चंरृुर, (2) श्री मनोि िमाथ एवं (3) श्री जवरु िेिामे, िोनों िी नागृुर के जनवासी के जवप द्ध श्री जवि सुिाम जोिे,
जनवासी, आवास सं. एमक् ू 441, राम नगर, घुगुस, तिसील एवं जिला-चंरृुर द्वारा दिनांक 08.09.2022 को
भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) (वर्थ 2018 की िारा 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा
7ए एवं भारती िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी के तित ििथ कराई गई जिका त, जिसके
आिार ृर दिनांक 16.09.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी0282022ए0008 ििथ दक ा ग ा िै, से
उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेर्ण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा
और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का
अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार
(का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 16.09.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/126/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2022
S.O. 678.— 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 1622/C.R. 730/Pol-2 dated 15.09.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 16.09.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 08.09.2022 lodged by Shri Vijay Sudam Zode, R/o Qr. No. MQ
441, Ram Nagar, Ghugus, Tehsil & District – Chandrapur, based on which a CBI Case RC0282022A0008 has
been registered on 16.09.2022 under section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as
amended by Act 16 of 2018) and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) against (1)
Shri Santosh Singh, R/o Qr. No. MQ-160, Ram Nagar, Ghugus, Tehsil & District – Chandrapur, (2) Shri Manoj
Sharma and (3) Shri ViruShedame, both residents of Nagpur, 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. 228/126/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2022
का. आ. 679.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राय सरकार,
गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 375/ ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 28.04.2022, के माध् म से
िारी सम्मजत से श्री गनी अिमि अनवर गवंडी, जनवासी गली नं. 12, ि ससंिृुर, जिला कोल् िाृुर द्वारा श्री मिेि
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1303
नेसरीकर, अिीक्षक और श्री जमश्रा, जनरीक्षक, िोनों केन् री िीएसटी, रेंि-II, ि ससंिृुर,जिला कोल् िाृुर के
जवप द्ध, भारती िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी त ा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988
का 49)(2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित दिनांक 28.04.2022 को ििथ कराई गई
जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 28.04.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला आरसी ृुणे/2022/ए/0002 ििथ
दक ा ग ा िै, से उत् ृन् न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेर्ण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास,
िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का
अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत् तर
प्रभाव से दिनांक 28.04.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/124/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2022
S.O. 679.—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 1622/C.R. 375/POL-2 dated 28.04.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 28.04.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 28.04.2022 lodged by Shri Gani Ahmed Anwar Gavandi, R/o Gali
No.12, Jaisingpur, Distt. Kolhapur against Shri Mahesh Nesarikar, Superintendent and Shri Mishra, Inspector,
both of Central GST, Range-II, Jaisingpur, District Kolhapur under section 120B 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),
based on which a CBI Case RC PUNE/2022/A/0002 has been registered on 28.04.2022 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. 228/124/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर, 2022
का. आ. 680.—केन्र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र सरकार, गषि
जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं.- सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर.-230/ृीओएल–2, दिनांक 23.03.2022 के माध् म से िारी
सम्मजत से, दिनांक 22.03.2022 को श्री सुनील गोलार, जबक्री अजिकारी, इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड,
गोंदि ा के जवप द्ध श्री अजवनाि ए. सखरवाडे, मीरा ृेरोल और डीिल ृंृ के माजलक, खािीृार, तालुका-गोरेगांव,
जिला-गोंदि ाद्वारा ििथ कराई गई जिका त जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 24.03.2022 को भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण
अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित सीबीआई
मामला आरसी 0282022ए0005 ििथ दक ा ग ा िै, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबंद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास,
िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िी तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का
अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर
प्रभाव से दिनांक 24.03.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/128/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
1304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2022
S.O. 680.— 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 1622/C.R. 230/POL-2 dated 23.03.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 24.03.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 22.03.2022 lodged by Shri Avinash A. Sakharwade, Proprietor of
Meera Petrol & Diesel Pump, Khadipar, Taluka-Goregaon, District – Gondia against Shri Sunil Golar, Sales
Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Gondia punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC0282022A0005 has
been registered on 24.03.2022 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. 228/128/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर, 2022
का. आ. 681.—केन्र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र सरकार, गषि
जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं.- सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर.-124/ृीओएल–2, दिनांक 02.03.2022 के माध् म से िारी
सम्मजत से, श्री ि ंत लक्ष्मीकांत च़ौृाने ृेिे से ेकेिार त ा मैससथ ि इलेजक्रकल्स एंड इलेक्रॉजनक्स के माजलक,
वतमाल, द्वारा दिनांक 22.02.2022 कोिेमंत रािंडेकर, चाटथडथ एकाउंटेंट, मैससथ वी आर इनामिार एंड कंृनी,
अिनी च़ौक, नागृुर (प्राइवेट व्यजि जबच़ौजल ा) के जवप द्ध श्री मुकुल ृारटल, सं ुि आ ुि, सीिीएसटी, नागृुर-
2 की ओर से सेवाकर िाज त्व मामले के जनृटान िेतु मांगी गई ररश्वत से संबंजित ििथ कराई गई जिका त से उत्ृन्न
अृराि(िों) िो भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 की िारा 7(ए) (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16
द्वारा ा संिोजित) के तित िंडनी िै त ा जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 03.03.2022 को सीबीआई मामला
आरसी0282022ए0004 ििथ दक ा ग ा िै, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबंद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा
और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िी तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण
करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव
अ ाथत दिनांक 03.03.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में करती िै ।
[फा. सं. 228/129/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2022
S.O. 681.—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 1622/C.R. 124/Pol-2 dated 02.03.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 03.03.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 22.02.2022 lodged by Shri Jayant Laxmikant Choupane, Proprietor
of M/s Jai Electricals and Electronics, Yavatmal, a contractor by profession against Shri Hemant Rajandekar,
Chartered Accountant, M/s V R Inamdar & Co., Ajni Chowk, Nagpur (Private Person Middleman) for having
demanded bribe for Shri Mukul Patil, Joint Commissioner, CGST, Nagpur-2 to get the service tax liability case
disposed off by Shri Mukul Patil, punishable under section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of
1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC0282022A0004 has been registered on
03.03.2022 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. 228/129/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1305
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2022
का. आ. 682.—केंर सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए ृंिाब राय सरकार, गषि 4
िाखा, गषि एवं न् ा जवभाग, के ज्ञाृन सं् ा- 07/57/2021-1एच4(3एच4)/4963, दिनांक 20.09.2021 एवं
ज्ञाृन सं् ा- 07/57/2021-1एच4(3एच4)/4728, दिनांक 10.08.2022 के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री आनंि
स्ट्वप ृ म़ौ थ, मु् प्रबंिक, ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक, िाखा का ाथल , अमषतसर कैंट, अमषतसर द्वारा (1) मैससथ जवप मल
मुल्ख राि िैन राईस जमल्स प्रा. जल., जिरेकोट रोड जस्ट् त ृंिीकषत का ाथल , िंजड ाला गुप अमषतसर, (2) श्री
जनजतन िैन, एवं (3) श्री सुिीर िैन, िोनो िी श्री गुलिन िैन के ृुत्र, (4) श्री गुलिन िैन, ृुत्र श्री चरण िास, (5)
श्रीमती नीतू िैन, ृत्नी, श्री जनजतन िैन, (6) श्रीमती सोदफ़ ा िैन, ृत्नी, श्री सुिीर िैन, (7) श्री िमिेर ससंि, ृुत्र,
िरभिन ससंि, सभी िंजड ाला गुप अमषतसर के जनवासी एवं (8) अज्ञात लोक सेवकों के जवप द्ध आृराजिक र्ड्यंत्र,
िोखािड़ी, एवं आृराजिक िुराचार करने और उसके िररए ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक को लगभग 128.74 करोड़ प ृ े की
सिोर् िाजन ृहुुँचाने के संबंि में दिनांक 07.08.2020 को ििथ कराई गई जिका त से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का
अन्वेर्ण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा र्ड न्त्र एवं/अ वा
उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर्
ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त ृंिाब राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/132/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th Decembe, 2022
S.O. 682.—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.07/57/2021-1H4(3H4)/4963 dated 20.09.2021 and Memo
No. 07/57/2021-1H4(3H4)/4728 dated 10.08.2022, 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 dated 07.08.2020 lodged
by Shri Anand Swaroop Maurya, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Amritsar Cantt,
Amritsar against (1) M/s Viroo Mal Mulkh Raj Jain Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Dhirekot Road,
Jandiala Guru Amritsar, (2) Shri Nitin Jain and (3) Shri Sudhir Jain, both S/o Shri Gulshan Jain, (4)
Shri Gulshan Jain, S/o Shri Charan Dass, (5) Smt. Neetu Jain, W/o Shri Nitin Jain, (6) Smt. Sofia Jain,
W/o Shri Sudhir Jain, (7) Shri Shamsher Singh, S/o Shri Harbhajan Singh, all resident of Jandiala Guru
Amritsar and (8) unknown public servants, pertaining to criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal misconduct and
thereby causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 128.74 crores to the Punjab National Bank 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. 228/132/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2023
का. आ. 683.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राय सरकार,
गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 381/ ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 04.05.2022, के माध् म से
िारी सम्मजत से श्री प्रताृससंि िगिाले, मिाप्रबंिक, मेससथ गार्डथ न िोम् स प्रा.जल., ृुणे द्वारा श्री सुब्रता मैटी,
अंतररम समािान ृेिेवर, एनसीएलटी, मुंबई त ा अन् के जवप द्ध, भारती िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा
120बी त ा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित)
की िारा 7 के तित, दिनांक 03.05.2022 की जिका त जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 04.05.2022 को सीबीआई
1306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
मामला आरसी ृुणे/2022/ए/0003 ििथ दक ा ग ा िै, से उत् ृन् न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेर्ण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से
िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं
तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों
और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत् तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 04.05.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/134/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2023
S.O. 683.—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 1622/C.R. 381/POL-2 dated 04.05.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 04.05.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 03.05.2022 lodged by Shri Pratapsinh Jagdale, General Manager of
M/s. Guardian Homes Pvt. Ltd., Pune against Shri Subrata Maity, Interim Resolution Professional, NCLT,
Mumbai and others under section 120B 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), based on which a CBI Case RC
PUNE/2022/A/0003 has been registered on 04.05.2022 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. 228/134/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2023
का. आ. 684.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राय सरकार
के आिेि सं. सीबीआई-1622/सीआर-740/ृोल-2, दिनांक 19.09.2022, गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के माध् म से िारी
सम्मजत से, मैससथ सिंिवी टेजलकॉम प्रा. जल., वडकी, ृुणे के नोडल अजिकारी श्री जनजतन मानससंि िगताृ द्वारा
श्री नरेि बडाव , आईटीएस, सिा क जडवीजनल इंिीजन र, टेलीकॉम (प्ऱौद्योजगकी), सलािकार का ाथल ,
एमएचएलएसए, ृुणे, टेलीकॉम जवभाग, संचार मंत्राल के जवप द्ध दिनांक 17.09.2022 को ििथ कराई गई
जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 19.09.2022 को सीबीआई प्रकरण आरसी1222022ए0006 ृंिीकषत दक ा
ग ा िै, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों), िो भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16
द्वारा ासंिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िण्डनी िैं, का अन्वेर्ण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे
संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न
दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार
का जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 19.09.2022 से का ोत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/131/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2023
S.O. 684.—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 1622/C.R. 740/POL-2 dated 19.09.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 19.09.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 17.09.2022 lodged by Shri Nitin Mansingh Jagtap, Nodal Officer
of M/s. Hindavi Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Vadaki, Pune against Shri Naresh Badawath, ITS, Assistant Divisional
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1307
Engineer, Telecom (Technology), O/o. Advisor, MHLSA, Pune, Department of Telecom, Ministry of
Communications punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as
amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC1222022A0006 has been registered on 19.09.2022
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. 228/131/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2023
का. आ. 685.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राय सरकार,
गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 746/ ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 22.09.2022, के माध् म से
िारी सम्मजत से कज त त़ौर ृर (1) श्री अिोक कुमार गुप्ता, प्रिान मु् मैकेजनकल इंिीजन र, सेन्रल रेलवे,
छत्रृजत जिवािी मिाराि टर्मथनस, मुंबई, (2) मैससथ आनंि सेल्स कॉरृोरेिन, ृाकथ स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता, (3) श्री
आदित् रटबरेवाल, मैससथ आनंि सेल्स कॉरृोरेिन के ृाटथनर, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों एवं अन् द्वारा काररत
अृराि(िों), िो भारती िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी त ा भ्र् टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988
(1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा 7, 9, 10 और 11 के तित िंडनी िैं,
जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 24.09.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला आरसी 0262022 ए0015 ृंिीकषत दक ा ग ा
िै, का अन्वेर्ण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र
एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए
दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत् तर प्रभाव से दिनांक
24.09.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/130/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th February, 2023
S.O. 685.—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 1622/C.R. 746/POL-2 dated 22.09.2022, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 24.09.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and sections 7, 9, 10 and 11 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been
committed by (1) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer, Central Railway, Chhatrapati
Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai, (2) M/s. Anand Sales Corporation, Park Street, Kolkata, (3) Shri Aditya
Tibrewal, Partner of M/s. Anand Sales Corporation, unknown public servants and others, based on which a CBI
Case RC0262022A0015 has been registered on 24.09.2022 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. 228/130/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2023
का. आ. 686.—केन्र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)
की िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र सरकार, गषि जवभाग,
मुंबई के आिेि सं.- सीबीआई-2021/सीआर 465/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 13.08.2021, के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत
से,दिनांक 12.08.2021 को श्री एमएल गुप्ता, डीइएन, सेंरल रेलवे, भुसावल और श्री संिीव राडे, का ाथल
1308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
जलजृक डेन, सेंरल रेलवे, भुसावल के जवप द्ध श्री िीृक रमेिराव चंभारे ृारटल, जनिेिक मैससथ एमएनवाई
कंससल्टंग प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, मलकाृुरद्वारा ििथ कराई गई जिका त जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 15.08.2021
भारती िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49)
(2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित सीबीआई मामला आरसी 0282021ए0003
ििथ दक ा ग ा िै, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबंद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र
एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िी तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए
दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक
15.08.2021 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/123/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th February, 2023
S.O. 686.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 2021/CR 465/POL-2 dated 13.08.2021, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 15.08.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 12.08.2021 lodged by Shri Deepak Rameshrao Chambhare Patil,
Director M/s MNY Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Malkapur, against Shri M.L. Gupta, DEN, Central Railway, Bhusawal
and Shri Sanjeev Rade, Clerk, O/o DEN, Central Railway, Bhusawal punishable under section 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), based on which a CBI Case RC0282021A0003 has been registered on 15.08.2021
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. 228/123/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2023
का. आ. 687.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिारा् र राय सरकार,
गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई-2021/सी.आर. 650/ृीओएल-2, दिनांक 16.11.2021 के माध् म से
िारी सम्मजत से श्री सुसांत नािक और श्री नवीन, सेना अजिकारीगण, िजक्षणी कमान, (एओसी), ृूणे व अन् के
जवप द्ध श्री वाररकुप्ृाला नागराि, ृुत्र श्री वी. मैसैआि, जनवासी, ग्राम अडलुर, िाजलगोरानम, मंडल, नल्लागोंडा,
जिला तेलंगाना द्वारा भारती िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सृर त भ्र् टाचार जनवारण
अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित दिनांक
15.11.2021 को ििथ कराई गई जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 16.11.2021 को सीबीआई मामला आरसी
ृूणे/ 2021/ए/0004 ििथ दक ा ग ा िै, से उत् ृन् न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से
िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा एवं/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं
तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों
और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 16.11.2021 से, का ोत् तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट् त मिारा् र राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/133/2022-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1309
New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2023
S.O. 687.—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. 650/Pol-2 dated 16.11.2021, Home
Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 16.11.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the
offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 15.11.2021 lodged by Shri Varikuppala Nagaraj, S/o Shri V.
Maisaiah, R/o Village Adlur, Shaligoranam, Mandal, Nallagonda, Distt. Telangana against Shri Susant Nahak
and Shri Naveen, Army Officials at Southern Command, (AOC), Pune and others, punishable under section
120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) r/w section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of
1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC PUNE/2021/A/0004 has been registered
on 16.11.2021 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)
and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/133/2022-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 688.—केन्र सरकार, एति द्वारा दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का
25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मध् प्रिेि राय सरकार
द्वारा गषि जवभाग, मंत्राल भोृाल की अजिसूचना सं. 393/1079077/2023/बी-1/िो दिनांक 13.01.2023 के
माध् म से िारी सिमजत से, वन मण्डल, िार, मध् प्रिेि में ृंिीकषत ृीओआर सं. 454/20 दिनांक 17.09.2019
त ा टाइगर स्ट्राइक फोसथ, सागर, मध् प्रिेि में ृंिीकषत ृीओआर सं. 28060/02 दिनांक 05.05.2017 से
संबजन्ित अृराि(िों) का अन्वेर्ण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा
और/अ वा र्ड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेर्ण
करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेर् ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मध् प्रिेि
राय में करती िै।
[फा. सं. 228/12/2023-एवीडी-II]
संि कुमार च़ौरजस ा, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 26th April, 2023
S.O. 688.—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 Madhya Pradesh, issued vide Notification No. 393/1079077/2023/B-1/Two dated
13.01.2023, Home Department, Mantralaya Bhopal, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Madhya Pradesh for investigation into the
offence(s) relating to POR No. 454/20 dated 17.09.2019 registered at Van Mandal, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh and
POR No. 28060/02 dated 05.05.2017 registered at Tiger Strike Force, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh 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. 228/12/2023-AVD-II]
SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
कषजर् एवं दकसान कल् ाण मंत्राल
(कषजर् अनुसंिान एवं जि क्षा जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2023
का. आ. 689.—केन् री सरकार, कषजर् एवं दकसान कल् ाण मंत्राल , कषजर् अनुसंिान एवं जि क्षा जवभाग,
रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन मावली, 1976 के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के
1310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुसरण में भा.कष.अ.ृ. – भारती बीि जवज्ञान संस्ट् ान, कुिम़ौर, मऊ, उत् तर प्रिेि-275103 को, जिसमें 80
प्रजतित से अजि क कमथचारर ों ने जिन् िी का का थसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िै, एतिद्वारा अजि सूजचत करती िै।
[फा. सं. 13-05/2020-जिन् िी]
बलराि, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2023
S.O. 689.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose
of the Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare, Department of
Agricultural Research & Education hereby notifies the I.C.A.R - Indian Institute of Seed Science, Kushmaur,
Mau, Uttar Pradesh-275103, where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. 13-05/2020-Hindi]
BALRAJ, Under Secy.
आ ुर् मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 690.—केन्री सरकार, रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976
( ा संिोजित 1987) के जन म (10) के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुकरण में, आ ुर् मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन
जनम्नजलजखत का ाथल , जिसके ितप्रजतित अजिकारर ों/कमथचारर ों ने जिन्िी का का थसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िै,
को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै:-
1. केंरी ूनानी जचदकत्सा अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, लखनऊ, उत्तर प्रिेि
[फा. सं. ई. 11011/3/2019 (रा.भा.)]
रोितास भनखड़, जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF AYUSH
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2023
S.O. 690.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official
purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the
following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Ayush, wherein 100% officers/employees
have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
1. Central Institute for Research in Unani Medicine, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
[F. No. E.11011/3/2019 (O.L.)]
ROHTAS BHANKHAR, Director
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 691.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ृजश्चम रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (51/2019)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 41011/03/2019-आई आर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1311
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYEMENT
New Delhi, the 26th April, 2023
S.O. 691.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.51/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Paschim Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/03/2019-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
Dated 20th December, 2022.
Reference: (CGITA) No- 51/2019
The Dy. Chief Material Manager,
Western Railway, D Cabin, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad.
… First Party
V/s
The Dvisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
28-B, Narayan Park,
B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad.
…. Second Party
Advocate for the First Party : Shri M. M. Makhija
Advocate for the Second Party : Shri R. S. Sisodia
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order
No. L-41011/03/2019-IR(B-I) dated 19.02.2019 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified
in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management, the Dy. Chief Material Manager, Western
Railway, D Cabin, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad(Gujarat), not to promote Shri Ramesh
Mansingh(ST) from Painter Gr.III to Gr.II in place of Shri Mahendra K. (SC) is legal, fair
and justified? If not so, then what relief Shri Ramesh Mansingh(ST) is entitled to and what
other directions is necessary in the matter.”
1. Today matter is called out. None responds for the First Party. Shri R. S. Sisodia, the General Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, representing the second party workman filed withdrawal pursis vide
Exhibit-7 and prayed for the withdrawal of the reference. The Second party workman is permitted to withdraw
the reference as prayed for.
2. Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.
3. Let two copies of Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer
1312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 692.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ृजश्चम रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (06/2019)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2023-आई आर (बी-I)-48]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2023
S.O. 692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.06/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2023 -IR(B-I) -48]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
Dated 9th January, 2023.
Industrial Dispute (CGITA) No. - 06/2019
Nootanben and Lalitaben,
C/o. 28-B, Narayan Park,
Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad-382470.
….Applicant
V/s
1. The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
Diesel Shed, Western Railway,
Sabarmati, D-Cabin,
Ahmedabad-380019.
2. M/s. Oriental Agencies,
Rep. By Shri Ghanshyam Lekhraj Tikyani,
Proprietor, FF/1,
Shantam Green Commercial Complex,
Opp. Axis Bank, Nr. Raneshwar Temple,
Vasna Road, Vadodara-390007.
….Opponent
For the Applicant
: Shri R. S. Sisodia
For the Opponent
: None
AWARD
The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ahmedabad had issued the certificate vide
No. ALC/ADI/8(24)2018 dated 20.12.2018 to the applicant for filing claim in this Tribunal.
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1313
1. The applicant filed his statement of claim Ex.1 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Act, 2010 on 01.04.2019 consequent upon the demand of alleged termination from service w.e.f.
08.02.2018.
2. Notices Exh. 3 & Exh. 10 were issued by the Tribunal to opponents to file reply to dispute but no reply
has been filed.
3. Shri R. S. Sisodia, the President, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, representing the second party
workman filed withdrawal pursis vide Exh.14 and prayed for the withdrawal of the Dispute. Exh.14 is allowed
and second party workmen is permitted to withdraw the dispute as prayed for.
4. The reference is disposed of as withdrawn by the second party. There is no dispute pending between
the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH – I, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 693.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ग्रामीण बैंक ऑफ़ आ थव्रत ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर ds iapkV (60/2019)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2023 -आई आर (बी-I)-50]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2023
S.O. 693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 60/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of
Aryvart and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2023-IR(B-I)-50]
SALONI, Dy. Director
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. 60 of 2019
BETWEEN
Shri Prakash Chandra S/o Dina Nath
Through Shri Avinash Yadav
the General Secretary U.P Gramin Bank Kamgar Union,
Bajaramau, Chaubeypur, Kanpur (U.P)-209203
AND
The General Manager,
Gramin Bank of Aryavart
Head Office A-2/46, Vijay Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010
1314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the case raised under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on
30.01.2019
On 30th January 2019 the statement of claim was filed by the claimant union before this Tribunal. On
behalf of O.P. management Authorized Representative appeared and filed the letter of authority and the written
statement on 02.12.2020. Thereafter case was fixed for filing of rejoinder by the claimant union. But even after
getting several opportunities claimant Union failed to file rejoinder before this Tribunal.
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the rejoinder by the
claimant union, none appeared on behalf of the claimant union before this Tribunal. Despite several
opportunities to the claimant union for submitting rejoinder the same has not been filed. Pleadings cannot be
read as substantive evidence. There is no evidence on behalf of the claimant Union that the workman was
appointed on any post of the Bank after undergoing regular selection process. Under normal circumstances a
casual worker engaged on daily wages is not legally entitled for absorption on regular post. Finally the case was
reserved for final award for non prosecution by the claimant union.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant union 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: 23.03.2023 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 694.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ग्रामीण बैंक ऑफ़ आ थव्रत ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर ds iapkV (39/2019)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y. 12025/01/2023-आई आर (बी-I)-52]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2023
S.O. 694.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 39/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of
Aryvart and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2023–IR (B-1)-52]
SALONI, Dy. Director
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. 39 of 2019
BETWEEN
Shri Ramesh Chandra S/o Hemant Kumar
Through Shri Avinash Yadav
the General Secretary U.P Gramin Bank Kamgar Union,
Bajaramau, Chaubeypur, Kanpur (U.P)-209203
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1315
AND
The General Manager,
Gramin Bank of Aryavart
Head Office A-2/46, Vijay Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the case raised under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on
30.01.2019
On 30th January 2019 the statement of claim was filed by the claimant union before this Tribunal. On
behalf of O.P. management Authorized Representative appeared and filed the letter of authority and the written
statement on 08.12.2020. Thereafter case was fixed for filing of rejoinder by the claimant union. But even after
getting several opportunities claimant Union failed to file rejoinder before this Tribunal.
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the rejoinder by the
claimant union, none appeared on behalf of the claimant union before this Tribunal. Despite several
opportunities to the claimant union for submitting rejoinder the same has not been filed. Pleadings cannot be
read as substantive evidence. There is no evidence on behalf of the claimant Union that the workman was
appointed on any post of the Bank after undergoing regular selection process. Under normal circumstances a
casual worker engaged on daily wages is not legally entitled for absorption on regular post. Finally the case was
reserved for final award for non prosecution by the claimant union.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant union 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: 23.03. SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 695.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ग्रामीण बैंक ऑफ़ आ थव्रत ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर ds iapkV
(110/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2023 -आई आर (बी-I) -51]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2023
S.O. 695.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 110/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of
Aryvart and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2023– IR (B-1)-51]
SALONI, Dy. Director
1316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. 110 of 2019
BETWEEN
Shri Krishna Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Ravi Dubey
Through Shri Avinash Yadav
the General Secretary U.P Gramin Bank Kamgar Union,
Bajaramau, Chaubeypur, Kanpur (U.P)-209203
AND
The General Manager,
Gramin Bank of Aryavart
Head Office A-2/46, Vijay Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the case raised under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on
15.02.2019
On 15th February 2019 the statement of claim was filed by the claimant union before this Tribunal. On
behalf of O.P. management Authorized Representative appeared and filed the letter of authority and the written
statement on 04.02.2021. Thereafter case was fixed for filing of rejoinder by the claimant union. But even after
getting several opportunities claimant Union failed to file rejoinder before this Tribunal.
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the rejoinder by the
claimant union, none appeared on behalf of the claimant union before this Tribunal. Despite several
opportunities to the claimant union for submitting rejoinder the same has not been filed. Pleadings cannot be
read as substantive evidence. There is no evidence on behalf of the claimant Union that the workman was
appointed on any post of the Bank after undergoing regular selection process. Under normal circumstances a
casual worker engaged on daily wages is not legally entitled for absorption on regular post. Later a memo was
filed by the union for withdrawing the case and thereafter the case was reserved for final award.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant union 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: 28.03.2023
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 696.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ग्रामीण बैंक ऑफ़ आ थव्रत ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर ds iapkV (38/2019)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2023 -आई आर (बी-I) -49]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2023
S.O. 696.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 38/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1317
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of
Aryvart and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2023-IR(B-I)-49]
SALONI, Dy. Director
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. 38 of 2019
BETWEEN
Shri Dena Nath S/O Bhima Shankar
Through Shri Avinash Yadav
the General Secretary U.P Gramin Bank Kamgar Union,
Baj8aramau, Chaubeypur, Kanpur (U.P.)-209203
AND
The General Manager,
Gramin Bank of Aryavart
Head Office A-2/46, Vijay Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the case raised under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on
30.01.2019
On 30th January 2019 the statement of claim was filed by the claimant union before this Tribunal. On
behalf of O.P. management Authorized Representative appeared and filed the letter of authority and the written
statement on 08.12.2020. Thereafter case was fixed for filing of rejoinder by the claimant union. But even after
getting several opportunities claimant Union failed to file rejoinder before this Tribunal.
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the rejoinder by the
claimant union, none appeared on behalf of the claimant union before this Tribunal. Despite several
opportunities to the claimant union for submitting rejoinder the same has not been filed. Pleadings cannot be
read as substantive evidence. There is no evidence on behalf of the claimant Union that the workman was
appointed on any post of the Bank after undergoing regular selection process. Under normal circumstances a
casual worker engaged on daily wages is not legally entitled for absorption on regular post. Finally the case was
reserved for final award for non prosecution by the claimant union.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant union 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: 13.04.2023 SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer CGIT, Kanpur
नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 697.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सह–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 40/2005) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2023 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल- 22012/195/2004- आई आर (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
1318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2023
S.O. 697.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/04/2023.
[No. L-22012/195/2004 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
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. 40 OF 2005
Parties : Smt. Sia Nunia
Vs.
Management of Mithani Colliery of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Employee:
Mr. R. K. Tripathi, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
31.03.2023
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-22012/195/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 13.05.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Mithani Colliery, BMP Group of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their employee for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Mithani Colliery of M/s. ECL in terminating the
services of Smt. Sia Nunia under FVR Scheme prior to confirmation of employment to her
dependent is legal and justified? If not, what relief Smt. Sia Nunia is entitled? ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/195/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 13.05.2005 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 40 of 2005 was registered
on 31.05.2005 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of
witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
2. The case is fixed up today for substitution of the legal heirs of Smt. Sia Nunia, ex-employee of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the Management is present along
with Mr. Rahul Panwar, Assistant Manager (Personnel), B.M.P. Group of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
3. Mr. R. K. Tripathi, Union representative has filed an affidavit before the Tribunal stating that the ex-
employee has expired and his family member are not interested to continue with the case as such the matter may
be closed.
4. It is submitted by the union representative that the female employee was terminated without any
opportunity been given to her son for employment according to the Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme in
National Coal Wage Agreement.
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1319
5. Having considered the fact that Smt. Sia Nunia has expired and no other dependent family member has
turned up to proceed with the case further, the Industrial Dispute herein cannot be considered on its merit.
Accordingly, the Industrial Dispute is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. 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 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 698.—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 03/2015) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल- 22012/28/2015 -आई आर (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2023
S.O. 698.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/04/2023
[No. L- 22012/28/2015 -IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
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. 03 OF 2015
PARTIES: Smt. Mayana Mejhian
Vs.
Management of Barmondia Colliery of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Employee: Mr. R. K. Tripathi, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management : Mrs. Swapna Basu, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
06.04.2023
1320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-22012/28/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 18.06.2015 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Barmondia Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
employee for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the claim of Smt. Mayana Mejhian, divorced daughter of Late Fulmoni Mejhian,
Ex-Employee of Barmondia Colliery under Salanpur Area of M/s. ECL to get employment in
die-in-harness quota is legal and or justified? If so, what details. ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/28/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 18.06.2015 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 03 of 2015 was registered
on 01.07.2015 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 29.03.2023 for cross-examination of Smt. Mayana Mejhian. On repeated
calls on 29.03.2023 at 01.00 PM none appeared for Smt. Mayana Mejhian. Smt. Swapna Basu, learned advocate
appeared for the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Mr. R. K. Tripathi, union representative was
not found available.
3.
In compliance with order dated 28.10.2022 a fresh Notice was issued to Mayana Mejhian under
registered post. Since none appeared on behalf of the employee and Smt. Basu, learned advocate for the
management of M/s. ECL filed a copy of Death Registration Certificate of Smt. Mayana Mejhian, it appears
that the concerned person expired in the month of October, 2020. Let the same be kept with record. Under such
circumstance the Industrial Dispute raised by Smt. Mayana Mejhian for employment in place of her deceased
mother, Late Fulmoni Mejhian is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. 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 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 699.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर ds iapkV
(12/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12011/48/2018-आई आर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th April, 2023
S.O. 699.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.12/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L- 12011/48/2018-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1321
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. 12 of 2019
Ref. No. L-12011/48/2018-IR (B-I) Dated: 04.01.2019
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
Uttar Pradesh Bank Worker Organization,
2, Naveen Market,
Kanpur (U.P.) - 208001
AND
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India, (Region-III), Zonal Office,
Sanjay Place,
Agra (U.P.) - 282002
ORDER
This order is delivered with reference to the Industrial Dispute referred to this Tribunal in notification
no. L-12011/48/2018 – IR (B-I) dated 04/01/2019 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Labour &
Employment as stated in the Schedule.
SCHEDULE
“Whether action of the management of State Bank of India not to provide minimum wages
and other facilities to the canteen workers is correct? If not what other relief they are
entitled to?”
After receiving the reference the claimant Union was called upon to submit its statement of claim. The
statement of claim has been filed by the claimant Union with averments which may be summarized as follows:
It is averred by the claimant union that is registered Trade Union. The claimant workman was doing
job in the canteen of the State Bank of India. He over-worked from 7 AM up to 7 PM. The O.P. management
was paying wages Rs. 1250/- per month which was below the minimum wages. The claimant has prayed for a
direction of the Tribunal to the O.P. management for minimum wages as applicable for employee. O.P. side has
raised the initial objection on the point of entertainability of the Industrial Dispute on lack of jurisdiction. After
hearing the parties it is seen that this dispute as referred to this Tribunal is not maintainable.
The dispute with regard to claim for minimum wages is not entertainable before this Industrial
Tribunal. In other words, the Industrial Tribunal is not vested with authority to adjudicate the disputes with
regard to claims for minimum wages.
Hence this Industrial Dispute is treated as unentertainable with observation that the claimant union is at
liberty to raise the Industrial dispute in the matter minimum wages and the other facilities in favour of the
canteen workers before the appropriate forum as recognized in law. The reference is answered accordingly.
In view of the nature of the proceeding parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Dated: 10.02.2023
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
1322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 700.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्री सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, मेससथ श्री रंगजवलास जिसनंग, जस्ट्ृसनंग एंड वीसवंग जमल्स, ृीलामेडु, को ंबटूर, के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ि गोृाल, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक
न् ा ाजिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल - चेन्नई के ृंचाट (संिभथ सं. 44/2017) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै,
को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.04.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 42012/22/2017 -आई आर (डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2023
S.O. 700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
The General Manager, M/s Sri Rangavilas Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Peelamedu, Coimbatore, and
Shri N. Jayagopal, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-42012/22/2017 -IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID No. 44/2017
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 18.04.2023
Sri N. Jayagopal
S/o Narayana Samy
H2, TNHB Colony
Nethajipuram
Neelikonampalayam Post
Coimbatore-641033
….1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
M/s Sri Rangavilas Ginning, Spinning and
Weaving Mills
333, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu
Coimbatore-641004 2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Advocates, M/s V. Ajoy Khose
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
Advocates, M/s T.S Gopalan & Co.
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/22/2017-
IR(DU) dtd. 09.05.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1323
“Whether the action of the management of Sri Rangavilas Ginning, Spinning & Weaving Mills,
Coimbatore in dismissing Sri N. Jayagopal, T.No. 05-9022, an Ex-Fitter/Helper from service
w.e.f. 23.08.2011 is legal and justified, if not, to what extent the workman is entitled to relief?”
2. On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the same is registered as
ID No. 44/2017. Due notices were issued to both sides for their appearance on 06.06.2017. The Petitioner did
not appear. The case was accordingly adjourned to 23.06.2017 for appearance of the Petitioner and Claim
Statement. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor the Claim Statement was filed in any manner till
18.01.2019 intervening 12 adjournments for the same purpose. On 18.01.2019 since no Claim Statement nor the
Petitioner appeared, the case was adjourned to 12.02.2019. On that day, both the parties were present but the
Petitioner sought for time resulting adjournments to 18.03.2019 and 01.04.2019. The Petitioner filed Claim
Statement on 01.04.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent was directed to file Counter Statement. On 11.06.2019,
the Respondent filed Counter Statement. Thereafter, the Petitioner was directed to file Affidavit-Evidence. The
case was adjourned to several dates till 06.03.2020 intervening 6 dates. The Petitioner preferred not to file the
Affidavit-Evidence. The case was further adjourned to 6 more dates till 30.09.2021. However, considering the
situation prevailed for the same period owing to Pandemic COVID-19, the Tribunal suo-moto adjourned the
case for the same purpose to 03.11.2021 and 15.12.2021 for the same purpose. Since the Petitioner did to the
file Affidavit-Evidence, the case was further adjourned to 19.01.2022 when the Counsel for the Petitioner filed
Time Petition. On the basis of the Petition, the case was again adjourned to 02.03.2022. The Petitioner did not
turn up resulting further 7 adjournments till 13.02.2023. On that day, the Counsel for both parties were present.
No Affidavit-Evidence was filed but the Petitioner sought for time. At the outset, the Counsel for the
Respondent who almost appeared on each date of posting vehemently raised objection to re-schedule the case to
any other date but to dispose the case in accordance to law. It is pertinent to mention that the Order Sheets
reveal that the Petitioner was directed on several occasions preceding to the Order Sheet dtd. 13.02.2023 to file
Affidavit-Evidence as last chance, the Petitioner did not turn up. The Petition for time was rejected in view of
the above discussed facts. The case was ultimately reserved for final order. It would not be out of place to
mention that till the date the Petitioner failed to file the Affidavit-Evidence.
3.
It appears the Petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case and deliberately withheld to adduce
evidence in support of his case despite of sufficient opportunities were made available to him. The case is
simply dragged to an extent approaching 6 years. In such circumstance, the Tribunal is not in a position to
adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government vide dtd. 09.05.2017. In the circumstance, it is
held proper to dispose of the case without wasting the valuable time of the Tribunal.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government.
In the result the ID case stands dismissed.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 701.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्री सरकार का थकारी जनिेिक, राष्ट्री कृड़ा जनगम जलजमटेड,को म्बटूर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
मिासजचव, को ंबटूर जिला जमल मििूर संघ (सीटू),अनूृरृला म, कटूर, को ंबटूर ; मिासजचव, कोवई मंडला
ृंचलाई ोजिललार संगम (एनडीएलएफ), जवलनकुररची, को ंबटूर; मिासजचव ,िेजस ा ृंचलाई तोजिलालार
संगम (इंटक), रामना ृुरम, को म्बटूर; मिासजचव,को म्बटूर जिला अन्ना ृंचलाई ोजिलालार संगम (एृीटी),
को म्बटूर; मिासजचव, कोवई जिला ृंचलाई ोजिलालार संगम (एचएमएस), ससंगनल्लूर , को म्बटूर; मिासजचव,
कोवई जिला जमल ोिीलालार संगम (एटक), कटूर,को म्बटूर; मिासजचव, को म्बटूर और ृेरर ार जिला रजवड़
ृंचलाई तोजिलालार मुनेत्र संगम (एमएलएफ), को म्बटूर; मिासजचव, डॉ. अम्बेडकर िेजस ा ृंचलाई ोजिलालार
संगम, अजिल भीम कॉटेि, वडवल्ली को म्बटूर, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण
सि श्रम न् ा ाल - चेन्नई के ृंचाट (संिभथ सं् ा 32/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, को
प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.04.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 42011/20/2020-आई आर (डी ू)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
1324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2023
S.O. 701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court– Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
The Executive Director, National Textiles Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore, and The General Secretary,
Coimbatore District Mill Labours Union (CITU), Anupparpalayam, Kattoor, Coimbatore; The General
Secretary, Kovai Mandala Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam (NDLF),Vilankurichi, Coimbatore;The General
Secretary, Desiya Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam (INTUC),Ramanathapuram Coimbatore; The General
Secretary, Coimbatore District Anna Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam (APT), Coimbatore ; The General
Secretary, Kovai Zilla Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam (HMS),Singanallur Coimbatore ;The General Secretary,
Kovai Zilla Mill Thozhilalar Sangam (AITUC), Kattoor Coimbatore; The General Secretary,Coimbatore and
Periyar District Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam (MLF),Coimbatore ;The General Secretary,
Dr. Ambedkar Desiya Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam,Ahil Bheem Cottage, Vadavalli ,Coimbatore, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.04.2022.
[No. L-42011/20/2020 -IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID No. 32/2020
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 18.04.2023
BETWEEN
1. The General Secretary
Coimbatore District Mill Labours Union (CITU)
Anupparpalayam, Kattoor
Coimbatore-641009
2. The General Secretary
Kovai Mandala Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam
(NDLF)
No. 32, Perumal Kovil Veedhi
Vilankurichi
Coimbatore-641035
3. The General Secretary
Desiya Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam (INTUC)
1848, Trichy Road
Ramanathapuram
Coimbatore -641045
4. The General Secretary
Coimbatore District Anna Panchalai Thozhilalar
Sangam (APT)
No. 108, Grey Town
Coimbatore-641018
5. The General Secretary
Kovai Zilla Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam (HMS)
2212, Trichy Road, Singanallur
Coimbatore-641005
6. The General Secretary
Kovai Zilla Mill Thozhilalar Sangam (AITUC)
99, Rangan Street, Kattoor
Coimbatore-641009
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1325
7. The General Secretary
Coimbatore and Periyar District Dravida
Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam (MLF)
69, Tatabad Street No. 3,
Coimbatore-641012
8. The General Secretary
Dr. Ambedkar Desiya Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam
Ahil Bheem Cottage, No. 5, Vallalar Nagar
Vadavalli
Coimbatore-641041
….First Party Petitioner Unions
Vs.
The Executive Director
National Textiles Corporation Ltd.
NTC House, P.B. No. 2409
36-B, Somasundaram Mills Road
Coimbatore-641009
….2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioners
:
Advocates, M/s V. Manogar, R.
Vignesh
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
Advocates, M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.42011/20/2020-
IR(DU) dtd. 24.08.2020 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of the Unions to the management of National Textile Corporation Limited,
Coimbatore for seeking increase of wages on par with apprentice as declared by the State
Government of Tamil Nadu is proper, legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned
workers are entitled and what other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the Appropriate Government, the dispute is registered as
ID No. 32/2020. Due notices were issued to the General Secretaries of all Eight numbers of Unions as they
raised a common dispute under the Act for their appearance and Claim Statement. The Respondent was also
issued with notice fixing the case to 15.12.2020. The Petitioner did not turn up resulting further 4 adjournments
till 15.07.2021 for the same purpose. The First Party Petitioner Unions did not turn up. However, considering
the prevailed hard situation of the Pandemic COVID-19, the case was not disposed of at once but dealt leniently
affording further opportunities to the First Party Unions for appearance. The case was accordingly listed to 3
more dates in the year 2021. None of the Petitioner Unions appeared resulting further adjournment to
18.01.2022. None of the Petitioner Unions appeared or filed their Claim Statement but the Respondent was
represented through Counsel. For the interest of justice, the Tribunal suo-moto adjourned the case to
01.03.2022, 13.04.2022 and 01.06.2022. The Order Sheet discloses that despite of liberal opportunities though
made available to all the 8 Petitioner Unions, none of them appeared or preferred to file Claim Statement in
common or separately. However, for the interest of justice, the case was again re-scheduled to 28.07.2022 and
adjourned to 5 more dates including 01.03.2023. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner Unions nor the
Claim Statement was filed in any manner either by Post or Courier on 01.03.2023. This part of non-cooperation
and non-participation of First Party Petitioner Unions constrained the Tribunal to pass order to reserve the case
for final order. It would not be out of place to mention that even till the date, this Tribunal has not received the
Claim Statement or any Petition from any of the First Party Petitioner Unions.
3.
It appears even if for the interest of justice the Tribunal suo-moto afforded sufficient opportunities
to the Petitioner, there was no progress held in the proceeding due to the non-cooperation and non-participation
of the First Party Unions. On the other hand, the case is simply dragged approximately for a period of two and
half years without any fruitful result. In the circumstance, the Tribunal is constrained not to repost the
proceeding to any other date for the same purpose as much as it deems the First Party Petitioner Unions has no
interest to proceed with the case. Thus, the case is liable for dismissal in accordance to Law.
1326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government. In the result the reference is answered against the Petitioner Unions
The ID case stands dismissed
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 702.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ग्रामीण बैंक ऑफ़ आ थव्रत ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर ds iapkV
(120/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2023 -आई आर (बी-I)-53]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2023
S.O. 702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 120/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of
Aryvart and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2023 -IR(B-I)-53]
SALONI, Dy. Director
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. 120 of 2019
BETWEEN
Shri Ram Kishore S/o Shri Daya Deen
Through Shri Avinash Yadav
the General Secretary U.P Gramin Bank Kamgar Union,
Bajaramau, Chaubeypur, Kanpur (U.P)-209203
AND
The General Manager,
Gramin Bank of Aryavart
Head Office A-2/46, Vijay Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the case raised under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on
15.02.2019
On 15th February 2019 the statement of claim was filed by the claimant union before this Tribunal. On
behalf of O.P. management Authorized Representative appeared and filed the letter of authority and the written
statement on 04.02.2021. Thereafter case was fixed for filing of rejoinder by the claimant union. But even after
getting several opportunities claimant Union failed to file rejoinder before this Tribunal.
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1327
On perusal of the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the rejoinder by the
claimant union, none appeared on behalf of the claimant union before this Tribunal. Despite several
opportunities to the claimant union for submitting rejoinder the same has not been filed. Pleadings cannot be
read as substantive evidence. There is no evidence on behalf of the claimant Union that the workman was
appointed on any post of the Bank after undergoing regular selection process. Under normal circumstances a
casual worker engaged on daily wages is not legally entitled for absorption on regular post. Later a memo was
filed by the union for withdrawing the case and thereafter the case was reserved for final award.
From the aforesaid circumstances it is presumable that the claimant union 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: 28.03.2023
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 703.—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 (एल.सी.
आवेिन 02/2008) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22013/01/2023 -आई आर (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2023
S.O. 703.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (L.C.Application No. 02/2008) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28/04/2023
[No. L-22013/01/2023 -IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
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.
L. C. APPLICATION NO. 02 OF 2008
PARTIES: Gora Chand Pati.
Vs.
Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workmen: Mr. S. K. Pandey, Gen. Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
12.04.2023
1328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1. Instant application under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was filed by Gora Chand
Pati, ex-employee of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, praying for payment of dues of Rs. 1,94,739 in respect of
implementation of CGIT Award No. 42 of 1999.
2. The case was fixed up on 05.04.2023 for hearing of argument. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate
appeared for the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. At 01:15 PM none appeared for Gora Chand
Pati, the aggrieved workman. The record reveals that in the instant application u/s 33 C (2) the petitioner
claimed for an amount of Rs. 1,94,739/- (Rupees one lakh ninety-four thousand seven hundred and thirty-nine
only) in respect of implementation of CGIT Award No. 42 of 1999. The Award, if any, is executed through the
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol under Section 29 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Regarding execution of Award, the petitioner should take steps before the appropriate forum and not before
CGIT. Application is therefore dismissed.
Hence,
ORDERED
Let an Award be passed in view of the above discussion. Copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to
the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi under section 33 C (4) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for
information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 704.—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 25/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल- 22012/21/2019-आई आर (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2023
S.O. 704.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28/04/2023
[No. L- 22012/21/2019 -IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
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. 25 OF 2019
PARTIES: Banwari Bhuia
Vs.
Management of Naba Kajora Colliery of M/s. ECL
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1329
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: General Secretary, United Koyala Mazdoor Sangha (UTUC).
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
12.04.2023
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-22012/21/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 01.04.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Naba Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of General Manager, Naba Kajora Colliery (Kajora Area) of M/s. M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in dismissing services of Sri Banwari Bhuia, Ex-UG Loader, Naba
Kajora Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is justified or not? If not, to what relief Sri
Banwari Bhuia, Ex-UG Loader is entitled for? ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/21/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 01.04.2019 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 25 of 2019 was registered
on 09.04.2019 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to
appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of
witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.
2. The Reference case is fixed up today for showing cause by Banwari Bhuia, the dismissed workman as
to why no step was taken for the last three years and why this case will not be dismissed in form of a no dispute
award. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. It is
01:40 PM now. On call, Banwari Bhuia, the workman as well as the General Secretary of United Koyala
Mazdoor Sangha (UTUC) are found absent.
3. Since the workman has not appeared after several opportunities given to him, it appears to me that
workman is not interested to proceed with this Industrial Dispute. Under such circumstances, this Industrial
Dispute 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, 28 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 705.—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 08/2021) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/4/2021-आई आर (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
1330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2023
S.O. 705.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/2021) 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 28/04/2023
[No. L-22012/4/2021 -IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
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 2021
PARTIES: Ranjit Prasad
Vs.
Management of Chinakuri Mine-I of M/s. ECL and another.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: None.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
10.04.2023
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-22012/4/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 09.06.2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Chinakuri Mine-I of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and another and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the claim of the Union- Colliery Mazdoor Congress that the management of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. has wrongfully denied the payment of 43 days’ sick wages
and payment of Spl. Leave for one year as per NCWS to Shri Ranjit Prasad, ex-employee
at Chinakuri Mine-I, who superannuated w.e.f. 30.06.2015, is legal and justified. If yes,
what relief is Shri Ranjit Prasad, ex-employee entitled to. ”
1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/4/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 09.06.2021 from the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 08 of 2021 was registered
on 18.06.2021 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.
2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. On
repeated calls none appeared for the aggrieved workman, Ranjit Prasad, Ex-employee of Chinakuri Mine-I. No
written statement has been filed after issuance of Notice.
3.
It appears from the record that after passing of one year and 10 months, the workman and concerned
union have taken no step. No written statement has been filed by any party. Under such facts and circumstances,
I do not find any reason to proceed further with this case. The Reference case is accordingly disposed of in the
form of a No Dispute Award.
Hence,
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1331
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 अप्रैल, 2023
का. आ. 706.—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
(जिका त la[;k 03/1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-04-2023 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22013/01/2023-आई आर (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2023
S.O. 706.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Complaint No. 03/1999) 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 28/04/2023
[No. L-22013/01/2023 -IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
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.
COMPLAINT NO. 03 OF 1999
PARTIES: Nand Lal Dubey
Vs.
(1) Personnel Manager, C.M.P.D.I.L., Ranchi and
(2) Regional Director, R.I.-1, C.M.P.D.I.L, Asansol.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workmen: Mr. S. K. Pandey, Union representative.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
10.04.2023
AWARD
1. Instant Complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was filed by the complainant,
Nand Lal Dubey against (1) the Personnel Manager, CMPDIL, Ranchi and (2) the Regional Director, R.I.-1,
CMPDIL, Asansol., praying for passing order against his transfer order which is an example of unfair labour
practice and a violation of Section 33(1) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
1332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited
(CMPDIL)/opposite party No. 1 and 2 is present. On repeated calls at 1.30 pm, Nanda Lal Dubey is found
absent. It appears to me that the petitioner is disinclined to proceed further for which he did not appear for
several years. After assuming charge of this Tribunal, Notice was sent to the workman on 07.12.2022 but the
same was returned unserved. In view of such facts and circumstances the complaint case is dismissed in the
form of a No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Complaint case. Let copies of the Award
in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi under section
33-A (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2023
का. आ. 707.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k चेन्नई ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (43/2017)
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल-12012/58/2016-आई आर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2023
S.O. 707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 43/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L- 12012/58/2016-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID No. 43/2017
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 24.03.2023
Shri R.V. Shibin Roy
S/o A. Rajayyan
No. 97, Kattayanvilai
Vetturnimadam Post
Nagercoil
….First Party Petitioner
AND
The General Manager (B&O)
State Bank of India
RBO-II, Administrative Office
Madhuram Complex No. 2
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1333
Dr. Ambedkar Road
Madurai-625002
….Second Party Respondent
Appearance:
For the Petitioner
:
Advocate, M/s K.M. Ramesh
For the First and Second Respondents
:
Advocates, M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/58/2016-
IR(B.I) dtd. 27.04.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of SBI, Zonal Office, Madurai in imposing
the punishment of “voluntary cessation of employment” w.e.f. 30.07.2013 upon Sri
R.V. Shibin Roy, an Ex-Assistant, Sattur Branch of SBI, Madurai is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is
registered in ID No. 43/2017. Notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
22.05.2017 which were duly acknowledged by the parties. None on behalf of the First Party Union appeared
resulting further 6 adjournments in the whole of the year 2017. The Petitioner did not turn up. However, the
case was again re-listed to several dates i.e. 7 adjournments commencing from 04.01.2018. Since the post of
Presiding Officer was lying vacant for those days the case was again re-listed to some more dates in the year
2019 when the post of Presiding Officer was filled up. On a bare perusal of the Order Sheet, it reveals that in the
year 2019 the case was listed to 11.02.2019 when the Respondent filed the Counter Statement. The case was
accordingly listed to 04.03.2019 directing the Petitioner to file Affidavit-Evidence. Since then, the case was
again re-listed to several dates for the same purpose till 29.10.2019. Even though, the Petitioner is found to
have been afforded with such liberal opportunities but the Petitioner did not turn up resulting further suo-moto 5
adjournments in the year 2020 and also two more adjournments in the year 2021 upto 03.06.2021. Taking into
consideration the hard situation of Pandemic COVID-19, this Tribunal did not resort to any coercive steps
against the Petitioner but in order to facilitate the Petitioner to contest his case afforded further opportunities
directing the Petitioner to file Affidavit-Evidence. The case was accordingly listed to 16.08.2021, 31.08.2021,
06.09.2021, 28.10.2021, 07.01.2022, 17.02.2022, 30.03.2022 and 01.06.2022. The Petitioner failed to file the
Affidavit-Evidence. However, the Respondent since present was directed to put forth his case. At the same time,
the Respondent was also directed to file Affidavit-Evidence, if any. Since then, the case was again re-listed to
some more dates i.e. 13.09.2022, 19.10.2022, 14.12.2022, 17.01.2023 and 16.03.2023. Neither the Petitioner nor
any Authorized Representative was present or filed any Affidavit-Evidence. However, for the interest of justice,
the case was re-listed to 23.03.2023 as last chance. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, no Affidavit-
Evidence is filed. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent files a Memo to dispose of the case in view
of the provisions and term contemplated in Rule-22 of the ID Act. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent
made a strenuous objection to re-schedule the case to any other date which would be nothing but wastage of
valuable time of the Tribunal. The contentions of the Memo as well as the submission of the Learned Counsel
for the Respondent since has got sufficient force for consideration, it is felt not to re-list the case to any other
date for the same purpose but to dispose of the case in accordance with Law. Hence the case is reserved for final
order.
In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs, it is crystal clear that the case is simply
dragged approaching 6 years simply because of negligence attributed by the Petitioner. The very conduct of the
Petitioner amply proves that he has no interest to proceed with the case. The non-cooperation of the Petitioner
simply caused enormous wastage of valuable time of the Tribunal. Thus, it is felt to dispose of the case as liable
for dismissal as much as despite of several adjournments the Petitioner chose not to cooperate or participate in
the proceedings.
4.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government. In the result the reference is answered against the Petitioner Union.
The ID case stands dismissed for default.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
1334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2023
का. आ. 708.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k चेन्नई ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
(12/2019) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A
[सं. एल- 12011/83/2018 -आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2023
S.O. 708.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.12/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L- 12011/83/2018-IR(B- II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID No. 12/2019
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 23.03.2023
The General Secretary
Indian Bank Employees Union
No. 6, Moore Street4
Mannady
Chennai-600001
….First Party Petitioner Union
AND
The General Manager
Indian Bank, HRM Department
Corporate Office
254-260, Avvai Shanmugham Salai
Royapettah
Chennai-600014
…Second Party Respondent
Appearance:
For the Petitioner Union
:
Advocate, M/s KM Ramesh
For the First and Second Respondents :
Advocates, M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.
AWARD
The
Central
Government,
Ministry
of
Labour
&
Employment
vide
its
Order
No. L-12011/83/2018-IR (B.II) dtd. 08.01.2019 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1335
“Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank, in disengaging the services of Sri K.
Raghulan, Tiny Deposit Collector is justified? If so, to what relief is Sri K. Raghulan entitled
to?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is
registered in ID No. 12/2019. Notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
25.03.2019 which were duly acknowledged by the parties. None on behalf of the First Party Union appeared
resulting further 6 adjournments in the whole of the year 2019. On 27.01.2020, the Respondent filed Counter
Statement. Accordingly, the Petitioner was directed to file Affidavit-Evidence fixing the case to 02.03.2020. The
Petitioner failed to produce Affidavit Evidence and Documents. The case was adjourned to several dates (i.e.
almost 7 to 8 dates) in the whole of the year 2020 and the middle part of the year 2021. The Petitioner did not
turn up. However, looking into the hard situation of COVID-19, the Tribunal did not take any coercive steps but
leniently viewed by affording further adjournments to the Petitioner for the same purpose. The case was listed to
17.08.2021, 02.09.2021, 12.10.2021, 18.11.2021. Neither the Petitioner nor the General Secretary of the First
Party Union or any Authorized Representative / Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner were present despite of
repeated calls on all those dates. However, without resorting to any coercive steps the case was dealt leniently
by suo-moto affording further opportunities almost 11 adjournments in the whole of the year 2022 to the
Petitioner-cum-General Secretary for the same purpose. The Petitioner did not turn up.
3.
As last chance the case was listed to 13.02.2023. On that day, neither the Petitioner nor the General
Secretary / Authorized Representative of the First Party Union appeared. No Affidavit-Evidence has been filed.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent vehemently raised objection with a submission not to re-
schedule the case on any other date but to dispose of the same in accordance to law. In this context, it is
pertinent to mention that on a bare perusal of the documents on record, it reveals that the General Secretary, the
First Party Union has no interest to proceed with the case. On the other hand, the negligence attributed by the
First Party Union simply drags the case for more than 4 years. The very conduct of the Petitioner’s Union amply
proves has no interest to proceed with the case. The non-cooperation of the First Party Union simply caused
enormous wastage of valuable time of the Tribunal. In the given fact and circumstance, it is felt not to repose the
case to any other date as the case is liable for dismissal in accordance to Law.
4.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government. In the result the reference is answered against the Petitioner Union.
The ID case stands dismissed for default.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2023
का. आ. 709.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्री सरकार सेंरल वे रिाउससंग कॉृोरेिन के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री रािवीर ससंि ृुत्र श्री
ररिाल ससंि, अलीगढ (उत्तर प्रिेि) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-78/1996) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, को प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 01.05.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल- 42012/3/1996-आई आर (एम)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2023
S.O. 709.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 78/1996) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Central Warehousing Corporation and Shri Rajvir Singh, S/o Shri Rishal Singh,
Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
01.05.2023.
[No. L- 42012/3/1996-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
1336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
ID No.78/1996
Registered on:-22.08.1996
Sh. Rajvir Singh S/o Sh. Rishal Singh,
Warehouse Assistant Grade-II, Central Warehouse,
Abohar, R/o VPO Siroli, Distt. Aligarh(UP).
….Workman
Versus
1.
Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation
(A Govt. of India Undertaking), Sector 17, Chandigarh.
2.
Managing Director, CWC, Head Office, New Delhi. . ...Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:-15.03.2023
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/3/96-IR(CM) Dated 12.08.1996, 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:-
“Whether the action of management of Central Warehousing Corporation, Abohar in
terminating the services of Shri Rajbir Singh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled and from what date?”
1. The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition is that as per claim of workman, the workman
was working as Warehouse Assistant Grader-II since 23.02.1981 at Central Warehouse, Abohar-I and he
continued working as such till 23.05.1987 without any break in his service he had worked for a period of more
than 6 years before termination of his service. The workman was recruited through Employment Exchange as
per the procedure laid down by Corporation. No appointment letter was issued to the workman and he was only
allowed to join without any other condition. The termination order is stigmatic on the workman. The
management has not complied with the provision of Section 25-F and the amount paid were less than the
amount admissible for rendering 6 year service. The corporation recruited a number of Warehouse Assistant
Grade-II even after termination of the services of the workman and the workman has not been given any
opportunity to rejoin the services of the corporation. The workman had requested the Managing Director to
regularize his services vide letter dated 17.04.1987. There is no breakage in the services of the workman. The
workman had worked with great zeal, sincerity, honesty and discharged his duties efficiently under the guidance
of superior authority. It is therefore, prayed that the order of termination may please be quashed and the
workman may please be reinstated in service with full back wages with interest @ 18% per annum till date.
2. The management has not filed any written statement as the Hon’ble High Court has stayed the further
proceeding in the case.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal on 15.03.2023, the case is fixed for
consideration and disposal of the application moved by the management. Reply has been submitted by the
workman. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of management has drawn the attention of this Tribunal towards
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.14620
of 1996 titled as Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Union of India and another. From the perusal of the
order of the Hon’ble High Court Chandigarh, the matter brought before the Hon’ble High Court by the
management the workman has already moved the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and that Writ
Petition was tagged with the respondents Writ Petition.
4. The Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.14620 of 1996 titled as Central Warehousing
Corporation Vs. Union of India and another has passed an order on 20.02.2017, whereby it has been held by the
Hon’ble High Court that the proceeding before the Labour Court is not maintainable and without jurisdiction.
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1337
5. In the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court Chandigarh on 20.02.2017 in Civil Writ
Petition No.14620 of 1996 titled as Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Union of India and another, this
proceeding is not maintainable in this Court and hence, liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly.
6. 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, 1 मई, 2023
का. आ. 710.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्री सरकार श्री मुदित स्ट्वरुृ, मेससथ ररला ंस लाइफ इन्िुरन्स कंृनी जलजमटेड, नई दिल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जन ोिकों और श्री मंसूर अ्तर ृुत्र स्ट्वगी इबिुरथिमान, प्रताृगढ (उत्तर प्रिेि) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्री
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , कानृुर, के ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-91/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक
में दिखा ा ग ा िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 01.05.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ
ा l
[सं. एल-17012/8/2018-आई आर (एम)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2023
S.O. 710.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 91/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to Shri Mudit Swaroop, M/s Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi and Shri
Mansoor Akhtar, S/o Late Ibadurrahman, Pratapgarh (Uttar Pradesh) which was received along with soft copy
of the award by the Central Government on 01.05.2023.
[No. L- 17012/8/2018-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, 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. 91 of 2018
L-17012/8/2018-IR(M) dated 24.09.2018
BETWEEN
Shri Mansoor Akhtar,S/O Late Ibadurrahman
Village & Post- Handaur,District- Pratapgarh
Uttar Pradesh-230136
AND
Sri Mudit Swaroop, Zonal Manager Human
Resouces North 1 & North 11, M/s Reliance Life Insurance
Company Limited,A-2, 1st Floor, Kirti Nagar, Najafgarh Road,
Near Karla Hospital,New Delhi-110015
AWARD
This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from
the Ministry of Labour & Employment in letter no. L-17012/8/2018-IR(M) dated 24.09.2018.
1338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
‘Whether Shri Mansoor Akhtar appointed as ‘Sales Manager-Agency in the Garde E2 by
Reliance Life Insurance(Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group) vide letter dt 16.04.2007 is
‘workman’ under ID Act 1947?
If yes, whether the action of the Reliance Life Insurance (Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group)in
terminating the Services of Shri Mansoor Akhtar vide letter dt 13.04.2016 is proper, legal &
Justified? If not, to what reliefs Shri Mansoor Akhtar are entitled for? What other directions,
if any, are needed in this matter?”
On receipt of notification, notices were issued to both the parties on 19.11.2018 fixing 04.12.2018 for
filing of statement of claim. But none appeared on behalf of claimant workman on the date fixed. On perusal of
the record it is found that though several dates were fixed for filing the statement of claim none appeared on
behalf of the claimant workman before this Tribunal. Despite ample opportunities to the claimant for submitting
statement of claim; the claimant failed to present the case before this Tribunal. Later the case was reserved for
final award for non-appearance of the claimant .
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: 02.03.2023
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2023
का. आ. 711.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,
केन्री सरकार मेससथ इफको-टोक् ो इन्सुरेंस सर्वथसेि जलजमटेड, गुडगाुँव, िरर ाणा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों
और श्री अजभिीत के. डोनगे, कोल्िाृुर (मिाराष्ट्र) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल , कोल्िाृुर, के ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-07/2015) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, को प्रकाजित
करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 01.05.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड - 16025/04/2023 -आई आर (एम)]
डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2023
S.O. 711.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 07/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Kolhapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s IFFCO-
TOKIO Insurance Services Limited, Gurgaon, Hariyana and Shri Abhijit K. Donage, Kolhapur (Maharashtra)
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.05.2023.
[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL COURT NO.02, KOLHAPUR
REFERENCE (I.T.) NO.07/2015.
EXH.O-2
The Chief Executive Officer,
M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO Insurance Services
Limited, Corporate Office, 02nd Floor,
Iffco Towers, Plot No.03, Sector-29,
.. First Party
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1339
Gurgaon, Hariyana.
V/s.
Shri. Abhijit K. Donage,
R/o. 4A/128, Ghodkewadi,
Near Shahu Market Yard, Kolhapur.
.. Second Party
CORAM :-
Shri. S. D. Suryawanshi, Member.
J. O. Code :- MH02959.
APPEARANCE :-
For First Party :- Ld. Adv. Shri. V. M. Kuigade
For Second Party :- Ld. Adv. Shri. U. B. Jadhav
AWARD
(Decided on this 17th day of February, 2023)
1) The appropriate Government exercising powers under Section-10-2A(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (hereinafter shall be referred as 'the I.D. Act') referred Industrial Dispute for adjudication the issue “as
to whether Shri. Abhijit K. Donage, Marketing Trainee is a 'Workman' under the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the Management of M/s. Iffco Tokio Insurance Services
Limited, Gurgaon, Hariyana in terminating services of Shri. Abhijit K. Donage vide order dated 06/11/2010 is
justified, legal, proper and in proportion to the alleged charge of misconduct ? If not then what relief the
workman is entitled to ? And from which date and what others are necessary in the matter ?”
2) In response to the Reference Order dated 08/05/2015 notices were issued to the M/s. Iffco Tokio
Insurance Services Limited (hereinafter shall be referred as 'the First Party') and Shri. Abhijit K. Donage
(hereinafter shall be referred as 'the Second Party'). Accordingly, second party has filed its statement of claim
and first party has filed its Written Statement.
3) If perused the statement of claim, the second party has submitted that, he was employed by first party
on and from 01/01/2010 in the capacity of Marketing Executive in its Sangli Office. The service record of
second party is clean and unblemished and he has not committed any misconduct during the entire tenure. The
first party by letter dated 01/01/2010 was appointed to the second party but in the said letter his designation is
shown as Marketing Trainee. However, the second party has completed training and also successfully passed
I.R.D.A. examination. Hence, the second party on completion of his training he was shown as probationer for
the period of six months. Further the work of second party was clerical and manual and he falls under the
definition of ‘Workman’ under Section-2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The first party is engaged in the activities of
insurance of vehicles and animals. Said animals and vehicles wherever they are located first party was going on
the spot for their insurance. Hence, for the insurance whatever documents are required to be prepare and also
receiving of insurance cheque and depositing in the Bank second party was performing the work.
4) However, his services are terminated on dated 26/11/2010 and reasons shown in termination order are
false and untrue. The second party has worked with the first party continuously more than 240 days, therefore,
he was permanent employee. Also at the time of terminating his services the first party has not given any notice
required under Section-25 of the I.D. Act, 1947 nor paid notice pay. Further no show cause notice was given
prior to termination. Further no charge-sheet was given and conducted the enquiry. The second party was
appointed as Marketing Trainee but at the time of his termination he was looking the affairs in the capacity of
Marketing Executive. However, without providing the opportunity to being heard the first party has terminated
the second party and violated the principles of natural justice. Hence, the action of first party is illegal and
improper, therefore, said action is deserve to be quash and set-aside.
5) After termination of his service the second party tried to get alternate employment but he could not
succeed. Hence, the second party is unemployed till date and causing great hardship because of not having
income source. Therefore, it has prayed that, the Reference may be allowed and order dated 26/11/2010 may be
1340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
quash and set-aside and second party may be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service declaring
that, the second party is a ‘Workman’ defined under the I.D. Act, 1947.
6) The first party through its written statement submitted that, the allegations, averments and contentions
made in the statement of claim are not admitted by first party. Further it is not true to say that, the second party
was working as a Marketing Executive from 01/01/2010 at their Sangli Office. Also not admitted to the first
party that, second party has served sincerely and honestly and his service record is clean and unblemished and
he has not done any misconduct. However, it is true to say that, the second party was appointed by letter dated
01/01/2010 as a Marketing Trainee. As far as contentions of training is concerned; said contentions are denied
and second party has not completed any training and passed examination of I.R.D.A. Also it is denied that, after
training he was working with the first party on probation for the period of six months and thereafter he was
working as Marketing Executive. Also denied that, his nature of work was clerical and manual and second party
is a ‘Workman’ and first party is the ‘Industry’. As far as termination is concerned; first party admits that, the
second party by letter dated 26/11/2010 has been terminated. But denied that, the first party has not complied the
Section-25 of the I.D. Act, 1947 and he worked for more than 240 days and he became the permanent employee.
Also it is denied that, no any show cause notice was issued before terminating his services and not conducted
Departmental Enquiry and not given him chance to defence or to state his side.
7) It is also denied that, the reason behind the termination order is false and frivolous and second party has
not done any misconduct or misbehaviour during his tenure. It is also not correct to say that, the second party is
a ‘Workman’ and business of first party is to ensure cattle and all types of vehicles and it was the duty of second
party to inspect the cattle and vehicles on the spot. Further denied that, the second party was required to prepare
the documents for the insurance and also received cheque from concerned insured persons and deposit with the
Bank. Further it is not correct to say that, the second party is not serving anywhere since the date of termination
and he is unemployed and he has no source of income, therefore, he suffering from starvation.
8) Bare perusal of written statement suggest that, the first party tried to show that, what dispute was arose
between the first party and second party. If perused Para 13 onwards it is the submission of first party that,
admittedly the first party is an Insurance Company registered under the Company’s Act and also it is registered
with I.R.D.A. The first party as a Corporate Agent of Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. By letter
dated 01/01/2010 the second party was engaged as a trainee at the location of Sangli. The terms and conditions
were also mentioned in the said letter accompanied with Training Agreement which was enclosed with the said
letter. As per said letter the second party was bounden duty to sign the Training Agreement and to submit before
joining. The second party was appointed as trainee for the period of maximum two years thereafter on
successful completion of training period second party was to absorb in regular service of company with initial
six months period on probation. As per agreement between the first party and second party vide Clause-5.1
given right to the first party to terminate the agreement at any time without assigning any reason. Hence, the
first party exercising its right terminated his services vide termination order dated 26/11/2010. The second party
was appointed on the post of trainee and was provided financial assistance by way of stipend. So the second
party is not ‘Workman’ under Section-2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The second party was also paid stipend in lieu
of notice and same has been accepted by second party. The second party was unauthorised absent from services
in October and November-2010 and letters were issued by first party in which it was advised him to report to the
first party.
9) The second party along-with other ex-employees was involved in the theft of the cattle cover note
books of first party from Sangli. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged in the Police Station on dated 18/11/2010 and
second party was arrested by concerned Police Station. Later on he was released on bail and cover note books
which were in possession of second party was recovered from him by concerned Police Station. Hence, the first
party has terminated his services for the cause of loss of confidence. Therefore, question of providing
opportunity to defend or to file his say or to conduct the Domestic Enquiry does not arise. The second party has
committed serious misconduct such as theft of cover notes of first party, so the first party reserves its right to
justify its action if necessary. Vide order dated 26/11/2010 it was communicated that, “pursuant to your act of
misdemeanor that first party has lost faith in your service” and services are terminated and cheque of
Rs.26,748/- drawn on H.D.F.C. Bank was also given to the second party. Hence, the action of first party
terminating his services on account of theft is proper and legal. Further the second party do not fall within the
definition of ‘Workman’. Hence, the Reference may be rejected.
10) It is pertinent to note that, the file of present proceeding was misplaced and my learned predecessor had
been sought permission to reconstruct the file vide application dated 30/01/2020. Accordingly, vide letter dated
12/03/2020 the Head Office was communicated that, as per Circular No.204 dated 25/10/2017 permission is
granted to reconstruct the file. Hence, on dated 18/06/2020 reconstructed the file and necessary order was
passed by my learned predecessor.
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1341
11) It is also pertinent to note that, the first party had been sought preliminary issue with regards to
‘Workman’. Accordingly, said issue might have been framed by my learned predecessor and second party lead
his evidence. However, no order was passed on preliminary point. Hence, the second party filed application
below Exh.U-16 and prayed to record the findings on all issues. The Tribunal considering the old matter and
giving consideration to the facts order dated 11/01/2022 has been passed below Exh.U-16 and once again
issues are framed and second party was directed to adduce his oral evidence on issues No.02 and 03 and liberty
was given to the first party as well. Accordingly, the second party has lead his evidence by filing affidavit at
Exh.U-17. The witness examined below Exh.U-17 was also cross-examined by first party. Since the oral
evidence of second party is closed the matter was fixed for evidence of first party. However, the first party by
filing pursis at Exh.C-18 declined to lead any evidence. Finally heard both the learned Advocates and perused
record and proceeding. On the basis of record and proceeding, following issues are discussed and necessary
findings to that effect recorded as under :
ISSUES
FINDINGS
1)
Does the second party prove that, he is a ‘Workman’
as defined under Section-2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 ?
.. In the negative.
2)
Do the first party prove that, the action of termination
for the cause of alleged loss of confidence is
justifiable, legal and proper ?
.. Does not survive.
3)
Whether the second party workman is entitled to the
relief as sought for ?
.. Does not survive.
4)
What relief and Award ?
.. As per final order.
REASONS
AS TO ISSUE NO.01 :-
12) The second party claimed that, he was employed by first party in the capacity of Marketing Executive
on and from 01/01/2010. But, in his appointment letter his designation is shown as Marketing Trainee. Also
claimed that, he has completed training period and passed I.R.D.A. examination. As far as nature of work is
concerned; he has submitted that, the first party was engaged in the insurance policy of cattels and vehicles.
Hence, the second party was required to visit the place where vehicles or cattels were made available.
Thereafter, he has to prepare documents and to collect the cheques and deposit in the Bank. Considering his
nature of duty he is a ‘Workman’ under Section-2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
13) To the other hand the first party pleaded that, admittedly he was employed by first party w.e.f.
01/01/2010 as a Marketing Trainee and not in the capacity of Marketing Executive. Further the first party
objected the status of ‘Workman’ on the ground that, the second party was appointed on the post of Trainee for a
period of two years and was provided financial assistance by way of stipend. Hence, Trainee is a not a
‘Workman’. Except the said objection nothing averred by first party in its written statement.
14) If perused documents to that effect the second party has produced certain documents along-with
Exh.U-12. If perused document at Serial No.01 it is the appointment letter issued to the second party. It contends
that, the second party was employed in the capacity of Marketing Trainee at Sangli Office on certain terms and
conditions mentioned in the Training Agreement. No doubt second party is in receipt of appointment order dated
01/01/2010 therein it is also contended that, the second party was supposed to undergo training and pass
examination prescribed by I.R.D.A. Thereafter, he will be developing insurance business for I.T.I.S. in the area /
locality allotted to him. On successful completion of training and subject to passing examination prescribed by
I.R.D.A. he will be enlisted as an Insurance Specified person for I.T.I.S. In Clause-03 it is contended that, on
successful completion of training, he will be engaged as a regular employee on probation for six months. If
perused document at Serial No.02 it appears that, said document is so-called Certificate issued by Gurukul
Agent Training Centre, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. In this certificate it is mentioned that,
the second party has completed 50 hours practical training in General Insurance Business as specified in
Regulation-5(1) of the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority and said training was sponsored by M/s.
Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. However, first party denied this certificate and challenged the
authenticity of certificate. If carefully perused certificate reveals that, said certificate is undated, therefore,
second party was supposed to prove this certificate by calling any witness from concerned agent but he failed to
1342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
do so.
15) If perused relevant document with regards to ‘Workman’ issue at Exh.C-18 it is the Training Agreement
and therein Clause-2.B says that, I.T.I.S. is desirous to appoint Marketing Trainee for canvassing and procuring
general insurance business for I.T.I.S. and to this effect I.T.I.S. undertakes to impart intensive theoretical and on
the job training for a period of/not exceeding two years. Further in Clause-5.1 mentioned that, I.T.I.S. reserves
the right to terminate this agreement at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever by 15 days notice in
writing to the Marketing Trainee. Further in Clause-5.3 it is stated that, on account of three grounds I.T.I.S. may
terminate this agreement. If again perused the appointment order dated 01/01/2010 therein it is clearly
mentioned that, Training Agreement is enclosed with the order. Admittedly, the second party was in receipt of
appointment order, therefore, he was aware what was written in the appointment order. Therefore, it is
concluded that, the second party was must have receipt of Training Agreement copy which was produced by
first party at Exh.C-18.
16) On the point of ‘Workman’ the second party was examined at Exh.U-08. If perused said affidavit he
deposed same facts which are pleaded in his statement of claim except his salary. If perused his cross-
examination he has submitted that, since 16/01/2017 he is doing part time services and as on today that means in
the year 2019 he is working in Pune. In the year 2012 he was working with Uttara Foods and Feeds, Pune;
thereafter, he was working in Kolhapur. Since his termination in the year 2010 he has taken one year gap and
thereafter he is working. Further deposed that, he was in receipt of Training Agreement which produced along-
with Exh.C-17/2. Further admits that, in the Training Agreement as per Clause-03 Trainee period is of 24
months and contents of agreement are true and correct.
17) On the point of ‘Workman’ issue the second party relied on following authorities :
(i) Virender Singh V/s. Haryana Tourism Corporation Limited, through the Managing Director, Chandigarh,
reported in 2005, II, C.L.R., 745 and (ii) Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Limited V/s. Vishal Sharma, reported
in 2008, I, C.L.R., 545.
As far as first authority is concerned; after carefully going through the same it is observed that, the
issue before the Hon’ble High Court was that, the petitioner Shri. Virender Singh was appointed as apprentice
and respondent Corporation claimed that, no contract came to be registered as envisaged. The Hon’ble High
Court held that, the petitioner though appointed as apprentice, cannot be called apprentice after his training was
completed and he was asked to continue until further orders. Therefore, Apprentice Act, 1961 shall not be
applicable. Herein present case admittedly the second party was appointed on and from 01/01/2010 on the post
of Marketing Trainee. By virtue of his Appointment Order he was required to go requisite training and pass
examination prescribed by I.R.D.A. Further he shall be governed by terms and conditions of Training
Agreement which is enclosed with the said order. Admittedly, the second party was in receipt of Training
Agreement, therefore, he must be aware about the terms and conditions of Training Agreement. If perused
Training Agreement at Exh.C-08 clearly reveals that, training period would not be exceeding two years. The
second party tried to show that, he has undergone the training conducted by Gurukul Agent Training Centre. The
certificate produced by second party along-with Exh.U-12 and Exh.U-15 both are undated. But during the
course of cross-examination he has admitted that, Gurukul Agent Training Centre do not expand the training to
the trainee employees. So, it cannot be said that, the second party has completed training period successfully and
he become a probationer. Hence, authority relied by second party shall not be helpful in his favour. As far as
authority No.02 is concerned; this case is on different footing as compared to the present proceeding.
18) The first party also relied on following two authorities on the point of ‘Workman’ issue.
(i) Deccan Charters Private Limited V/s. Sarita Tiwari, decided on 27/08/2019 and (ii) Raj Kumar Rastogi
V/s. P. O. Labour Court-X and Another, decided on 18/05/2015.
As far as first authority is concerned; in the said matter petitioner was appointed as a Trainee AME and
terms of appointment order are contend in the appointment letter dated 01/08/2006. Clause-D of the
appointment letter provides that, the respondent employee shall be on probation for three months from the date
of joining. She shall be deemed to continue on probation until confirmed in writing and such period after initial
period of probation shall be deemed to be extension of probation. Further Clause-E of the appointment letter
provides that, respondent’s service can be terminated during the period of probation or extended probation
without assigning any reason thereof and by giving seven days notice in writing or payment in lieu thereof.
However, according to the petitioner the respondent’s performance was not satisfactory and therefore, she was
not confirmed. Hence, the petitioner terminated her services on 09/08/2007. Thereafter, industrial dispute was
referred to the learned Labour Court. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court relied on various judgments of Hon’ble
Apex Court and held that, the respondent was Trainee AME on probation for a period of three months and
further laid down that, the respondent has not been confirmed in writing and therefore, respondent shall be
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1343
deemed to be on extended probation period. Following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments the
Hon’ble High Court laid down that, the petitioner is not a ‘Workman’ within the definition of Section-2(s) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 and there is no infirmity in her termination during the extended probation period. Hence, the
impugned order of learned Labour Court set-aside. Admittedly, in the present case the second party was
appointed as a Trainee for two years and paid him stipend as agreed in the Training Agreement. Further
admittedly the second party has not completed training, therefore, unless and until training period is completed
he would not be entitled to be appointed on probation basis. Hence, vide letter dated 26/11/2010 the first party
has terminated his services on the ground of loss of confidence.
As far as authority No.02 is concerned; in this authority there was dispute of ‘Workman’ under Section-
2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It was the case of Management before the learned Labour Court that, the workman
was working as a Trainee with the Management. At the time of joining the Management he had not produce any
experience certificate. He was issued appointment letter of Trainee and his training was extended time to time
and he was paid honorarium. Here also the Hon’ble Delhi High Court relying on various case laws held that, the
petitioner being a Trainee is not ‘Workman’ within the meaning of Section-2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. As
discussed above both the case laws shall be helpful to the stand of first party.
19) After analyzing the documentary and oral evidence this Tribunal inclined to state that, the second party
was employed in the capacity of Marketing Trainee as per order dated 01/01/2010. Further along-with the
Appointment Order he was issued Training Agreement wherein terms and conditions are mentioned. Further the
second party has not completed the training period and at any point of time he was not appointed on probation.
During the training period allegedly the first party has lost the confidence in the second party, therefore, first
party has terminated his services in the month of November-2010 paying him amount of Rs.26,748/- towards
full and final settlement of his dues. Therefore, it can be concluded that, the second party shall not fall under the
definition of ‘Workman’ under Section-2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, the findings of issue No.01 answered
in the 'Negative'.
AS TO ISSUES NO.02 & 03 :-
20)
Once it is held that, the second party would not fall under the definition of ‘Workman’, therefore, this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to record the findings on remaining issues. Hence, said issues ‘does not survive’ for
my consideration. With above observation this Tribunal has to pass following Award.
AWARD
1)
It is held and declared that, the second party is not ‘Worman’ defined under Section-2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, The Reference (I.T.) No.07/2015 answered in the negative.
2)
The Award be send to the appropriate Government for its publication.
Shri. S. D. SURYAWANSHI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2023
का. आ. 712.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV (1/2012)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12012/76/2011 -आई आर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2023
S.O. 712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.1/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/76/2011-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
1344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
I.D.1/2012
Reference No.L-12012/76/2011-IR(B-I)
dated: 24.11.2011
Shri Ashok Kumar Meena
S/o Shri Lakhi Ram Meena
VPO Divli Via Bhusawar,
District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
V/s
Assistant General Manager
State Bank of India
(formerly known as State Bank of Hyderabad),
Gun Foundry, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh.
Present:
Sh. R.C.Jain, Representative for applicant.
Sh. Bhagirath Patel, Dy. Manager (Law) for respondent.
AWARD
10.8.2022
1. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)
of sub-section (1) & sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short The Act) had
referred the under mentioned dispute for adjudication to this tribunal:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, in considering that Shri
Ashok Kumar Meena has voluntary vacated the services w.e.f. 7.9.2007 is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled?”
2. While receiving the dispute the tribunal had issued notice to parties & applicant was directed to file its
statement of claim. On 5.3.2012, applicant filed his statement of claim. Contents in brief are narrated as under:-
3. The applicant workman joined on 6.3.2006 as clerk cum cashier cum typist in the respondent bank at
Adilabad Main branch, Adilabad. Applicant was confirmed in the bank’s service after the expiry of period of six
months i.e. 6.9.2006. Workmen took permission to avail paternity leave since 6.1.2007 & came to his native
place in district Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Thereafter, he extended the leave for 7 days as permission was granted by
the respondent on telephone upto 28.1.2007. The wife of workman is suddenly expired on 28.1.2007 therefore,
the applicant further extended his leave and informed the respondent through an application dated 29.1.2007.
During this period applicant was implicated in a police case of dowry death under section 498-A, 406 & 304-B
of I.P.C. Due to this false criminal case the applicant remained in depression & met with an accident. Applicant
further remained on leave and informed respondent sending application dated 10.2.2007 requesting to extend his
leave for two months. Applicant regularly informed the respondent by sending applications for seeking
extension of leave on various dates. Applicant again informed the respondents vide his application 15.7.2007
regarding extension of leave for four months due to his ailing condition. The applicant again informed
respondent through his application dated 20.12.2007 regarding his family problems and requested to extend his
leave for uncertain period. Applicant again informed respondent vide his application dated 16.6.2008 regarding
his mental distress and inability to attend his duty. The applicant was informed vide order dated 20.6.2008 by
the respondent regarding discharge from bank service due to his unauthorised absence from duty and
accordingly he has been discharged from service from 7.9.2007. The respondent has not considered the
applications sent by applicant regarding his absence due to family problems and illness. Applicant was confined
to jail from March, 2009 to March, 2010 and he was not in a position to challenge the bank’s order dated
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1345
20.6.2008. The order of respondent is patently illegal, contrary to law and facts. The whole proceedings initiated
against the petitioner are illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The applicant should not be given
such a harsh punishment for his absence from duty. The respondent has violated the provisions of VIII
B.P.Settlement dated 10.4.2002 and 2.6.2005. The applicant has not vacated the service; the order of respondent
is void ab initio, therefore, the respondent may kindly be directed to reinstate the workman in the bank’s service
along with all other benefits.
4.
The respondent bank in its reply to claim denied the averments in toto but admitted that the petitioner
joined the bank on 6.3.2006 and his services are governed by the terms & conditions mentioned in the
memorandum of appointment including Shastri/Desai Award, B.P. Settlement or any other award that may come
into force from time to time. The petitioner has absented himself during probation period for 28 days, 13 days
and 15 days. Again he was unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 6.1.2007. His services were not confirmed in
the bank. Petitioner was eligible for 10 days casual & 23 days sick leave. In case the absented period is
considered, the leave balance available to the petitioner credit would be nil. When no leave is available, the
petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 6.1.2007 onward without submitting any application. The petitioner
neither submitted any application nor informed about his absence. The averment regarding extending leave for 7
days upto 28.1.2007 as permission granted by chief manager on telephone is false. No leave including paternity
leave was granted by Chief Manager on telephone. The filing of annexures (copy of applications) by applicant is
an afterthought to give an impression that he had informed the bank regarding his absence. The alleged leave
applications were not received by the bank. There is no provision of paternity leave as per VIII B.P. Settlement.
The petitioner has filed fabricated/concocted letters with his claim. The petitioner first time forwarded the letter
dated 11.5.2007 seeking leave from 20.5.2007 to 5.6.2007 and then sought leave from 15.7.2007 to 5.8.2007
due to illness. Petitioner had not leave title available to his credit, therefore, his request for sanction of leave
could not be considered. Moreso, his application was not accompanied with a medical certificate and fitness
certificate. The petitioner sent a letter dated 16.6.2008 and stated therein that he was absent from bank since
6.1.2007. He admitted in that letter that he knew that the bank had sent notice to him. The bank has sent notice
to petitioner through registered post AD on 15.5.2007, 3.7.2007, 7.8.2007 and 7.9.2007. As the petitioner was
absent from duty for more than 90 days without obtaining prior permission from competent authority he
committed a breach of provisions of clause 33 of 8th B.P.Settlement dated 2.6.2005. The petitioner was deemed
to have voluntarily vacated his employment w.e.f. 7.9.2007. The petitioner stated that he was confined to jail
from March, 2009 to March, 2010, whereas he was deemed to have voluntarily vacated the service on 7.9.2007
i.e. more than one and half year earlier to his confinement in jail. The order of controlling authority is strictly in
accordance with the provisions of clause 33 of 8th B.P. settlement dated 2.6.2005. The notices sent to the
petitioner were on the address available on the bank records given by the petitioner himself. So it cannot be said
that the petitioner was not aware of the notices. Thus, a proper service was made by the bank. The endorsement
made by the postal authorities on returned postal covers indicate that he was not available at the residence and
also the postman informed his family members about registered covers sent from the bank. The petitioner
deliberately chose not to take delivery of the notices sent by respondent. Clause 33 of 8th B.P.Settlement dated
2.6.2005 is distinct & independent. It is a self-contended code & lay down procedure for taking action against
those employees who are absenting from duty unauthorizedly. Treating this absence as voluntary vacation from
service, the respondent has prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed.
5.
The applicant in its evidence has examined himself (Ashok Kumar Meena) as witness and filed
affidavit on 27.3.2017. Copy of which was given to respondent. The applicant has exhibited Ex-w-1 to w-5 in its
evidence.
6. On 10.3.2021 it was ordered by the Tribunal that the State Bank of India be impleaded as a party
respondent in place of State Bank of Hyderabad as the State bank of Hyderabad has been merged in the State
Bank of India vide gazetted notification dated 22.2.2017. Accordingly, amended cause title of claim was ordered
to be filed, which was complied with by the applicant.
7. On 6.7.2021, the applicant has filed an application alongwith the orders of Hon’ble Rajasthan High
Court passed in S.B. writ misc. application no. 61/2021, Ashok Kumar Meena V/s Asst. General Manager, State
Bank of Hyderabad passed on 24.3.2021 and S.B. Civil writ petition. No. 1949/2021 passed on 17.2.2021.
Hon’ble High court has directed this tribunal to decide the dispute within a period of four months.
8. On 27.7.2021 none responded on behalf of respondents and no reason was assigned for this absence. In
these circumstances, this tribunal was left with no alternative but to proceed ex-parte against the respondent.
9. On 23.9.2021, arguments of applicant were heard ex-parte and the date was fixed as 12.10.21 for
passing the award, but on 7.10.21 an application was moved by the respondent for setting aside the order for ex-
parte proceedings against it. On 1.11.21 this application was allowed and the order passed on 27.7.21 against the
1346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
respondent was set aside and opportunity to cross-examine the applicant and produce its evidence was given to
respondent. The respondent has examined Sh. Surya Prakash Rao Yemarisety, A.G.M. in its evidence and
exhibit Ex M-1 to M-6 as documentary evidence. On 9.5.22, 24.5.22 and 19.7.22 arguments (oral as well as
written) of both the parties were heard and perused the evidence of parties available on record. On 24.5.22 it
was deemed necessary and accordingly ordered by the Tribunal that the letter dated 16.6.08 which was sent by
the claimant to respondent ( as averred in para -11) of claim and respondent also admitted its receipt in para 11
of reply be produced by both the parties for perusal. In compliance of this order respondent produced the letter
of applicant dated 16.6.08, which was marked EX-C-1 as court exhibit in the interest of justice.
10.
The representative of applicant contended that the applicant while proceeding on leave since 6.1.2007
taken permission of respondents manager on telephone. He was permitted to remain absent from duty upto 28th
Jan., 2007. He has also intimated the respondents from time to time informing the circumstances, under which
he is not able to report on duty but the respondent ignoring the leave applications and intimation sent to it,
arbitrarily passed the order regarding vacation of service by applicant himself. Respondent has not sent any
notice to applicant as mandated under clause 33 of 8th. B.P. Settlement. Attracting the attention of Tribunal
towards letter R-1 of respondent, he has contended that it bears no signature of Chief Manager. On letter R-2,
which has been marked as notice I dated 3.7.2007 has not been received by the applicant. Similarly, annex. R-3
has been marked as final notice mentioning the notice 1st dated 16.5.2007 and 5.7.2007 which creates doubt
regarding its reality. The respondent has concocted these notices to justify its order. The respondent has not
given any opportunity to applicant to put his defence violating the principles of natural justice.
11. The representative of applicant has cited the following judgements in support of his arguments:
1. 2009 LAB(IC) 2036 (Supreme Court), Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v/s Vijay Krishna
Neema & ors.
2. 1998 (6) supreme 534 Union of India v/s Dinanath Shanta Ram karekar & others.
3. Civil appeal No. 4410 of 2012 (Supreme Court), Union of India v/s Suresh kumar singh.
4. 2006 (4) RLW 3028 (Rajasthan H.C) State of Rajasthan v/s Harishchandra Sharma.
5. 2007 (2) SLC (LCS) 242 Bikash Bhooshan Ghosh & others v/s Novarties India Ltd. & others.
6. 2002-III LLJ 142 (madras) Neslin Joseph Prim v/s P.O., CGIT Cum L.C Chennai.
7. AIR 1968 S.C. 1473 Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v/s Mohd. Haji Latif & others
8. 2001 WLC (UC) 607 (Rajasthan) Municipal Corporation Kota v/s Judge Industrial Tribunal & others.
12.
Per contra the representative of respondent assailing the argument of applicant has argued that the
respondent has complying the provision of clause No. 33 of VIII. B.P. Settlement issued notices through
registered post and asked applicant to report for work but the claimant failed to report for work Hence it was
deemed that he has voluntarily vacated his employment. Respondent has objected that this tribunal does not
have territorial jurisdiction over the present matter. Dispute has to be adjudicated on the basis of place where the
workman is working and the adverse order is operating. The claimant has not come with clean hands and correct
facts. Hence he is not entitled for any relief.
13.
The claimant was continuously absent form work from 06.01.2007 onwards exceeding more than 90
days without prior sanction form the competent authority. Therefore his absence is to be treated as voluntary
vacation from service. Claimant had no leave at his credit, since the day he remained absent unauthrisedly. The
claimant has deliberately avoided the receipt of letters/notices sent to him by regd. Post. Postal authorities
endorsed on the envelops of notices that addressee is not available but his family members were informed about
these letters/notices who were present at the address. The claimant has also in his letter dated 16.06.08 accepted
that the bank sent notices and he could not get them because he was not at home, but after some time he came to
know about these letters. He has relied upon the following judgment to fortify his arguments:-
1. C.A No. 1405/2016 (Supreme Court) Nand Ram v/s M/s Garware polyester Ltd. Jud. 16.02.2016.
2. 2009 (1) ALD 133 (Andhra Pradesh) S.Padmanabhan & others v/s Industrial Tribunal-II.
3. 1991 AIR (SC) 1401 Municipal Corp. Raipur v/s Ashok Kumar Mishra.
4. CWP 1753/1995 (Rajasthan HC) Judgement date 11.10.2011 Ram Singh Meena/ Bank of India.
5. C.A 6898/2004 (Sup. Court) Jud. Dated 1.09.2009 Regional Manager Bank of Baroda v/s Anita
Nandrajog(Delhi High Court).
6. W.P (C) 5206/2002 (Delhi H.C) J.D. 25.05.2015 Shri Vijay Kumar Narang v/s Union Bank of India.
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1347
7. 2016 (4) ALD 119 (Andhra Pradesh HC) M.K Tirupathi Rao V/s Dy. G.M Syndicate Bank.
8. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) 1885 of 2020 Vishva Bandhu/Shri Krishna & others.
14.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the averments, evidence and arguments of parties in the light
of the law propounded in cited judgements. The following points emerge for consideration:
Point No.(1):- Whether the respondent has not complied with the provisions of clause 33 of VIII B.P. settlement,
therefore the claimant’s absence from work cannot be treated as voluntary vacation from service?
…claimant
Point No.(2):- Whether this tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute refered to it by the
Central Government?
…… respondent
Point No.(3):- Relief.
Point No. 1
15.
First of all, it is to be seen whether respondent was expected to follow the procedure for initiating
departmental enquiry against the applicant as argued on behalf of the applicant. In this context, the applicant has
cited the judgement of Supreme Court rendered in Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v/s Vijay Krishna
Neema & ors. In this judgement, Hon’ble Supreme court has said that as there was nothing to show that notice
was sent to delinquent under registered cover with AD and officers of the bank were aware of his changed
address, it cannot be presumed that notices sent to the delinquent were received by him. Absence without leave
constitute grave misconduct hence, notice in that regard was required to be served on employee by registered
AD. In the light of this verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I have gone through Ex M 6/1, 6/3 and 6/4 legible
copies of returned envelopes with remarks of postal employees, produced by the respondent. These exhibits
fortify the contention of the respondent that the notices were sent to the applicant on his given address recorded
in service record but he was not available on that address voluntarily. On Ex M 6/1, it has been reported by the
postal employee in Hindi “pane wala bina pate ke baher gaya hua hai, Ath R.L amanat mein rakhi gai
suchna di gayee”, Similarly on Ex 6/3 the postal employee has endorsed on A.D slip in Hindi that “pane wala
bahar rehta hai jiska pata nehi hone se vapas”. Likewise on Ex 6/4 the similar report has been mentioned by
the postal employee on registered cover of letter in Hindi “ Pane wala ghar par nahi raheta hai, gharwalon
ko pata nahi hai. Atah R.L avdhi hone par wapas bheji gai” The address mentioned on these envelops is
similar as given by the applicant in title of statement of claim. The claimant in his cross examination has
admitted that all correspondences are made on the address given by him in his claim petition. His family
members receive the letters addressed to him. It is also considerable fact that in his letter dated 16.6.2008 (Ex-C-
1) the claimant had mentioned that “ I know that the bank send the notice to me but I have no information that
time about this notice and I cannot get the notice because I have not at the home at that time.” In Union of India/
Dinanath Shanta Ram karekar & others, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a document sent by
registered post can be treated to have been served only when it is established that it was tendered to the
addressee, when the registered cover was returned to the sender with the remark “not found” it cannot be legally
treated to have been served. In the light of the fact admitted by the claimant in Ex-C-1 (letter dated 16.6.2008)
and statement made during cross-examination it is proved that claimant was having sufficient knowledge of
issuance of notices at his address, where he or his family members had been residing and there was no other
address to which notices could have been sent to him. The vary purpose behind making provision of issuing
notices to delinquent employee under clause-33 of VIII B.P. Settlement is mainly to provide an opportunity to
explain the causes and circumstances for unauthorised absence from duty. But when the delinquent has admitted
that employer Bank had sent notices to him at his address, which could not be received by him, as he was not
available. It has also been established that the family members of delinquent were there to receive the notices,
who were informed by the postal employees, thus it has become unnecessary to discuss whether respondent had
produced postal receipts of registered letters as a proof of issue of notices and wrongfully marked notices as
first, second and final notice to delinquent. Respondent has relied upon judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court
Vishva Bandhu/Shri Krishna & others to fortify its stand. In this judgement Hon’ble Supreme Court has
propounded that when a notice is sent by registered post to the correct address of the addressee and is returned
with a postal endorsement “ refused” or “not available” in the house, or house is locked or addressee is not in
station, due service has to be presumed. Another judgement relied by the respondent is M.K Tirupathi Rao V/s
Dy. G.M Syndicate Bank. In this judgement Hon’ble Telengana- Andhra Pradesh High Court relying upon the
ratio of judgement of Supreme Court passed in Vinod Shivappa V/s Nanda Beliappa 2006 (6) SCC 456, has
held that when the employee managed to return the letter by postal authorities avoiding to take notice sent by the
employer. Employee deliberately avoided service of notice to reap consequences that had flown from such
notice. Notice sent by the employer was deemed to have been served on employee.
1348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16.
In the light of the above legal and factual Scenario the argument of claimant that the respondent had
not sent any notice to claimant as mandated under clause 33 of VIII B.P. settlement and the respondent
concocted the notices shown as sent to claimant, appears to be unacceptable and meritless. One more aspect is to
be considered relevant regarding leave title of claimant at its credit and the period of leave allegedly applied to
be extended.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement of Regional- Manager bank of Baroda v/s Anita
Nandrajog has propounded that when the employee did not have any leave remaining to her credit and she had
remained on unauthorised leave for a period of more than 150 days continuously, employee wrote a letter to
employer that she will be joining duty after a period of nine months on account of domestic problems, then the
employer (Bank) can validly order voluntary cessation of employment on the ground that employee had no
intention of resuming duty within 30 days (notice period) and the order of termination passed by Bank was
valid. Likewise Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Sh. Vijay kumar v/s Union Bank of India relying
upon the ratio propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that if a person is
absent beyond the prescribed period of leave of any kind which can be granted to him, he should be treated to
have resigned and cases to be in service. In such a case there is no need to hold an enquiry or to give any notice,
as it would amount to useless formalities. The respondent’s witness Sh. Surya Prakash Rao has stated that there
was no leave balance available in claimant’s account for sanction of leave. Claimant has sent a letter dated
20.12.2007 seeking leave for uncertain period on the ground of family problems. In the letter Ex C-1 the
claimant on 16.06.08 has prayed to extend his leave for two-three months i.e upto September 2008. This clearly
shows that the claimant had no intention to resume his duty till Sept. 2008, though he was not having any leave
title to his credit. In the light of ratio of the above judgements it can easily be presumed that the claimant had no
intention to resume duty and voluntarily vacated the employment/service of respondent. The respondent bank
had issued notices from time to time under clause 33 of VIII B.P. Settlement directing the employee to report on
duty within 30 days from the date of notice. But it appears that applicant deliberately evaded the service of
notice. Therefore, it cannot be held that respondent has not complied with the provision of clause 33 of VIII of
B.P. Settlement and did not provide any opportunity to defend to claimant.
17.
In this factual scenario, the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited by the claimant
does not support the contention of applicant regarding non-service of notices sent by the respondent. It appears
that notices were sent by regd. AD post from time to time to applicant and the applicant was not available on the
address given by himself however, his family members present at the address were informed by postal officials,
who in turn informed the claimant about these notices sent by respondent Bank.
18.
The above discussion clearly shows that the respondent has followed the procedure as provided under
clause 33 of VIII B.P. Settlement which is the self-contained discipline code and laid down procedure for
treating unauthorised absence as voluntary vacation. When the notices in compliance of procedure laid down
under clause 33 above through regd. Post acknowledgement due, at the last recorded address were issued by the
employer and this fact was well within the knowledge of claimant and his family members, the same should be
deemed to be good & proper service of the notices. As the applicant absented from duty for more than 90 days
without having sufficient leave title to his credit, the act of claimant can well be treated as voluntary vacation of
service and the action taken by the respondent against the applicant is not only just but lawful & proper as well.
Therefore, this point is decided against the claimant.
Point No.2
19.
The respondent has contended that claimant was working at Adilabad and his services were terminated
by the Bank at Hyderabad, therefore, jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute is only at Labour Court, Hyderabad,
and this tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. Respondent has relied upon the
following judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts.
20.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement Nand Ram V/s Garware Polyster Ltd, has said that
territorial jurisdiction exists where the part of cause of action arises and office of employer situates, both have
concurrent jurisdiction. Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in its judgement S.Padmanabhan & othrs. v/s
Industrial Tribunal & others, has propounded that situs of employment of workman would be relevant factor for
determining jurisdiction of court concerned. Provisions of section 20 of Civil Procedure Code would be taken as
guiding factor.
21.
Per contra, learned representative for claimant would argue that plea of respondent regarding lack of
jurisdiction of this tribunal is not substantial and acceptable. The respondent had neither objected regarding
jurisdiction of tribunal in its written statement nor it has challenged this issue before the Hon’ble High Court of
Rajasthan. Respondent cannot challenge the reference of dispute before this tribunal, it can only be challenged
before the High Court. This reference has been made by the appropriate government on the directions given by
the High Court. Claimant has relied upon a judgement of Hon’ble Rajasthan High court, State of Rajasthan V/s
Harish Chandra Sharma. The Hon’ble High Court has directed in this judgement that jurisdiction of Industrial
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1349
Tribunal is limited to the terms of reference. Challenge to reference cannot be made before the tribunal, it could
only be challenged before the High Court. He has also cited the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Bikash
Bhooshan Ghosh & others v/s Novarties India Ltd. & others., in which it has been held that where termination
order was served, communication of termination order may itself give rise to cause of action. In Neslin Joseph
Prim v/s P.O., CGIT Cum L.C Chennai, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has propounded that territorial
jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal depends on cause of action, residence of workman or place of work where
cause of action wholly or in part arises.
22.
In the light of above judicial precedents, it is crystal clear that the territorial jurisdiction of an Industrial
Tribunal or Court lies where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. More so, the appropriate government
has referred this dispute for adjudication to this tribunal, this tribunal is the creation of a statute and it gets
jurisdiction on the basis of reference. It cannot go into the question of validity of reference. As regards challenge
to the reference is concerned, the same can only be challenged before the Hon’ble High Court at initial stage.
The respondent had not even made any specific plea regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction of this tribunal in
its written statement and only raised this issue during arguments. More so, the place of communication of order
of termination is also relevant in this regard, which is in District Alwar ( Rajasthan). Therefore, the argument of
respondent regarding lack of jurisdiction to this tribunal is devoid of merit and unacceptable. Thus, this point is
decided against the respondent.
Point No. 3 (Relief)
23.
Keeping in view the decision rendered on point No. 1 and 2 above, the claimant does not appear
entitled for any relief against the respondent Bank as he himself voluntarily vacated the services of respondent
Bank from 7.9.2007. The reference is adjudicated as above.
24.
Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D.Act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2023
का. आ. 713.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj उत्तर ृूवथ रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] लखनऊ ds iapkV (05/2016)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 41011/71/2015 -आई आर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2023
S.O. 713.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.05/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Eastern
Railway and their workmen.
[No. L-41011/71/2015 -IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 05/2016
Ref. No. L-41011/71/2015-IR(B-I) dated 04.01.2016
1350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BETWEEN:
Zonal Organizing Secretary, Rail Sevak Sangh
C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49 Tilak Nagar, Lucknow
Vs
1. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway
Ashok Marg, Lucknow
2. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer(S.M.D.), North Eastern Railway
DRM office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
AWARD
By order No. L-41011/71/2015-IR(B-I) dated 04.01.2016, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication with
following schedule:
“क् ा ृूवोत्तर रेल प्रिासन, लखनऊ िवारा श्री राकेि कुमार, िूजन र क्लकथ को जन ुजि जतज
08-10-1997 के 2 वर्थ ृश्चात टाइृ टेस्ट्ट के 03 अवसर न िेकर सेवा मे जन जमत न करने,
एमएसीृी का लाभ त ा उससे िूजन सथ को िी ग ी ृिोन्नजत जतज से उसे ृिोन्नजत न दक ा
िाना न् ा ोजचत एवं बैि िै? दि निीं तो कामगार दकस राित को ृाने का िकिार िै?"
From the argument raised by Sri Narendra Nath, learned counsel for the respondent, the position which
emerges out is that after death of Shohrat Ali who was working as Tack Man at Biswa with the respondent an
application has been submitted by the workman for compensate appointment. As per the case of respondent
along with his application he submitted a marksheet of class fifth for the year 2002-2003, issued by the
Pradhanacharya, Harriaya, Distt. Balrampur in which the date of birth of the claimant was mentioned as
01.07.1992.
Another document which is annexed is mark sheet of Junior High School 2007, in which date of birth
of the claimant was mentioned as 09.11.1986, issued by the Purv Madhyamik Vidhayalay, Harriaya, Chandausi.
In view of the above said facts and taking into the consideration the service record of late Sri Shaukat
Ali in which he has mentioned that the mother of the claimant had died on 09.11.1986 and in the service record
of late Sri Shaukat Ali has been mentioned name of his son as Virendra, so, taking into consideration a notice
dated 30.01.2019, issued which reads as under:
“ृूवोत्तर रेलवे
का ाथल
मण्डल रेल प्रबन्िक (का०)
लखनऊ।
दिनांक 30.01.2019
सेवा में,
श्री ज्ञानेन्र बिािुर
ृुत्र स्ट्व0 सोिरत ग्राम मि़ौली ृो० गैसड़ी जिला बलरामृुर।
जवर् िः घोर्णात्मक प्रमाण-ृत्र प्रस्ट्तुत करने के सम्बंि में ।
आृके द्वारा इस मण्डल का ाथल में समाृक भुगतान िेतु आवेिन दक ा ग ा ा। इसके सन्िभथ में आृको सूजचत
दक ा िाता िै दक आृ सक्षम न् ा ाल में घोर्णात्मक वाि िाजखल कर घोर्णात्मक जडग्री प्राप्त कर इस का ाथल में
उृलब्ि करा ें जिससे आृके मामले में उजचत प्रिासजनक जनणथ जल ा िा सके। इस ृर सक्षम अजिकारी का आिेि
प्राप्त िै।
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1351
ि० (अृर त)
कषते मण्डल रेल प्रबंिक (कार्मथक)
ृूवोत्तर रेलवे, लखनऊ ।“
However, no reply has been submitted by the claimant.
Thus, taking into consideration, the above said facts as well as the fact that no oral/documentary
evidence have been filed on behalf of the claimant to support his claim, as such, the adjudication case is liable to
be dismissed.
Because, the 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.”
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2023
का. आ. 714.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQW cMksnk ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (54/2017) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12011/16/2017 -आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2023
S.O. 714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 54/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and
their workmen.
[No. L- 12011/16/2017-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
1352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID. 54/2017
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 24.02.2023
The General Secretary
Dena Bank Employees Union
Nareshpal Centre, No. 27 VV Koil Street
Vellala Teynampet
Chennai-600086
….First Party Petitioner
AND
1. The Chairman & Managing Director
Bank of Baroda Corporate Office
C-10, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra (East)
Mumbai-400051
….First Respondent
2. The Regional Manager
Bank of Baroda, Chennai Zonal Office
BKR Convention Centre, 3rd Floor
No. 32, Venkatesan Street
T. Nagar
Chennai-600017
….Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
Advocate, M/s Karl Marx
For the First & Second Respondent :
Advocate, Sri C. Paranthaman
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/16/2017–
(IR(B.II) dtd. 26.05.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Zonal Management of Dena Bank, Chennai in outsourcing the job of
filling Cash in ATMs, the job of Cash Van Driver and Business Correspondents in alleged
violation of Industrial Level Bipartite Settlement is justified or not? If not, what is the relief?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is
registered as ID No. 54/2017 and due notices were issued to both sides for their appearance and Claim
Statement on 03.07.2017. The General Secretary of First Party Petitioner’s Union (hereinafter be referred as
“The Petitioner) did not turn up. The case was listed to 01.08.2017 and subsequent dates till 10.10.2018
intervening several dates, as post of Presiding Officer was vacant. Meantime when the post of Presiding Officer
was filled-up, the case was again listed and re-listed to two more dates i.e. 24.12.2018 and 04.03.2019. The
Petitioner did not turn up. The case was adjourned to 25.03.2019 directing the Petitioner to file Claim Statement
as last chance. On 25.03.2019, the Petitioner filed the Claim Statement. The Respondent was directed to file
Counter Statement fixing the case to 13.05.2019, 02.07.2019 and 13.08.2019. The Respondent Counsel filed a
Memo for change of Cause Title on the ground that the Respondent’s Bank, Dena Bank merged with Bank of
Baroda and the relevant notification was filed. The amendment was accordingly carried out and the Counter
Statement was filed by the Respondent on 17.03.2020. The Petitioner was directed to file Affidavit-Evidence.
Due to outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19 there was no progress in the case as simply the case was listed and re-
listed to several dates in the whole of the year 2020 and till 16.08.2021. After relaxation of lockdown, the
Tribunal took up case directing the Petitioner to file the Affidavit-Evidence. The Petitioner did not turn up
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1353
resulting further adjournments till 02.12.2021 intervening 4 dates. However, the Petitioner was again directed to
file Affidavit-Evidence vide Order dtd. 17.01.2022 and the case was fixed to 17.02.2022, 29.03.2022,
18.05.2022 and 13.07.2022. On 13.07.2022, the Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Counsel for the
Respondent was present and raised objection not to re-schedule the case to any other date. Even then for the
interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again afforded with another adjournment as last chance fixing the
case to 01.09.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Respondent Counsel filed Affidavit-Evidence
with a prayer to set the Petitioner Ex-Parte and to accept Affidavit-Evidence of MW1. In the circumstance,
without resorting to coercive step against the Petitioner the Tribunal suo-moto adjourned the case to 12.09.2022
directing the Petitioner to file Affidavit-Evidence and to get ready for examination of his Witness. On that day,
the Respondent Counsel filed the Affidavit-Evidence of its Witness whereas the Petitioner failed to file any
Affidavit-Evidence of his own or any Witness on his behalf. Not a single Petition was filed either seeking time
or for any purpose through the Petitioner, the General Secretary of its Authorized Representative or Counsel.
However, for the interest of justice the case was again re-listed to 20.10.2022 for the same purpose. None on
behalf of the First Party Petitioner was present nor any Time Petition was filed.
3.
In the fact and circumstance, it is felt that the General Secretary, the First Party Petitioner Union is not
interested to proceed with the case . It reveals that despite of several adjournments, due to non-participation of
the Petitioner in the proceeding there was no progress in the case, the case is simply dragged for more than five
years. The Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand humbly submits not to repost the case to any other date
but to dispose the same in accordance to Law.
4.
In such circumstance, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the
Appropriate Government vide dtd. 26.05.2017. The case is liable for dismissal due to non-cooperation and
default in appearance of the First Party Petitioner Union. In the circumstance, it is held proper to dispose of the
case without wasting the valuable time of the Tribunal.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government.
In the result the ID case stands dismissed.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2023
का. आ. 715.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj rfeyukMq xkze cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUub
ds iapkV (16/2021)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2023-आई आर (बी-I)-54]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2023
S.O. 715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.16/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Tamil Nadu Grama
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L- 12025/01/2023-IR(B-I)-54]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 16/2021
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
Date: 29.07.2022
1354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sri S. Vimalraj
C/o The General Secretary
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank Workers Union
Office of the Tamilnadu Grama Bank
Minnampalli-636106
…1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank Head Office
Yercaud Road
Salem-7
…2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
None
For the 2nd Party/Respondents :
Advocate, M/s Aiyar & Dolia
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 7/1/2021-A1 dtd.
30.04.2020 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of Sri S. Vimalraj for reinstatement alongwith all benefits against
the management of Tamil Nadu Grama Bank is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is
registered in ID No. 16/2021 and notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
16.08.2021. Since then, the case is dragged for such a long period till 26.07.2022 intervening almost 4
adjournments in the year 2021 viz. 30.08.2021, 01.10.2021, 15.11.2021 and 17.12.2021 and 4 adjournments in
the year 2022 i.e. 21.01.2022, 17.03.2022, 05.05.2022 and 26.07.2022. The Petitioner nor the Authorized
Representative appeared on any of those days. It appears even if for the interest of justice the Tribunal suo-
moto afforded sufficient opportunities to the Petitioner, there was no progress in the proceeding due to the non-
cooperation of the Petitioner. The non-appearance and non-participation in the proceeding by the Petitioner nor
any Authorized Representative on her behalf, constrained the Tribunal not to repost the proceeding to any other
date for the same purpose as much as it deems the petitioner has no interest to proceed with the case. Thus, the
case is liable for dismissal in accordance to Law.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government.
In the result the reference is answered against the Petitioners.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2023
का. आ. 716.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (23/2020) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12011/12/2020 -आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1355
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2023
S.O. 716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.23/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/12/2020 -IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 23/2020
Present: DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., Presiding Officer
Date: 04.08.2022
Sri Kandasamy & Others
Rep. by the General Secretary
Canara Bank Employees Union
A.K. Nayak Bhawan
2nd Floor, Second Line Beach
Chennai-600001
….1st Party/Petitioner Union
AND
The General Manager
Canara Bank Circle Office
St. Mary’s Compound
East Veli Street
Madurai-625001
….2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : Advocates, M/s S. Mohan & Associates
For the 2nd Party/Respondents : Advocates, M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/12/2020-IR
(B.II) dtd. 10.06.2020 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the demand of of the Canara Bank Employees’ Union for re-designation of S/Sri S.
Kandasamy, D. Murugesan and M. Esakkiappan, Part-Time Employees absorbed as
Housekeeper-cum-Peon in the Canara Bank from 10.01.2012 as Sub-Staff with retrospective
effect from 2001, is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is
registered in ID No. 23/2020 and notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
19.11.2020. On that day,Vakalat was filed by the Petitioner Union and the Respondent. Owing to ensuing
Pandemic COVID-19 and resultant lockdown, the case was adjourned to 7 more dates in the year 2021 i.e.
04.03.2021, 29.03.2021, 03.05.2021, 14.07.2021, 28.09.2021, 05.11.2021 and 16.12.2021 for the same purpose.
Neither of the parties appeared on the above dates. The ID case was further liberally afforded with more
adjournments in the year 2022 i.e. 20.01.2022, 02.03.2022, and 13.04.2022. The Petitioner Union nor the
Authorized Representative turned up. The ID case was adjourned to 01.06.2022. On that day, the Counsel for
the Respondent is present whereas none on behalf of First Party Union appeared. However, in the interest of
justice, the ID case is again adjourned to 28.07.2022. On that day neither the General Secretary of the First
Party Union nor any Authorized Representative appeared to represent their case resulting to reserve the ID case
for final orders.
1356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
It deems the petitioner has no interest to proceed with the case. Thus, the case is liable for dismissal in
accordance to Law.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication
as referred by the Appropriate Government.
In the result the reference is answered against the Petitioners.
The ID Case stands dismissed.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2023
का. आ. 717.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV
(23/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12012/109/2013 -आई आर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2023
S.O. 717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.23/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L- 12012/109/2013-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Dated the 26th day of December, 2022
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 23/2014
BETWEEN:
Sri G. Balaiah,
S/o Late Bhoodaiah,
R/o Hanuman Gali, Narsinghi Village,
Chegunta(M), Medak District. Medak.
….Petitioner
AND
1. The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India, Regional Business
Officer, 5-26/2, Hemadurga Sarada Galaxy,
1st Floor, BHEL ‘X’ Roads,
Ramachandrapuraml, Hyderabad.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Chegunta Branch,
Medak District, Medak – 502255.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Party in Person
For the Respondent: M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy & Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocates
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1357
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-12012/ 109/2013-IR(B.I) dated
12.2.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of State Bank of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Cheguta Branch of
Nalgonda Distt, Andhra Pradesh in terminating the services of Sri G. Balaiah, Sweeper is
fair, proper and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 23/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned and the Petitioner entered appearance. Petitioner filed claim statement and Respondent filed counter
statement.
2. Both parties are absent on the date of hearing. Docket reveals that the case is fixed for Petitioner’s
evidence since 31.3.2017 and number of opportunities were provided to petitioner for adducing the evidence.
The case was fixed for petitioner’s evidence on 15.5.2017, 4.8.2017, 12.10.2017, 3.1.2018, 21.3.2018,
11.7.2018, 5.11.2018, 21.12,2018, 6.3.2019, 11.6.2019, 20.8.2019, 11.12.2019, 7.2.2020 and so on. Petitioner
did not appear in the case nor adduced any evidence, although sufficient number of opportunities have been
provided to him.
3. It thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner seems to be not interested in pursuing his case and as
such a no claim award is given against the workman/petitioner. As such, a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 26th 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, 3 मई, 2023
का.आ. 718.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj मोरमुगाओ ृोटथ रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 2 eqEcbZ ds iapkV
(5/2011) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 36011/4/2010-आई आर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
1358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 6, 2023/ VAISAKHA 16, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2023
S.O. 718.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 5/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No.2 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mormugao
Port Trust and their workmen.
[No. L- 36011/4/2010-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
Present: LAXMI NARAIN JINDAL, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/5 of 2011
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
MORMUGAO PORT TRUST
(Now: MORMUGAO PORT AUTHORITY)
The Chairman
Mormugao Port Trust
Mormugao Harbour
Goa 403 803.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The President
Mormugao Port & Railway Workers Union
Main Administrative Office Building
Mormugao Port Trust
Headland Sada, Goa 403 804.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. G.M. Rege, Advocate i/b
M/s. Kini & Co.
FOR THE WORKMAN
:
Mr. Ulhas Thanekar,
Representative of Union
Camp: Goa Dated the 8th February, 2023.
AWARD
1. This reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of
India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-36011/4/2010 – IR (B-II) dated 25.02.2011.
The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the action of the management of Mormugao Port Trust in denying
promotion as Dy. Marine Surveyor to Shri T.S. Rajput, Asstt. Marine Surveyor, is legal
and justified? What relief the workman is entitled for ?”
[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मई 6, 2023/ वैिाख 16, 1945
1359
2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices and they appeared and filed
their respective pleadings. Both parties led their evidence and filed their respective written arguments. Matter
was fixed for oral arguments.
3. Shri Ulhas Thanekar, President of the Mormugao Port & Railway Workers Union is present today and
he has made the following statement.
“It is stated that I am not interested in pursuing this matter as the same stands settled mutually.
Therefore ‘no dispute’ award may be passed”.
4. In view of the above, ‘no dispute’ award is passed in the present reference.
LAXMI NARAIN JINDAL, 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: 2023.05.12 16:07:27 +05'30'