5908 GI/2023

(3451)

रजजस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 39]

नई ददल् ली, जसतम् बर 24—जसतम् बर 30, 2023, िजनवार/ आज‍ वन 2—आज‍ वन 8, 1945

No. 39]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 24—SEPTEMBER 30, 2023, SATURDAY/ASVINA 2—ASVINA 8, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती िज जजससे दक यि ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए सांजवजधक आदेि और अजधसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 18 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1556.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजजन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उृ-धारा

(3) के खंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक आफ बड़़ौदा के

कायजृालक जनदेिक श्री अजय के. खुराना (जन्म जतजथिः 17.3.1964) की वतजमान अजधसूजचत कायाजवजध, जो ददनांक

19.9.2023 को समाप्त िो रिी िज, को उनकी अजधवर्षिता की तारीख अथाजत 31.3.2024 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक,

जो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/2(i)/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14102023-249436

CG-DL-W-14102023-249436

3452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2023

S.O. 1556.—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, the Central Government hereby

extends the term of office of Shri Ajay K. Khurana (DoB: 17.3.1964), Executive Director, Bank of Baroda beyond his

currently notified term which expires on 19.9.2023, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.3.2024, or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/2(i)/2023-BO.-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 18 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1557.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजजन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उृ-धारा

(3) के खंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक आफ इंजडया के

कायजृालक जनदेिक श्री ृी. आर. राजगोृाल (जन्म जतजथिः 14.7.1967) की वतजमान अजधसूजचत कायाजवजध, जो ददनांक

29.2.2024 को समाप्त िो रिी िज, को दो विज की अवजध के जलए अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/2(ii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2023

S.O. 1557.—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, the Central Government hereby

extends the term of office of Shri P. R. Rajagopal (DoB: 14.7.1967), Executive Director, Bank of India beyond his

currently notified term which expires on 29.2.2024, for a period of two years, or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[eF. No. 4/2(ii)/2023-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 18 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1558.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजजन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उृ-धारा

कायजृालक जनदेिक श्री एम. कार्षतकेयन (जन्म जतजथिः 17.3.1965) की वतजमान अजधसूजचत कायाजवजध, जो ददनांक

9.3.2024 को समाप्त िो रिी िज, को उनकी अजधवर्षिता की तारीख अथाजत 31.3.2025 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो

भी ृिले िो, बढाती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/2(iii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2023

S.O. 1558.—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, the Central Government hereby

extends the term of office of Shri M. Karthikeyan (DoB: 17.3.1965), Executive Director, Bank of India beyond his

currently notified term which expires on 9.3.2024, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.3.2025, or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/2(iii)/2023-BO.-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3453

नई ददल्ली, 18 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1559.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजजन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उृ-धारा

(3) के खंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, सेन्रल बैंक आफ इंजडया के

कायजृालक जनदेिक श्री जववेक वािी (जन्म जतजथिः 15.9.1965) की वतजमान अजधसूजचत कायाजवजध, जो ददनांक 9.3.2024

को समाप्त िो रिी िज, को उनकी अजधवर्षिता की तारीख अथाजत 30.9.2025 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले

िो, बढाती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/2(iv)/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2023

S.O. 1559.—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, the Central Government hereby

extends the term of office of Shri Vivek Wahi (DoB: 15.9.1965), Executive Director, Central Bank of India beyond

his currently notified term which expires on 9.3.2024, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 30.9.2025, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/2(iv)/2023-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 18 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1560.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजजन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उृ-धारा

(3) के खंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, यूजनयन बैंक आफ इंजडया के

कायजृालक जनदेिक श्री जनतेि रंजन (जन्म जतजथिः 11.11.1976) की वतजमान अजधसूजचत कायाजवजध, जो ददनांक

9.3.2024 को समाप्त िो रिी िज, को दो विज की अवजध के जलए अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/2(v)/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2023

S.O. 1560.—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, the Central Government hereby

extends term of office of Shri Nitesh Ranjan (DoB: 11.11.1976), Executive Director, Union Bank of India beyond his

currently notified term which expires on 9.3.2024, for a period of two years, or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[eF. no. 4/2(v)/2023-BO.-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 22 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1561.—रा्‍ रीय आवास बैंक अजधजनयम, 1987 (1987 का 53) की धारा (6) की उृ-धारा (1) के

खंड (च) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन् रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्रीमती कजवता ृद्मनाभन, आयुि एवं

सजचव, असम सरकार के स्ट्थान ृर श्री ृंकज, जविेि सजचव, िररयाणा सरकार, जवत्त जवभाग को अजधसूचना की तारीख

से तीन विज की अवजध के जलए या अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, रा्‍ रीय आवास बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में जनदेिक

के ृद ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[फा.सं. 24/17/2010-आईएफ.II]

अजनल कुमार, अवर सजचव

3454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2023

S.O. 1561.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the

National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Pankaj, Special

Secretary to Government, Haryana, Finance Department as Director on the Board of Directors of National Housing

Bank, vice Smt. Kavitha Padmanabhan, Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Assam, for a period of 3 years

from the date of notification or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 24/17/2010-IF.II]

ANIL KUMAR, Under Secy.

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 4 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1562.—केंर सरकार, राजभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में प्रसार भारती, आकािवाणी मिाजनदेिालय के अधीनस्ट्थ कायाजलय यथा आकािवाणी

केंर, देिरादून, जजनके 80% से अजधक कमजचाररयों ने हिदी का कायजसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िज, को अजधसूजचत करती

िज।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/10/2017-हिदी]

इफ्तेखार अिमद, उृ जनदेिक (राजभािा)

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2023

S.O. 1562.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes

of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the subordinate office of Prasar Bharti, Directorate

General, Akashwani namely Akashwani Kendra, Dehradun, whereof more than 80% of the staff have acquired the

working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/10/2017-Hindi]

IFTEKHAR AHMAD, Dy. Director (O.L.)

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 19 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1563.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj

बी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

-

सि

-

नं. 2] धनबाद ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- एल-20012/6/2008-आईआर(सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंदन एन., उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023

S.O. 1563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.22/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court NO. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7/09/2023.

[No. L-20012/6/2008-IR(CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3455

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Dr.S.K.Thakur,

Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 22 OF 2008.

PARTIES

The Working President.,

Janta Mzdoor Union,

Barnwall Bhawan,

Saraidhella,Dhanbad-826001 .

The General Manager,

P.B.Area of M/s BCCL.,

PO: Kusunda,Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

Order No.L-20012/6/08 –IR (CM-I) dt. 12.03.2008

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr.Pintu Mandal Ld. Union Rep. .

On behalf of the Management

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Ld.Adv.,

State

Jharkhand Industry

: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the, 24^th April, 2023

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their

Order No.L-20012/6/08 –IR (CM-I) dt. 12.03.2008 .

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the Management of Balihari Colliery of M/s BCCL in not allowing Shri Prayag

Bhuia, Line Mazdoor to join his duty in the Company w.e.f. 26.4.2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled ?‖

2. The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employeer,i.e., P.B. Area of M/s BCCL ,Dhanbad and its workman /claimant herein under clause (d) of Sub-

Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act.,1947 vide letter No. L-20012/6/08-

IR(CM-I) dated 12.03.2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication .The order deals with the action of the Management of

Balihari Colliery of M/s BCCL in not allowing the workman to join duty which he describes illegal to the charge

leveled against him.

3. The facts leading to Industrial Dispute as narrated by the claimant in the claim petition is that the concerned

workman/Petitioner namely Shri Prayag Bhuia is/was a permanent employee of M/s BCCL designated as Line

Mazdoor posted at Balihari Colliery of M/s BCCL .The workman had gone to his native place and fallen in serious

illness .Due to this the workman started absenting from office but his family informed the about the illness of the

workman before the Colliery Management .But the Management chargesheeted him on account of the misconduct of

the workman and constituted an enquiry under an Enquiry officer which in its report held the workman found guilty

of not informing the OP/Management about his illness before the Management .Subsequently the OP/Management

was ready to allow him to resume duty with stoppage of one annual increment subject to fitness of health.The

OP/Management sent the workman to Apex Medical Board. But the medical test could not be conducted due to

3456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lack of certain documents. Then again sent to Central Hospital, Dhanbad but this time also the test could not be

conducted. Due to absentism the constitution of Medical Panel was not feasible as stated by the Doctor .Thus, the

workman was thrown out of employment on account of non conducting test for no fault of him .He was neither

placed under suspension nor dismissed .Thus, the workman cried foul play in the hands of the Management

seeking an Award his favour.

4. Being called upon. the OP/Management came out with assertion that the fact of the present dispute of the

workman Sri Prayag Bhuia is not maintainable either in law or fact and cannot stand in the eye of law as it suffers

from mischievous suppression and non-disclosure of material facts . That the workman had been absenting from duty

without information and prior approval from the Competent Authority w.e.f. 26.4.2002. On being chargesheeted the

workman replied to it which was found unsatisfactory leading to conducting of domestic enquiry giving full

opportunity to defend /represent .In course of enquiry held at length the charges has fully been established without

any doubt .So the Disciplinary Authority decided to allow the workman on duty with stoppage of one Annual

Increment subject to fitness by the Apex Medical Board .The workman did not attend the Medical Board for medical

examination nor did he inform the OP/Management of his non-appearance So he was not allowed to resume the duty

as he did not have any existing or legal right to claim for resumption of duty as he resigned from the services of the

Company in the year 2010.

5. With serving notices to both of the parties the proceeding was set in motion.The workman failed to file written

statement of claim for five years and so the proceeding was closed as non-existent on 13.06.2013.Subsequently the

proceeding-was resumed on prayer of claimant side and claimant side filed written statement on 31.07.2013.The

O.P./Management side filed WS/Rejoinder of the Management on 05.09.2014 and served upon the workman .The

Management also filed copies of documents on 10.12.2014 and served upon the workman.

Subsequently the proceeding continued for adjudication and opportunity provided for hearing and adjudication

on several dates till 13.10.2022.But the workman failed to attend or represent since 2014.He neither adduce evidence

nor did he submit document in support of his contention .So being situation the OP/ Management was called upon

to file written argument. Ld. Advocate appearing for Management submitted that the claimant had resigned from

service. That is why the claimant opted to stay away from the proceedings.

6. Thus on totality of the facts of the matter and materials on record it clearly appears that the workman is not

interested in adjudication of the case on merits as he neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to

prove his cause against the OP/Management in the light of the same. The merit of the case became collapsed with

resignation from service by the workman to be considered the sole ground of his staying away from the proceeding of

the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a No Claim Award and as such the Award is

passed granting no relief to the workman.

Dr. S. K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 19 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1564.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

अधीक्षक, जवभाग. ृोस्ट्ट ऑटोमेटेड मेल प्रोसेहसग सेंटर, इंजडया ृोस्ट्ट मजिृालृुर, नई ददल्ली; मु्‍य ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर जनरल

(ददल्ली सकजल) मेघदूत भवन, नई ददल्ली; संचार मंत्रालय दूरसंचार जवभाग, अिोक रोड, नई ददल्ली,के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोजकों और श्री भानु प्रताृ, कामगार, द्वारा - अजखल भारतीय जनरल मजदूर रेड यूजनयन, जगरी नगर, कालकाजी, नई

ददल्ली, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभज

सं्‍या 73/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

19.09.2023को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- एल-40011/6/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023

S.O. 1564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 73/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Superintendent ,Dept. of Post Automated Mail Processing Centre, India Post Mahipalpur, New Delhi ;

The Chief Post Master General (Delhi Circle) Meghdoot Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Ministry of

Communication Dept. of Telecommunication , Ashoka Road, New Delhi, and Shri Bhanu Pratap , Worker,

though- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.09.2023.

[No. L-40011/6/2021-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3457

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

Present :

Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.)

(Presiding officer)

CGIT, Delhi-1

ID No.73/2022

Shri Bhanu Pratap S/o Sh.Sukhvendra Singh

Rept. By All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,

170 Bal Mukund Khand,

Giri Nagar, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110028.

Claimant…

Versus

The Superintendent

Dept. of Post Automated Mail

Processing Centre,

India Post Mahipalpur,

New Delhi.

The Chief Post Master General (Delhi Circle)

Meghdoot Bhawan,

New Delhi-110001.

The Ministry of Communication

Dept. of Telecommunication

Sanchar Bhawan, 20,

Ashoka Road,

New Delhi-110001.

Management…

None for the claimant

Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Dealing Assistant for Dept. of Post.

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.40011/6/2021-

IR(DU) dated 14.02.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

3458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

―Whether the demand of All India General Trade Union, Delhi vide letter dated 19.10.2020 for reinstatement

of Sh.Bhanu Pratap S/o Sh.Sukhvendra on his job to the management of Dept of Post, Automated Mail

Processing Centre, India Post, Mahipalpur, New Delhi and payment of his dues is proper, legal and justified?

If so, to what relief Sh.Bhanu Pratap is entitled and what directions are necessary in this matter?‖

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days

of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that

the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‗No Dispute/Claim‘ award. Let this award be

sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA, (Retd.) Presiding Officer

Date: 25.05.2023

नई ददल्ली, 20 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1565.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार भारत

संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 मुंबई ृंचाट(संदभज सं्‍या CGIT -1/29 of 2013) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया

गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 20.09.2023को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- एल-40011/17/2013-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023

S.O. 1565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT -1/29 of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and The Worker, which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 20.09.2023.

[No. L-40011/17/2013-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE K.D.BHUTIA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/29 of 2013

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

And

Their workmen

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3459

Appearances:

For the first party Management :

Absent.

For the second party workmen

Absent.

Dated the 23^rd day of August, 2023

AWARD

Parties are found absent when the matter is called.

As per record, today has been fixed for evidence of WW-1. The record further shows since 30.4.2020, the

union which has espoused the dispute has not been taking any step or pursuing with the hearing of the reference case.

Therefore, a presumption can be drawn the union which has espoused the present dispute is no more interested to

proceed with the reference case perhaps it no longer has any dispute over the issue with the management.

Be that as it may, the Central Government, Min. of Labour vide order No.L-40011/17/2013 – IR(DU) dated

27.05.2013, and in exercise of power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act has

referred the following issue to this Tribunal for adjudication.

―Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Ahmednagar to

discontinue the services of the 13 workmen w.e.f. dates mentioned against their name in the attached list and not

allowing them to continue their job is legal and justified? To what relief the workmen are entitled to?‖

The record shows the union which has espoused the above dispute has filed its claim statement as well as

rejoinder against the written statement filed by the management. Unfortunately, during the time of trial or at the time

of adducing evidence to prove the claim as made out in their claim application or in support of the issue under

reference it has stopped attending the tribunal, therefore, apart from the pleadings there is no corroborative evidence

either oral or documentary in support of the claim made by the union or to substantiate or to adjudicate the issue

under reference.

In view of the above, no dispute award is passed.

Accordingly, reference case of CGIT-29 of 2013 is disposed of.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1566.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मु्‍य

ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर जनरल ,के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कामगार /अजखल भारतीय डाक कमजचारी संघ, के बीच अनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 मुंबई ृंचाट(संदभज सं्‍या CGIT -1/13 of 2020) को

जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 20.09.2023को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-40011/16/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023

S.O. 1566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT -1/13 of 2020) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The Chief Post Master General, and The Worker / All India Postal Employees’ Union,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 20.09.2023.

[No. L-40011/16/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

3460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE KESANG DOMA BHUTIA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/13 of 2020

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

The Chief Post Master General

And

Their workmen [All India Postal Employees‘ Union]

Appearances:

For the first party Management :

Mr. B.K. Shukla, Adv.

For the second party workmen

Absent.

Dated the 24^th day of August, 2023.

AWARD

Management is present through its Learned counsel.

Today has been fixed for evidence from the side of the union. Unfortunately none appeared from the side of

the union when the matter is called.

Record shows that the union has stopped taking any step and appearing before this tribunal since 30.09.2022.

Therefore, a presumption can be drawn the union which has espoused the present dispute is no more interested to

proceed with the present case.

However, by order No. L-40011/16/2020 (IR(DU)) dated 29.09.2020, the Central Government, Ministry of

Labour in exercise of the power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has

referred the following issues to this Tribunal for adjudication.

―Whether the demand of All India Postal Employees Union-Postmen & MTS vide letter dated 27.03.2019 for

immediate filing up the vacancies in regard to the post of MTC, Postmen and sorting Assistant in Maharashtra Circle

from open Market is ‗industrial dispute‘ under ID Act, 1947 and if yes, whether the demand of All India Postal

Employees Union-Postmen & MTC vide letter dated 27.03.2019 for immediate filing up the vacancies in regard to the

post of MTC, Postmen and sorting Assistant in Maharashtra Circle from open Market is proper, legal and justified? If

yes, what relief is the Union is entitled to and what direction(s), if any, is necessary in the matter ?‖

This tribunal is unable to decide the dispute under reference in the absence of any corroborated oral and

documentary evidence merely on the basis of un-corroborated pleadings of the parties.

In view of above discussion, no dispute award is hereby passed.

Accordingly, reference case No. CGIT- 13 of 2020 is disposed of.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1567.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मजससज

अक्ष ऑजप्टफाइबर जलजमटेड,के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 मुंबई ृंचाट(संदभज सं्‍या CGIT-1/8 of 2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 20.09.2023को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- एल-42012/107/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023

S.O. 1567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT -1/8 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3461

employers in relation to M/s. Aksh Optifibre Ltd., and The Worker, which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 20.09.2023.

[No. L-42012/107/2015-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE KESANG DOMA BHUTIA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/08 of 2015

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

M/s.Aksh Optifibre Ltd

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party Management :

Absent.

For the second party workmen

Absent.

Dated the 21^st day of August, 2023.

AWARD

Neither the management nor the concerned workman are found present when the matter is called.

None appears on behalf of the parties on calls.

The record shows the concerned workman has not been appearing since 04.9.2018. That he has

failed to file rejoinder since then. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn the workman who has raised the present

dispute is no more interested to proceed with the dispute raised by him.

However, the Central Government, Min. of Labour by order no.L-42012/107/2015 - IR(DU) dated

05/06/2015/11/06/2015, in exercise of its power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the I.D.Act, 1947

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

(1) ―Whether the demand and dispute of the applicant over reinstatement of services on the roll

of M/s.Aksh Optifibre Ltd, at Mumbai is legal and justified?

(2) Whether the claim of the applicant for back wages w.e.f.01.11.2013 is legal and justified? If

so, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?‖

Unfortunately, apart from the claim statement there is neither oral or documentary evidence to substantiate

the case and claim of the concerned workman as made out in the claim statement.

The record also shows the alleged employer too is very irregular in conducting the case.

In view of the above, no dispute award is passed. Accordingly, reference case no.CGIT- 8 of 2015

is disposed of.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1568.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मु्‍य

ृोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर जनरल, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

3462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 मुंबई ृंचाट(संदभज सं्‍या CGIT -1/10 of 2020) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया

[सं. एल-40011/03/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023

S.O. 1568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT -1/10 of 2020) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., and The Worker, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 20.09.2023.

[No. L-40011/03/2020-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE KESANG DOMA BHUTIA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/10 of 2020

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party Management :

Mr.S.D.Shinde, Adv.

For the second party workmen

Absent.

Dated the 21^st day of August, 2023.

AWARD

Management is present.

None appears on behalf of the Union or workmen when the matter is called.

The record shows the union which has espoused the dispute and the three concerned workmen namely,

Smt.R.B.Vaity, Smt.D.D.Joshi and Sh. S.J.Tiwari have not been taking any step from the very inception of this case,

despite due service of notice of the present reference case upon the General Secretary, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam

Kaamgar Sangh on 13.8.2021. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that the union which has espoused the dispute is

no longer interested to pursue with the hearing of the present dispute or it has no more grievance against the

management over the issue under reference.

Be that as it may, the Central Government, Min. of Labour vide order no. L-40011/3/2020 – IR(DU) in

exercise of the power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the

following issue to this Tribunal for adjudication.

―Whether the demand of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Kamgar Sangh vide letter 24.01.2017 to the

management of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Navi Mumbai for settlement of pay anomaly arose due to

different promotion policy and different pay fixation rules in the case of Smt.R.B.Vaity, Smt. D.D.Joshi and

Sh.S.J.Tiwari all Sr. TOA(P) is fair, reasonable, legal and justified? If yes, what relief these workers are entitled to?‖

In view of above, no dispute award is passed.

Accordingly, reference case no.CGIT-10 OF 2020 is disposed of.

Justice K.D.BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3463

नई ददल्ली, 20 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1569.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

भारतीय ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण,के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 मुंबई ृंचाट(संदभज सं्‍या CGIT -1/09 of 2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

[सं. एल-42011/153/2022-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023

S.O. 1569.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT -1/09 of 2022) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Archaeological Survey of India, and The Worker, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 20.09.2023.

[No. L-42011/153/2022 -IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE KESANG DOMA BHUTIA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/09 of 2022

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Archaeological Survey of India

And

Their Workmen

Appearances:

For the first party Management :

Absent.

For the second party workmen

Absent.

Dated the 21^st day of August, 2023.

AWARD

Parties are found absent when the matter is called for hearing.

On perusal of the record, it appears notice of this reference was duly served upon the Superintending

Archaeologist, Archaeological survey of India, Padmapani Bhavan, Aurangabad as per AD card, while notice sent to

the President, Archaeological Survey of India Workers Union, which has espoused the present dispute has returned

undelivered with postal endorsement ―Refused‖ on 14.8.2023. It is settled principle of law refusal tantamount to good

service.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour by order no.L-42011/153/2022 – IR (DU) dt.24.05.2022 has

referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

―Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Aurangabad in

employing Shri Dhananjay Shastri and 28 others (list attached) as 1/30^th status casual labours in Aurangabad caves/

Bibi-ka-Makbara, Aurangabad and continuing as such from their initial engagement to till date as represented by

Archaeological Survey of India Workers Union, Aurangabad vide letter dated 06.08.2021, is proper, legal and

3464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

justified? If not, to what reliefs including permanency in service are the disputants entitled and what directions are

necessary in this respect?‖

Non-appearance of the parties despite having knowledge about the present reference case, a presumption can

be drawn parties are no more interested to pursue with the dispute. Further, an inference can be drawn that the union

which has espoused the dispute no longer has any grievance against the alleged employer over the above issue under

reference.

In view of above, no dispute award is passed accordingly and reference case no. 9 of 2022 is disposed of.

Justice KESANG DOMA BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1570.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार वररष्ठ

अधीक्षक, मुंबई उत्तर-ृजिम प्रभाग,, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 मुंबई ृंचाट(संदभज सं्‍या CGIT-1/16 of 2017) को जजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 20.09.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-40011/17/2017-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023

S.O. 1570.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT -1/16 of 2017) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The Sr. Superintendent, Mumbai North-West Division, and The Worker, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 20.09.2023.

[No. L-40011/17/2017-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE K.D.BHUTIA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/16 of 2017

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Sr. Superintendent of Post Office (Management North-West Division)

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party Management :

Mr.B.K.Ashok, Adv.

For the second party workmen

Absent.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3465

Dated the 23^rd day of August, 2023

AWARD

The management is present through its learned counsel Mr.B.K.Ashok. Unfortunately, none appears from the

side of the union which has espoused the present dispute when the matter is called.

The record shows union has stopped attending the Tribunal since 17.12.2021 and has not been taking any

step since then. It has failed to file statement of claim till date. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn the union is

no more interested to pursue with the dispute raised by it.

Be that as it may, the Central Government, Min. Of Labour by order No. L-40011/17/2017 – IR(DU) in

exercise of the power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

―Whether the action of Sr. Superintendent, Mumbai North-West Division in extending working hours of

MPCM and SB Counters, not granting genuine leave, challenging medical certificates, not sanctioning

double duty allowance, forcing staff to prepare fare repots and threatening them of charge-sheet, using

parliamentary language deputing staff to another Division without authority allotting delivery of mail to

postman on holidays and Sundays use to unsafe building, beat rotation, harass staff / office bearer

tantamount to abuse of power and unfair labour practice? If so, what relief the workman of Mumbai North-

West Division are entitled to?‖

That there is nothing in record to adjudicate the above issue under reference. Therefore, non-appearance of

the union, its failure to appear before this Tribunal shows that it has no dispute with the management on the issue

under reference.

Accordingly, no dispute award is passed and reference case no. CGIT-16 of 2017 is disposed.

Justice K.D.BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2023

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

रत्नाकर बैंक जलजमटेड 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; नंबर 1, कोल्िाृुर ds iapkV (a7/2014) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/74/2014-vkbZvkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2023

S.O. 1571.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 7/2014) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Kolhapur as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Ratnakar Bank Limited and their

workmen.

[No. L-12012/74/2014- IR(B.-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, AT KOLHAPUR

Reference(IT) No.7/2014.

(CNR No.MHIC09-000410-2014)

Between :

Ratnakar Bank Limited,

1^st Lane, Shahupuri, Kolhapur

(Through its Vice-President)

.. First Party.

And

Shri Avadhoot Prabhakar Ghorpade

A/p. Khadakewada,

Tal. Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur.

.. Second Party.

3466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

CORAM : Sameena Khan, Presiding Officer.

ADVOCATES : Shri S.S. Shah, Advocate for First Party.

Shri S.K.Patil, Advocate for Second Party.

-: P A R T -I A W A R D :-

( Date : 04.09.2019 )

This is a reference, referred by the appropriate Government, in exercise of its power under clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, vide order dated 16.12.2014, to

adjudicate the dispute between the parties with following schedule “Whether the action of the management of

Ratnakar Bank Limited in terminating the services of Shri Avdhoot Prabhakar Ghorpade, w.e.f. 05.08.2013, is

justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On reference of this dispute the Second Party workman filed its statement of claim at Exh.U-3. The

contentions and submissions of the workman as per statement of claim are summarized as follows:-

a) The workman was working with the First Party Bank in the capacity of Peon in clause-IV category in

its Rukadi Branch.

b) He was issued with an order of suspension dated 28.07.2009, alleging charges of misappropriation.

c) Thereafter, after further lapse of 10 months he was issued with the charge-sheet dated 26.05.2010.

d) The workman submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 23.03.2011, denying all the charges leveled

against him.

e) The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the workman by conducting domestic enquiry.

The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and findings, which was replied by the workman on

25.07.2013.

g) The workman was thereafter issued with an order of dismissal dated 05.08.2013.

h) The workman preferred an appeal to the appellate authority of the Bank, which was rejected.

The workman submits that the order of dismissal issued upon him is illegal and unjustified. The order of

dismissal was proceeded by issuance of charge-sheet and conducting domestic enquiry. The domestic

enquiry conducted against him is in total violation and in utter disregard of the principle of natural

justice.

It is also submitted that the Bank has not considered the objection of the workman in respect of

appointment of new Enquiry Officer in place of the earlier Enquiry Officer.

k) It is also submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and not based on evidence

before him. The Enquiry Officer has failed to consider the evidence on record and material points. Also

the materials admissions by the witness of the management during the cross-examination is ignored.

The First Party Bank appeared in the matter and filed its written-statement at Exh.C-2, inter-alia, denying the

entire contentions and submissions of the workman in his statement of claim. On behalf of the Bank it is submitted as

follows:-

a) The workman was employee with Bank at its Rukadi Branch as Peon. Being relatively small

establishment the workman was responsible for undertaking some additional duties.

b) In the month of June 2009, the Branch Manager of the concerned Branch received a Complaint in

respect of unauthorized withdrawal from saving account of a customer in July 2008.

c) Upon preliminary, enquiry, it was revealed that there has been multiple withdrawals from May-July

2008 for which withdrawal slips could not be traced.

d) On questioning the workman did not give satisfactory answer however later on he was voluntarily

tendered his confession on 03.06.2009. In the said confession letter the workman has clearly mentioned

that from June 2007, onwards he has unlawfully withdrawn money from 25-30 different bank accounts

from time to time, by forging signature of the customer amounting to about 3,00,000/-. In the confession

letter he agreed to compensate the Bank for the last cause of it.

e) The Bank submits that domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is by adherence to the principle

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3467

of natural justice. The employee was given due opportunity to depend himself and participate in the

inquiry proceedings.

The Bank further submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

based on evidence before him

and not perverse.

g) It is also submitted by the Bank that, the workman did not examine himself in the enquiry although

ample opportunity was given to him.

Since the workman has assailed the conduct of the enquiry and also the findings of the Enquiry Officer, issues

were framed at Exh.O-8 and the same are being decided as preliminary issues.

Therefore considering the Schedule of Reference and rival pleadings of both the parties, following issues were

framed at Ex.O-8. My findings on them, for the reasons stated below, are as under:-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted

In the negative.

against second party workman is illegal

and improper?

2) Whether the findings of enquiry officer

In the negative.

are illegal and perverse?

: REASONS :

Heard Learned Advocate Shri S.S.Shah, on behalf of the First Party Bank and Learned Advocate

Shri.S.K.Patil, on behalf of the Second Party Workman. Perused the statement of claim, the written statement, the

enquiry papers and proceedings filed on record and material on record. Advocates for both the parties have strenuously

argued the matter at length and have invited my attention to entire enquiry papers and proceedings.

Issue No.1

On perusal and scrutinizing the enquiry papers and proceedings, it is admitted factual position and beyond

the pale of controversy that the workman was issued with the charge-sheet dated 26.05.2010 and his explanation was

called for. Thereafter enquiry was initiated against him by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The workman participated

in the enquiry through his defence representative, who was a Advocate. The workman was supplied with all

documents filed during the enquiry. He was also given an opportunity to examine the management witness at length.

He was given copy of the enquiry proceedings. The workman was also granted opportunity to examine himself during

the enquiry.

The workman in his statement of claim has submitted that, he is not given an opportunity to examine himself

during the enquiry. Per contra, the Bank has submitted that the workman though was given an opportunity to examine

himself has not availed the same.

In this respect, it can be observed that the evidence on behalf of the Bank was completed on 18.07.2012 and

the next date was fixed on 25.07.2012 for evidence of the workman. The defence representative, on behalf of the

workman was present on that date and proceeding dated 18.07.2012 bears his signature. On 25.07.2012 the workman

orally requested that he shall submit his defence statement on next date. Therefore the next date was fixed on

02.08.2012. Thereafter from time to time the enquiry was adjourned and lastly was fixed on 09.04.2013. On

09.04.2013, both the workman as well as his representative was present but they failed to lead evidence nor the

workman examined himself. The enquiry was adjourned for arguments on request of the defence representative that

he would submit written arguments on next date. Thereafter written arguments was filed by both the parties.

Therefore it is clear that though opportunity was granted to the workman to lead evidence on his behalf, he

has failed to avail the same. Till the completion of the enquiry and even in the written arguments he has not raised any

such grievances that he was not afforded with opportunity to examine himself or other witness on his behalf. The

workman by his act, on his own has swayed away his right to lead evidence. Therefore ground put by the workman to

assail the enquiry proceeding cannot be accepted.

According to me, considering the overall enquiry proceeding the workman was granted reasonable and

proper opportunity in accordance with the principle of natural justice during conduct of enquiry. Therefore I hold that

the enquiry conducted against the Second Party workman is legal and proper. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in

negative.

3468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No.2

10.

The charges leveled against the workman as per the charge-sheet dated 26.05.2010 was in respect of the

illegal transaction committed by the workman, which amounted to act of misappropriation. The detail of the facts to

arrive at such allegations are mentioned clearly in the charge-sheet. It is alleged that on 21.04.2007, the workman

debited total amount to Rs.4500/- from the FDR loan account of 3 customers and credited it to his saving account. In

similar way on 03.05.2007 he has debited an amount of Rs.3800/- from account of a customer and credited to his own

saving account and also intentionally destroyed withdrawal slip from the record. It is further alleged that, similarly, on

01.10.2007, he debited a total amount of Rs.6100/- from account of 4 customers and credited the same to his saving

account. Thereafter for a period between 16.01.2008 to 02.07.2008, he has withdrawn amount from time to time from

the account of total 16 customers. Further it is alleged that he has not kept the withdrawal slips of about 38 customers

on record between the period from 09.06.2008 to 30.07.2009. At the time of transaction, in this account the workman

has used the tailor ID of Satish Kulkarni and has misappropriated the amount and also destroyed the related challans.

11.

The workman immediately did not submit his explanation to the charge-sheet and vide an application dated

27.10.2010 called for certain documents from the Bank so as to submit his explanation. On 23.03.2011, the workman

submitted his explanation. Vide his explanation he has denied the charges which were leveled against him. However

the documents filed in the enquiry shows that on 03.06.2009, the workman has submitted in writing, admitting that

he has misappropriated the amount. Further the workman has accepted the responsibility and submitted that he is

ready to make good the loss caused to the Bank. However the workman in his explanation to the charge-sheet has not

made any submission in respect of this application dated 03.06.2009.

12.

Even otherwise, during enquiry, the Bank has filed voluminous documents on record to show that the

workman has conducted the transactions as alleged against him in the charge-sheet. The Bank has also examined 2

witness on its behalf to substantiate the charges leveled against the workman. Both the witness have stated in support

of the charge-sheet as well as documents filed on record. The workman in the cross-examination could not show

anything to discard the said contentions of the witness. Also the workman has given a confession letter to the Bank

that he is responsible for such unauthorized withdrawals, which he has not retaliated.

13.

Therefore according to me, there is prudent and probable material before the Enquiry Officer so as to link the

workman with the alleged misconduct. It therefore cannot be said that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse.

14.

In the case of Workmen of Balmadies Estates Vs. Mangement, Balmadies Estates and others [(2008) 4

SCC 517], the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that the charges leveled upon a workman will have to be scrutinized on

the basis of the evidence recorded, by applying the principle of probabilities. In paragraph No.10, it has been

concluded as under :-

―10. It is fairly well settled now that in view of the wide power of the Labour Court it can, in an

appropriate case, consider the evidence which has been considered by the domestic Tribunal and

in a given case on such consideration arrive at a conclusion different from the one arrived at by

the Domestic Tribunal. The assessment of evidence in a domestic enquiry is not required to be

made by applying the same yardstick as a Civil Court could do when a lis is brought before it. The

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act) is not applicable to the proceeding in a

domestic enquiry so far as the domestic enquiries are concerned, though principles of fairness are

to apply. It is also fairly well settled that in a domestic enquiry guilt may not be established beyond

reasonable doubt and the proof of misconduct would be sufficient. In a domestic enquiry all

materials which are logically probative including hearsay evidence can be acted upon provided it

has a reasonable nexus and credibility.‖

15.

Further in the case of Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division

Latur, District Latur V/s Bhushan Jagannathrao Bulbule, Reported in 2018 III CLR Page No.691 Bombay

High Court it is held that -

―The fairness of the Enquiry Officers findings is to be assessed purely on the basis of his

conclusions and it has to be seen, by going through the evidence recorded in the enquiry, as to

whether, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are supported by reasons and whether, such

conclusions are on the basis of the evidence recorded. If there is some evidence on record on

the basis of which, the Enquiry Officer has drawn his conclusions after preponderance on the

principles of probabilities, the findings can be sustained. If any of the findings of the Enquiry

Officer are not supported by any evidence in the enquiry, the said findings can, therefore, be

termed as being perverse.‖

16.

In this context, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the mater of Kumaon Mandal Vikas

Nigam Ltd. V/s Girja Shankar Pant and Others, 2001 (I) CLR 12, is relevant, ―The Honourable Supreme Court

has noted that the records have to be considered while scrutinizing the allegations made by the delinquent and from

such record, it has to be gathered as to how the enquiry has been conducted and whether, a reasonable opportunity

was granted to the delinquent.‖ It is also held that

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3469

―While it is true that in a departmental proceeding, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts

and the High Court may not interfere with the factual findings but the availability of judicial review

even in the case of departmental proceeding cannot be doubted. Judicial review of administrative action

is feasible and same has its application to its fullest extent in even departmental proceedings where it is

found that the recorded findings are based on no evidence or the findings are totally perverse or

legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of evidence is not permitted but in the event of there

being a findings which otherwise shocks the judicial conscience of the court, it is a well-nigh

impossibility to decry availability of judicial review at the instance of an affected person.

17.

The powers of the Court/Tribunal are explained in the case law between Union of India V/s Upendra Sing

(1994 I CLR 534, SC) and it has been appreciated and held that,

―The Tribunal cannot take over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the

charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into, indeed, even after conclusion of the

disciplinary authority, if the matter comes to the Court or Tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look

into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority

or the appellate authority, as the case may be. The function of the Court/Tribunal is one of judicial

review.‖

In this case law the Hon‘ble Apex Court relied and considered the Judgment and decision of the Apex Court

in Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal & Ors. V/s Gopinath & Sons & Ors. (1992

Supp.(2) SCC, 312) and quoted that,

―Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making

process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination and the correctness or reasonableness of a

decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair

treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, of a matter which

it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is

not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be

erroneous to think that the Court sits in a Judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making

process but also on the correctness of the decision itself.‖

18.

Similarly, in case of B.C.Chartuvedi V/s Union of India & Ors. (1996 I CLR 389, SC) the Lordship of

Apex Court observed that,

―Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is

made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not

to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court.

When an enquiry is conducted of charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/ Tribunal is

concerned to determine whether the enquiry was held by a competent authority or whether rules of

natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence,

the authority entrusted with the power to hold enquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach

a finding of fact on conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical

rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein apply to the disciplinary

proceeding. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate Court to re-

appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.‖

19.

Further in case between General Manager (Operations), S.B.I. & anr. V/s R.Periyasamy (2015 I CLR

373, SC) it is held that,

―The Courts will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except

where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The sufficiency or

adequacy of evidence is not the ground on which the facts may be set aside.‖

20.

Therefore, considering this established position of law, the scope of learned Labour Court over findings of

the Enquiry Officer being limited, it cannot re-appreciate or reassess the evidence before the Enquiry Officer and

come to a different conclusion, when the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence before him.

21.

Further, Lordship of Hon‘ble High Court Bombay in case of S.A. Awasthy V/s M.R. Bhope, Presiding

Officer, 1^st Labour Court and Ors. Reported in 1994 I CLR Page No.254 has held that :-

―In a criminal trial, no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused if the accused does not

enter the witness-box. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that ordinarily the

accused is not bound to open his mouth and the presumption of innocence would operate throughout.

No such principle is applicable in a Civil proceeding or in domestic enquiry or in a proceeding before

a Labour Court, Industrial Court or Industrial Tribunal. If the management discharges initial onus

which lies on it to prove the allegations and the workman fails to discharge the shifted onus the case

of the workman must suffer.‖

3470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In this case, the management did discharge its initial onus to prove the allegations and the petitioner

workman failed to rebutt the evidence led on behalf of the management.

22.

Further in case of Delhi Transport Corporation V/s Shyam Lal [Reported in 2004 III CLR

Page No.287]. It is held that :-

―The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that ―It is fairly settled position in law that

admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making the admission. It

is, however, open to the person making the admission to show why the admission is

not to be acted upon.‖

In the present case the workman has failed to show anything on record so as to even suggest that his

admission or confession could not be acted upon. Apart from this, the management in the present case has not mearly

relied on the confession statement of the workman but has also led independent evidence to prove the charges against

the workman.

23.

I have carefully perused the synopsis of arguments filed on behalf of the Bank and also the case laws relied

by them. There cannot be any deviation from the proposition of law held in the case laws and I am in respectful

agreement with the propositions. The legal propositions in this case laws have been relied by me.

24.

In view of the above legal propositions and factual conclusions, I do not find any reason or ground to hold

the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse. Accordingly I hold that the findings of the enquiry Officer are legal

and not perverse.

25.

Hence I pass following order.

: ORDER :

1) The domestic enquiry conducted against the Second Party workman is legal and proper.

2) The findings of the Enquiry Officer are legal and not perverse.

3) The matter to proceed further.

Kolhapur.

SAMEENA KHAN, Presiding Officer

Date : 04.09.2019.

Asstt.Registrar,

Industrial Tribunal, Kolhapur.

Argued on : 31.07.2019

Judgment dictated on : 04.09.2019

Judgment transcribed on :04.09.2019

Judgment checked and signed on :04.09.2019.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 flrEcj] 2023

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ृजिम रेलवे 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; dksydrk ds iapkV (a21/2022) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-41011/52/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 21st September, 2023

S.O. 1572.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 21/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen.

[No. L-41011/52/2022- IR(B.I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3471

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE K.D.BHUTIA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/21 of 2022

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Western Railway

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party Management :

Mr.B.K.Ashok, Adv.

For the second party workmen

Absent.

Mumbai, dated the 25th day of August, 2023

AWARD

Learned counsel for the management is present, but none appears from the side of the union when the matter

is called.

Record shows union has not been taking any steps since the inceptions of this reference. Record shows

notice sent to the union on two occasions have returned undelivered with postal endorsement ―unclaimed‖ and it is a

settled law such service is deemed to be due service.

None appearance of the union which has espoused the present dispute despite having the knowledge of the

present reference case an inference can be drawn that the union is no more interested to pursue with the dispute which

it has raised against the management of Western Railway, Mumbai.

Be that as it may, the Govt. of India, Min. of Labour vide order NO.L-41011/52/2022 (IR(B-I) dated

11.10.2022 and in exercise of power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by

referring the following issue to this Tribunal for adjudication.

―Whether the demands raised by Pashchim Railway Karmachari Parishad Union, Mumbai against the

Management of Western Railway, Mumbai on the issue of charter of demands (as per in Annexure ‗A‘) are just? If

yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?‖

Non-appearance of the union which has espoused the above dispute shows that union is no more interested to

proceed with the dispute or it might have settled the dispute with the management.

In view of the above no dispute award is passed.

Accordingly, CGIT-21 of 2022 is disposed of.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल् ली, 22 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1573.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध जनदेिक नेिनल थमजल ृावर कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, लोधी रोड, नई ददल्ली; रेजजडेंट मजनेजर, मजससज

यूरटजलटी ृावरटेक जलजमटेड नेिनल थमजल ृावर ररिंद सुृर थमजल ृावर प्रोजेक्ट, सोनभर-(यूृी), के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोजकों और श्री अजुजन प्रसाद गुप्ता, कामगार , द्वारा -राष्ट्रीय कायजकाररणी मानवाजधकार उद्धार समाज कल्याण

गजनयारी ृुरवा, हसगऱौली,के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

लखनऊ

3472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ृंचाट (संदभज सं्‍या 15/2020) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 13/09/2023को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं..एल- 42012/2/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2023

S.O. 1573.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court–Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Chairman & Managing Director National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. ,Lodhi Road, New Delhi ;The

Resident Manager, M/s. Utility Powertech Ltd. National Thermal Power Rihand Super Thermal Power

Project, Sonebhadra-(U.P.), and Shri Arjun Prasad Gupta, Worker, through-National Executive Human

Rights Redemption Social Welfare Ganiyari Purva, Singrauli, which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.

[No. L- 42012/2/2020- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 15/2020

Ref. No. L-42012/2/2020-IR(DU) dated 13.02.2020

BETWEEN

Sh. Arjun Prasad Gupta, National Executive Human Rights Redemption Social Welfare Ganiyari Purva, Indra Nagar

Ward No.41/1098 Baidhan, Singrauli - 486889

AND

1. The Chairman & Managing Director National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. NTPC Bhawan, Scope

Complex, 7-Industrial Area, Lodhi Road,New Delhi - 110003

2. The Resident Manager, M/s. Utility Powertech Ltd. National Thermal Power Rihand Super Thermal Power

Project, Po-Rihand Nagar,SONEBHADRA(U.P.) - 231223

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/2/2020-IR(DU) dated 13.02.2020 the present industrial dispute has been referred for

adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:

“Whether the services of Sh. Prem Chand, workman and II other workmen as mentioned in Industrial

Dispute dated 10.04.2017 are entitled for regularization in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.

Rihand Super Thermal Power Project, Sonebhadra? If not, to that relief these workmen are entitled to and

from which date?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 15/2020 has been registered on 25.03.2020

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workman has not

filed any statement of claim.

Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, neither workman nor its authorized representative has turned up before this

Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim.

Findings & Conclusion:

Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order to

establish his claim as per the reference dated 13.02.2020.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3473

So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by 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, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co.

Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors.

1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of

any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court

against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at

all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making

the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the 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; wherein it has been 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.”

As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be

dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

31^st August, 2023

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

नई ददल् ली, 22 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1574.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

इंजडयन टेलीफोन इंडस्ट्रीज जलजमटेड मनकाृुर, जजला-गोंडा; जनदेिक, आई.टी.आई. जलजमटेड मनकाृुर, जजला-गोंडा;

मिाप्रबंधक, प्रबंधक,उत्ृादन, आई.टी.आई. जलजमटेड मनकाृुर, जजला-गोंडा;सिायक मिाप्रबंधक, व्यजिगत एवं प्रिासन,

आई.टी.आई. जल., मनकाृुर, जनृद-गोण्डा, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जवजय बिादुर िुक्ला, कामगार,के

बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

लखनऊ ृंचाट (संदभज

सं्‍या 85/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 13/09/2023को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.एल-42025/07/2023-192-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

3474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2023

S.O. 1574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court–Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Mankapur, District-Gonda ; The Director, I.T.I. Ltd. Mankapur, District-

Gonda; The General, Manager, Production, I.T.I. Ltd. Mankapur, District- Gonda ; The Assistant General

Manager, Personal and Administration, I.T.I. Ltd., Mankapur, District-Gonda, and Shri Vijay Bahadur

Shukla, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.

[No. L-42025-07-2023-192- IR (DU)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 85/2012

BETWEEN

Vijay Bahadur Shukla, S/o Sri Hari Prasad Shukla, resident of village-Narayanpur Mafi, Post Office-Jhalidham,

Tehsil and District Gonda.

AND

1. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Mankapur, District-Gonda.

2. Director, I.T.I. Ltd. Mankapur, District-Gonda.

3. General, Manager, Production, I.T.I. Ltd. Mankapur, District- Gonda.

4. Assistant General Manager, Personal and Administration, I.T.I. Ltd., Mankapur, District-Gonda.

AWARD

The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman, Upendra Nath Tiwari before this Tribunal for

adjudication as per provisions section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 85/2012 has been registered on 14.12.2012.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that after exchange of pleadings by an order

dated 18.11.2019 the matter was fixed for filing of workman‘s evidence; however, when the workman did not file its

oral evidence in spite of several opportunities, opportunity to file his evidence was closed vide order dated 24.12.2020

and management was afforded an opportunity to file its evidence on affidavit. The management also did not file any

evidence.

Thereafter on 25.11.2022 an order was passed, quoted herein below:

“Case called out.

None for claimant

Sri Adarsh Jagdhari Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits, respondent does not want to file

management evidence on affidavit, as claimant has not filed any evidence in support of his case, and his

right to file evidence has already closed.

Accordingly, list for hearing on 12.12.2022.”

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.12.2022, in revised cause list, the following order was passed:

“Matter taken up in revised casue list.

Sri Adarsh Jagdhari for appellant.

None for workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3475

Heard Sri Jagdhari & perused record.

File reserved for order.”

Needless to mention that from the perusal of order sheet, it appears that neither workman nor his authorized

representative has appeared to press the case on behalf of the claimant since 17.06.2020.

Accordingly, after hearing Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, learned authorized representative of the opposite parties and taking

into consideration the facts the position which emerges out is that as no oral/documentary evidence has been filed on

behalf of the claimant to support his claim, as such, the adjudication case is liable to be dismissed.

Taking into consideration the above said facts as well as the law laid by Hon‘ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj

Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must

fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is

imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which

the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to

appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government

cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co.

Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors.

1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of

any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court

against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at

all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making

the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v.

Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519 has held as under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the

shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead

evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence

either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has

to be dismissed.”

Thus, taking into consideration the facts on record that in the present case the workman has not filed any

oral/documentary evidence in support of his claim, so the same is liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

05^th September, 2023

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल् ली, 22 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1575.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मिाप्रबंधक, नेिनल थमजल ृावर कॉृोरेिन, ऊंचािार, जजला-रायबरेली-(उ.प्र.); मजससज गोहवद कंस्ट्रक्िन, ृीिर,

ऊंचािार, जजला.रायबरेली, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सत्येन्र कुमार, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार

, लखनऊ ृंचाट(संदभज सं्‍या 01/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक

में ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 13/09/2023को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.एल- 42025-07-2023-191- आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

3476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2023

S.O. 1575.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court–Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The General Manager, National Thermal Power Corporation, Unchahar, Distt. Raebareli- (U.P.);M/s Govind

Construction, Phar, Unchahar, Distt. Raebareli, and Shri Satyendra Kumar, Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.

[No. L- 42025-07-2023-191- IR (DU)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 01/2022

Ref. No. K-10/1-14/2021-IR dated 31.12.2021

BETWEEN

Shri Satyendra Kumar S/O Shri Maiku Lal, Village Pure Baba

Basi, Rihayak, Post Karaouli, Budhkar, Raebareli.

AND

1. The General Manager, National Thermal Power Corporation,

Unchahar, Distt. Raebareli-229406. (U.P.).

2. M/s Govind Construction, Type 6/46, Phar, Unchahar, Distt.Raebareli.

AWARD

By order No. K-10/1-14/2021-IR dated 31.12.2021 the present industrial dispute has been referred for

adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:

“Whether the action of management of M/s Govind Construction, Raebareli, a contractor of National

Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Unchahar in terminating the services of Shri Satyendra Kumar S/O

Shri Maiku Lal, Electrician w.e.f. 31.08.2020 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 01/2022 has been registered on 04.01.2022

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out that till date the claimant/workman has not filed

any statement of claim.

Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, neither workman nor its authorized representative has turned up

before this Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim in spite of repeated notices.

Findings & Conclusion:

Taking into consideration the fact that as till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order to

establish his claim as per the reference dated 31.12.2021.

So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3477

appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government

cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has

held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co.

Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors.

1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of

any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court

against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at

all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making

the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the 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;

wherein it has been 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.”

As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be

dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

31^st August, 2023

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल् ली, 22 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1576.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मिाप्रबंधक, हिदुस्ट्तान एयरोनॉरटक्स जलजमटेड, लखनऊ; मजससज िाि बंधु, द्वारा श्री योगेंर प्रसाद िाि, स्ट्वच्छता ेकेदार,

िरजेंर नगर, कानृुर ; मजससज ग्रुृ-4 फजजसजलटी सर्षवस, द्वारा श्री नवल कृूर, जनदेिक कार्षमक, 1/97, जवद्युत खंड, गोमती

नगर, लखनऊ, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री रामनरेि, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

लखनऊ ृंचाट (संदभज सं्‍या 72/2011) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया

गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 13/09/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल- 42025-07-2023-193-आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2023

S.O. 1576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court–Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow ;M/s Shah Bandhu, through Shri Yogendra

Prasad Shah,Sanitation Contractor, Harjendra Nagar, Kanpur ; M/s Group -4 Facilities Service, through

3478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Nawal Kapoor, Director Personnel, 1/97, Vidyut Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, and Shri Ram Naresh,

Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.

[No. L- 42025-07-2023-193-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 72/2011

BETWEEN

Ram Naresh, son of Rajkumar,

Resident of Village Kanchanpur Matiari,

Post Chinhat, District Lucknow

AND

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division, Lucknow through its General

Manager.

General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

3. M/s Shah Bandhu, through Sri Yogendra Prasad Shah, Sanitation Contractor, 504, Viman

Nagar, G.T. Road. Harjendra Nagar, Kanpur.

M/s Group -4 Facilities Service, through Sri Nawal Kapoor, Director Personnel, 1/97,

Vidyut Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

AWARD

On 28.02.2011 the claimant/workman has filed the ID case No.72/2011 as per the provisions of Section 2A (2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Facts of the case:

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division (hereinafter referred to as Establishment), is a factory registered

under the provisions of the Factories Act, which is situated at Faizabad Road, Lucknow and the sanitation work of the

premises of the Establishment as well as Plant and Machinery installed at the factory premises is a perennial as well

regular nature of job.

Establishment is an Engineering Industry and the Government has issued a notification dated 24.04.1990 under

Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 after the recommendation of Contract Labour

Advisory Board, whereby 18 works of the Engineering Industry, which are regular or perennial in nature has been

prohibited.

However, it was the prevalent practice in establishment that they employed the contract labour for sanitation work of

the establishment/premises despite the fact that the sanitation work was regular in nature; and the claimant/workman

was working in the establishment right from the very beginning i.e. from the date, the factory was established and

continuously worked till the date of termination i.e. 21.12.2001.

As per the case workman order of termination dated 21.12.2001 by which his services in an illegal and unjustified

manner was terminated, inasmuch as in establishment of the employers there were more than 100 workmen employed

as such the compliance of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was necessary but before terminating the

services of the workmen, the employers have not complied with the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial

Disputes Act.

Further, the services of the workman have been terminated by the principal employer not by the contractor and the

work which were being performed by the concerned workman still exist with employers and the same is being carried

out by employing new workmen on contract basis.

In the claim petition it has been pleaded that earlier the workmen‘s Union in Establishment i.e. Hindustan Aeronautics

Karamchari Sabha, raised the dispute of the workman along with some other workmen before the State Government

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3479

which, was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal (II), U.P., Lucknow, registered before Industrial

Tribunal (II), U.P., Lucknow as Adj. Case No.: 126 of 2002.

However, on account of the fact that the workman along with some other workmen were not satisfied with the pairavi

of the Union as such an authority letter was filed along with an application by 20 workmen amongst the concerned

workman to represent the said case but the Union, filed objection that as applicants who have filed the application are

not party in the said case as such they are not entitled to represent the case. By an order dated 10.03.2010, the

Hon'ble Presiding Officer held that the workmen are not satisfied with the proceedings through Union, they can raise

separate dispute "under the provisions of Act.

Thereafter, an application was filed by 36 workmen including the claimant/workman on 10.07.2010 before, the

Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2), U.P., Lucknow for deletion of the names of the workmen from the

reference order so that they may be in position to raise fresh industrial dispute before the competent Forum and the

Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2), U.P., Lucknow after hearing the parties concerned was pleased to

allow the said application except three whose names were not mentioned in reference order.

In pursuance to order dated 20.07.2010 the workman concerned along with 32 other workman filed an application

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow which was registered as Case No. LKO-8(2-32)/2010:

Laxmi Narain and 32 others Vs. General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and others.

Thereafter, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, called upon the parties for conciliation proceedings

and in pursuance thereof Hindustan Aeronautics Limited appeared before him and filed their objections and due to the

negative attitude of the employers, no settlement could be arrived between the parties.

Since the mandatory period i.e. 45 days as specified under Section 2- A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as

amended by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No. 24 of 2010) had been expired as such the concerned

workman seek the permission from the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow to withdraw the case and

to approach the Hon'ble Court on 27.01.2011, which was duly accepted by the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Lucknow.

In view of above said factual background the present case has been filed u/s 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with following prayer:

“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that

the action of the management in terminating the services of workman with effect from 21.12.2001 is

neither legal nor justified and accordingly the workman concerned is entitled to get reinstatement in

service together with entire consequential benefits including back wages and other service benefits, in

the interest of justice.”

On behalf the respondent written statement has been filed on 15.05.2012 in which following preliminary objection

was taken:

“1. That the aforesaid ID Case No.82/2011 is not maintainable as per the provisions of ID Act 1947

(as mended by ID (Amendment) Act 2010) because the same is barred by limitation U/S 2A(3) of the

ID Act (Amendment 2010) which is quoted as below:

2A(3) "the application referred to in sub section 2 shall be made to Labour Court or Tribunal

before the expiry of 3 years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination service as specified in sub section 1".

In addition to the above said facts, the respondent in its written statement also given the parawise reply to the

case as set up by the claimant in his statement of claim.

Sri Adarsh Jadghari has submitted that before deciding the matter in question on merit, the question ―whether

the claim petition filed by the claimant on 28.02.2011 as per the provisions of section 2A (2) of the Act,

aggrieved by the order of termination/retrenchment dated 21.12.2001 is barred by the period of limitation as

provided u/s 2A(3) of the Act or not?‖

Sri Adarsh Jadghari in support of his argument submits, admittedly as per the case of the claimant his services

were terminated on 21.12.2001, aggrieved by the same he filed present industrial dispute u/s 2A (2) of the Act;

however, u/s 2A (3) of the Act the period of limitation is provided for three years, from the date of

retrenchment/termination, so, the present claim petition is barred by the period of limitation as provided u/s 2A

(3) of the Act, liable to be dismissed.

Sri Arjun Singh, learned counsel for claimant, rebutting the said contention has placed reliance as pleaded on

behalf of the claimant by way of pleading the said contention was rebutted on the basis of pleading in the

statement of claim (and submits that in view of the facts as stated hereinabove) especially in paragraph 27 & 28,

which are quoted herein below:

3480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“27.

That since the mandatory period i.e. 45 days as specified under Section 2- A (2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No.

24 of 2010) had been expired as such the concerned workman seek the permission from the

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow to withdraw the case and to approach the

Hon'ble Court on 27.01.2011, which was duly accepted by the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Lucknow.

28.

That in pursuance thereof, the workman concerned approaching the Hon'ble Tribunal

for the adjudication of the industrial disputes as prevalent between the workman and the

employers.”

The present claim petition filed u/s 2 (2) of the Act is maintainable and the arguments as raised by the learned

counsel for respondent that same is barred by the period limitation is devoid of merit, be rejected.

On the written statement as well as in paragraph 1 of the counter affidavit relevant portion is quoted herein below:-

In pursuance thereof, the concerned workman along with 35 other workman moved another application for

withdrawal of the names from the said adjudication case which was allowed by the Hon‘ble Industrial Tribunal-II

U.P. Lucknow vide order dated 20.07.2010 and accordingly the concerned workman along with 32 other workmen

filed on an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow which was registered as No.

LKO-8(2-32)/2010: Laxmi Narain and 32 others Vs. General Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and others.

The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow on its turn called upo0n the parties for conciliation

proceedings and in pursuance thereof the employers i.e. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited appeared before him and filed

their objections and due to negative attitude of the employers, no settlement could be arrived between the parties.

Thus, it is clear that the Industrial Disputes as existed between the parties are continuing one and on account of the

fact that 45 days as specified under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (as amended by Industrial

Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 has been expired as such an application was filed on behalf of eh workmen seeking

permission to withdrew the case and to approach the Hon‘ble Court on 27.01.2010, which was duly accepted by the

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow and at the relevant point of time, the employees have also not

raised any objection to the said application. It is therefore, the present case is fully maintainable in the eyes of law

before this Hon‘ble Court and the Hon‘ble Court is fully empowered to adjudicate upon the dispute as exiting

between the parties.

I have heard the learned counsel for respondent Sri Adarsh Jagdhari inspite of notice neither the workman nor

representative is present on his behalf and gone through the record.

Before deciding the same it will be appropriate to go through aims and objects of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in brief

which are that Industrial Disputes Bill was introduced by the Government of India in the Legislative Assembly on the

28^th October 1946. After the Select Committee‘s report on 3^rd February 1947, with some amendments, it was passed

in March 1947 and became the law from Ist April 1947 repealing the Trade Disputes Act 1929.

While retaining most of the provisions of the earlier law, this Act introduced two new institutions for the prevention

and settlement of industrial disputes; works committees consisting of representatives of employers and workers; and

machinery for industrial adjudication.

A reference to an industrial tribunal under this Act lies where both parties to any industrial dispute apply for such

reference, and also where the appropriate Government considers it expedient so to do. An award of a tribunal has

normally to be enforced by the Government and is binding on both parties to the dispute for such periods as may be

specified, upto a maximum of one year. This Act seeks to give a new orientation to the entire conciliation machinery.

Another important new feature of the Act is the prohibition of strikes and lockouts during the pendency of

conciliation and adjudication proceedings of settlements reached in the course of conciliation proceedings and of

awards of industrial tribunals declared binding by the appropriate government.

Rules, orders or notifications requiring the larger industrial establishments to set up works committees were issued by

the Government of India and most of the State Governments.

Objectives: General

The objectives of industrial relations and industrial disputes legislation, may be outlined as under:-

(i)

Industrial Peace: For prosperity of industry, it is necessary that there be a continuous and growing production

which is only possible if (a) there are no interruptions and stoppages in production i.e. absence of disputes,

and (b) if the various agencies of production are satisfied and are in a harmonious bent to work. In other

words, industrial peace is very necessary for the vitality of industry.

(ii)

Economic Justice: All interruptions in production arising out of industrial dispute are really caused by the

dissatisfaction of labour with their existing economic condition. The history of labour struggle is nothing but

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3481

a continuous demand for fair return to labour expressed in varied forms e.g. (a) increase in wages, (b)

resistance to decrease in wages, (c) grant of allowances and benefits etc.(Hariprasad Vs. A.D.Divelkar, AIR

1957 SC 121)

Social and economic justice which is the bedrock of our Constitution and economic organization also requires that

any industrial relations or disputes legislation, to be effective remedial statute, must embrace not only law for

regulation of labour relations with capital, process for channelizing collective bargaining methods for negotiation,

mediation, conciliation and settlements of industrial conflict, but also a system for giving fair play and justice to

labour and removal of economic injustice.

The preamble of the Act states that its main object is to make provision for investigation and settlement of industrial

disputes. Viewed in the above background, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is a progressive piece of social

legislation and is designed to settle the disputes on a new pattern known under the Act as adjudication machinery.

The object of all labour legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent disputes so that production might not be

adversely affected. (Banaras Ice Factory Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1957 SC 167)

The purpose of the Act is to provide machinery for a just and equitable settlement by adjudication, (G. Claridge and

Company Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, AIR 1951 Bombay 100) and amelioration of the conditions of

workmen in industry.

Individual and collective industrial disputes: Individual as well as collective disputes may ripen into industrial

disputes. The true nature of an individual dispute is that it is a collective dispute. Though a dispute may at the

inception be initiated by an individual, yet if it is taken up by the fellow-workers or a union, or a sufficient number of

workers, it may assume the collective character and would become an industrial dispute. (Standard Vacum Oil Co.

Errakulam Vs. I.Tribunal, Errakulam 1952-II LLJ 612). A dispute which continues to retain its individual

character cannot be regarded as an industrial dispute. This being the basic law, it is within the competence of the

legislature to widen or narrow the coverage of an industrial dispute. The Industrial Disputes Act has also been

amended to cover some individual disputes. It is not necessary that a majority should take an industrial dispute. It is

sufficient if a substantial group of workmen take it up. When thus taken, it becomes an industrial or collective

dispute.

Individual dispute an industrial dispute: The important amongst the above are however the amendments of 1965.

By the Act of 1965, a new Section 2A has been added in Act whereby specified categories of individual disputes are

also deemed to be industrial disputes. The section reads as under:

―2A. Dismissal, etc of an individual workman to be deemed to be industrial dispute-

Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual

workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out

of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute

notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.‖

This amendment revives, impediment in the way of workman with the necessity that to make an industrial dispute it

must be taken up or espoused by substantial section of the workmen or any union of those workmen and gives an

individual workman a remedy for security of his service and indirectly freedom to join or not to join any union. Thus,

individual disputes could be referred to Tribunal as per Section 2A after 1.12.1965. (National Productivity Council,

1969-II LLJ 186).

Thereafter, by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 2010 (Act No. 24 of 2010), Section 2A(a), was renumbered as

Sub-section (1) and by the same Act i.e. Act No.24 of 2010 Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) have been inserted

after Section 2A (1) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 which came into effect w.e.f. 15.09.2010, which reads as under:

"2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute -

"(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the

services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his

employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other

workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified in

sub-Section(1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for

adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date

he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for

conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal

shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute

referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act

3482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in

relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-Section(2) shall be made to the Labour Court or

Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment

or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-Section(1)."

Now the core question to be considered is that in view of the facts which are stated hereinabove, that admittedly the

services of applicant was terminated on 21.12.2001, thereafter he has filed the present case before this Tribunal u/s

2A of the Act on 28.02.2011 on the grounds as taken by him in his claim petition, is maintainable or barred by the

period of limitation as provided u/s 2A(3) of the Act.

Answer to the said question find place in the judgment passed by Hon‘ble the Karnataka High Court in ITC Infotech

India Ltd. vs. Venkataramana Uppada ILR 2016 Karnataka 3041, relevant potion quoted as under:

“19. Keeping the above principles in mind, a reading of Section 2A(3) would lead to an irresistible

conclusion that time stipulated for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the

case may be, has to be necessarily "before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-Section (1)." Time limit

for making an application to the Labour Court stipulated in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A does not

appear to have a bearing to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 2A. In any event right

conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry of three years from

the date of dismissal, discharge etc.,. In other words, the limitation of three years prescribed under

sub-Section (3) of Section 2A being mandatory, same cannot be condoned by taking recourse to

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which has no application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

20. It is well settled principle that if an act is required to be performed within a specified time, the

same would primarily be mandatory. It has been held in the case of NAZIRUDDIN VS SITARAM

AGARWAL reported in AIR 2003 SCW 908 to the following effect:

"The Courts jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It

is well known that in a given case, the Court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the

texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language

of provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract the words to a statute or

read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write or recast legislation. It is also

necessary to determine that there exists a presumption that the legislature has not used any

superfluous words. It is well settled that the real intention of legislature must be gathered

from the language used."

21. Thus, in the background of the dicta of the Apex Court in NAZIRUDDIN's case referred to supra,

when Section 2A is perused, it would indicate that if the legislature really intended that the period of

limitation provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A was to be construed as directory, then it would not

have prescribed the limitation of three years and it would have used the words "at any time" instead of

using the words "before the expiry of three years". Though the words at any time' is found in Section

10(1), same is conspicuously absent in sub-Section(3) of Section 2A which would clearly depict the

intention of the legislature namely, it had deliberately imposed limitation period under sub-Section (3)

of Section 2A and as such legislature did not employ the words at any time' in the said provision as

found in Section 10(1) and in its place, it has specifically incorporated the words before the expiry of

three years'. Hence, to interpret the period of limitation found in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A as

directory and not mandatory would amount to adding something which is not provided in the provision

by the legislature or it would amount to doing violence to the provision, if such interpretation is sought

to be made."

And Hon‘ble Rajasthan High court in the case of Pankaj Swami vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &

ors. MANU/RH/1788/2019 after taking into consideration the provisions of sedation 2A(2) & 2A(3) of the Act held

as under:

“The provisions are explicit, wherein the workman can approach the Labour Court for adjudication of

the dispute in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment etc., however, sub-section (3) provides that

the application should be made to the Labour Court before the expiry of three years from the date of

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified.

8. The submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the cause of action arose to the

petitioner prior to introduction of the provision of limitation by sub-section (3) the same would have

no application is concerned, the submission made is fallacious, inasmuch as, the provision under

which the application has been filed by the petitioner i.e. section 2-A(2) of the Act, itself was

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3483

introduced by the amendment Act of 2010 alongwith the limitation therein and therefore, the provision

of limitation which was introduced in the year 2010 alongwith the main provision providing for the

limitation would apply with all force and the submission that the same would have no application to

the cause of action, which arose prior to 2007, has no basis.

The submissions as made, if accepted, would result in circumstances where if the cause of action has

arisen post 2010, the same would be barred, whereas the causes, which arose prior to 2010 like in the

year 2007 in the present case and the application is filed after 7 years, the same would never become

barred by limitation, such a result is legally untenable.

9. The submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner had approached

the Conciliation Officer and had raised the dispute before him, where there was no limitation and the

petitioner approached the Labour Court only as per the directions of the Conciliation Officer the

claim could not be rejected by barred by limitation also does not advance the cause of the petitioner,

inasmuch as, the petitioner could have taken advantage of the said position, if the Conciliation Officer

had sent a failure report to the appropriate Government who in turn had referred the dispute to the

Labour Court. Merely because the Conciliation Officer suggested approaching the Labour Court,

which suggestion was accepted by the petitioner, cannot be termed as a reference under section 10 of

the Act to the Labour Court.

10. In view of the above discussion in so far as the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the

Labour Court being barred by limitation is concerned, the same cannot be faulted.”

And in the case of Parthasarathy vs. Souther Pins and Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/TN/6691/2020 Hon‘ble

the High Court of Madras has held as under:

“Inasmuch as the notice of termination of the Petitioner in the present case has been made on

06.10.2014 under Section 2-A(2) of the Act after the said amendment has come into force, the

limitation of three years prescribed under Section 2-A(3) of the Act would necessarily apply. As such,

there is no infirmity in the decision-making process of the Labour Court in refusing to entertain the

application made by the Petitioner has time barred. This view is supported by the decisions of this

Court in the following cases:-

(i) ITC Infotech India Ltd. v. Venkataramana Uppada (Order dated 03.03.2016 in W.P. No.

27510 of 2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka)

(ii) Management of Ashok Leyland v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Order dated

13.04.2016 in W.P. Nos. 9640 and 9641 of 2016 passed by this Court)

(iii) Ravi Kumar v. Management, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation (Order

dated 11.04.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 4269 of 2017 passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court)

(iv) K. Settu v. Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Order dated 20.09.2019 in

W.P. No. 8413 of 2019 passed by this Court)

5. A feeble attempt is made on behalf of the Petitioner to suggest that the period of conciliation must

be excluded while computing the limitation. It is, no doubt, true that Section 2-A(2) of the Act

contemplates such application to be made to the Labour Court after the expiry of 45 days from the

date of application to the Conciliation Officer is made. However, it does not require that the

conciliation proceedings should have been completed before making that application under Section 2-

A(2) of the Act. The words in Section 2-A(3) of the Act are clear enough that the limitation has to be

reckoned on the expiry of three years from the date of termination. The Petitioner in the instant case

had made the application for conciliation on 12.04.2017 which had also concluded on 27.06.2017, but

the Petitioner had not approached the Labour Court after 45 days either from 12.04.2017 or even from

27.06.2017. As such, the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be countenanced.”

(see also Kandasamy Spinning Mills Private Ltd. vs S. Palanisamy and Ors. MANU/RN/6831/2019

Thus, in view of above said fact, combined reading of section 2A (2) and 2A (3) of the Act, the legal position which

emerge out is that if a workman is aggrieved by order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination,

he may approach the Tribunal within a period three years from dated of passing of order.

Taking into consideration, above said facts and position of law as well that ―if law provides a particular thing that all

other modes or methods of doing that thing must be deemed to have been prohibited‖, the said proposition of law is

first held in the case of Tylor Vs. Tylor (1875) LR 1 ChD 426 and adopted later by the Judicial Committee in Nazir

Ahmed Vs. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 and thereafter by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments

including those in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & another Vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322, State of

Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358, Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad 1999 (8) SCC 266,

3484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka 2001 (4) SCC 9 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Essar Power

Ltd. 2008 (4) SCC 755.

In the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002) 4 SCC 297, the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held as under:-

“No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of

interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words.

No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and

every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It is said that every statute is

an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is

to gather the mens or sententia legis of the legislature. Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity,

and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the

Court to take upon itself the task of amending or alternating the statutory provisions. Wherever the language

is clear the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. While doing so what has

been said in the statute as also what has not been said has to be noted. The construction which requires for

its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words has to be avoided”.

Hon‘ble the Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111,

held as under:-

“24.

True meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis of what provides by its clear

language, with due regard to the scheme of law.

25.

Scope of the legislation on the intention of the legislature cannot be enlarged when the language of

the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed

according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly

necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or

totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute”.

In the case of Harshad S. Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 257, it has been held as under:-

“There is no doubt that if the words are plain and simple and call for only one construction that construction

is to be adopted whatever be its effect”.

In the case of Union of India Vs. Hansoli Devo (2002) 7 SCC 273, Hon‘ble the Supreme Court observed as under:-

“9.It is a cardinal principle of construction of statute that when language of the statute is plain and

unambiguous, then the court must give effect to the words used in the statute and it would not be open to the

courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the

alleged object and policy of the Act.”

In the case of Patango Kadam Vs. Prithviraj Sayajiro Yadav Deshmukh (2001) 3 SCC 594, took the view:-

“12. Thus when there is an ambiguity in terms of a provision, one must look at well-settled principles of

construction but it is not open to first to create an ambiguity which does not exist and then try to resolve the

same by taking recourse to some general principle.”

Also, Hon‘ble the Supreme Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Govardhane & others vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer & another (2013) 10 SCC 765 has held as under:

“16.

It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party

but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to

extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or

inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to

the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands

attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive

factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is

never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress

resulting from its operation."

(See Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta10, AIR p. 535, para 14 and Rohitash Kumar v. Om

Prakash Sharma11.)

Reverting to the facts of the present case, as per admitted position, the services of the workman was terminated on

21.12.2001 and the same has been challenged by him by filing the present industrial dispute on 28.02.2011.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 30, 2023/आज‍ वन 8, 1945

3485

So, keeping in view the above said facts as well as that the workman/Sri Ram Naresh cannot derive any benefit from

the facts on which he has approached the Tribunal after expiry of period three years from the date of his termination,

because his services were terminated on 21.12.2001 and filed the present case on 28.02.2011 u/s 2A (2) of the Act, as

such, the claim petition is barred by the period of limitation provided u/s 2A (3) of the Act, liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, the same is rejected on the ground that same is barred by period of limitation as per section 2A (3) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with liberty to the claimant to pursue its case before appropriate forum as per law.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

20.07.2023

Justice ANIL KUMAR Presiding Officer

नई ददल् ली, 22 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1577.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

प्रबंधन गजरीसन इंजीजनयर (ई/एम) लाल बिादुर िास्त्री मागज लखनऊ; मेससज उन्नजत इंजीजनयसज उस्ट्मान एन्क्लेव, सेक्टर ओ,

अलीगंज लखनऊ, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री रजव कुमार, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

लखनऊ ृंचाट (संदभज सं्‍या 29/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया

[सं. एल- 14012/27/2017 - आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2023

S.O. 1577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court–Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Management Garrison Engineers (E/M) Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg Lucknow; M/s Unnati Engineers

Usman Enclave, Sector O, Aliganj Lucknow, and Shri Ravi Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.

[No. L- 14012/27/2017 - IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 29/2018

No. L-14012/27/2017 - IR(DU) dated 21.08.2018

BETWEEN

Sh Ravi Kumar S/o Sh Ramnaresh 225, Vishramkheda Dahiya, Mohanlal Ganj Lucknow – 226301

AND

The Management Garrison Engineers (E/M) Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg Lucknow - 226002

The Management M/s Unnati Engineers Usman Enclave, Sector O, Aliganj Lucknow – 226024

3486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 30, 2023/ASVINA 8, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By order No. L-14012/27/2017 - IR(DU) dated 21.08.2018 the present industrial dispute has been referred for

adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:

“Whether the action of M/s Unnati Engineers, Lucknow & Management Garrisson Engineers (E/M),

Lucknow in terminating the services of Sh. Ravi Kumar, employed as Electrician since the year 2006 till

08.09.2015, is legal and proper? If not, then what relief is the workman entitled to?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 29/2018 has been registered on 22.10.2018.

Brief facts of the case:

Facts of the case, as taken by the claimant in his statement of claim is that he was engaged on the post of

electrician by respondent no.2/M/s Unnati Engineers, Lucknow in the year 2006 and worked continually upto

07.09.2015; however, his services have been terminated w.e.f. 08.09.2015 without assigning any reason in

contravention to the provisions as contained u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Accordingly, a prayer has been made that his termination be set aside and he be reinstated with consequential

benefits.

On 01.12.2020, behalf of the respondent no. 2, preliminary objection as well as written statement has been

filed; wherein it has been submitted that the claimant was never appointed with it; but was contractual employee,

engaged in pursuance to contact entered with the respondent no. 1/Garrison Engineers, Lucknow in the year 2011.

It is further stated in the written statement that the respondent no. 2 never had registration as contractor in the

year 2006, so there was no occasion of any appointment of applicant in year 2006 and also there was no violation of

any of the provisions of the Act as contract with the respondent no. 1 came to an end on 21.04.2015 and the applicant

left his work on his own sweet will.

From perusal of the order sheet, the position, emerged out that on 01.12.2020 time was granted to the

workman to file rejoinder affidavit.

On 03.10.2022, an order was passed that last opportunity is granted to workman to file its rejoinder affidavit;

however, the claimant did not file rejoinder affidavit and his opportunity was closed and matter was listed for ex-parte

hearing.

On 18.04.2023, when the matter was taken up in revised cause list, parties remain absent; accordingly, the

case was reserved for order.

Findings & Conclusion:

Thus, taking into consideration, the above said facts as well as the material on record, the admitted position

which emerged out that after filing of statement of claim no oral/documentary evidence has been filed on behalf of the

claimant to support his claim, as such, the adjudication case is liable to be dismissed.

So, in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon‘ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v.