6090 GI/2023

(3557)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 40]

नई दिल् ली, अक् तूबर 1—अक् तूबर 7, 2023, िजनवार/ आज‍ वन 9—आज‍ वन 15, 1945

No. 40]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 1—OCTOBER 7, 2023, SATURDAY/ASVINA 9—ASVINA 15, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष्‍ सं्‍ ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके

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

भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

गषि मंत्राल

(सीटीसीआर प्रभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 4 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1599.—केंद्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृ-िारा (8) के

सा ृठ त रा्‍ री अन् वेषण अजभकरण अजिजन म, 2008 (2008 का 34) की िारा 15 की उृ-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त

िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, अजिसूचना का. आ. 3104 (अ) दिनांक 09 जसतम्बर 2020 के द्वारा जनम्नजलज त

अजिविाओं को अजिसूचना के प्रकाजित िोने की जतज से तीन वषों की अवजि के जलए उनके नामों के समक्ष ििााए गए

राज् ों/केंद्र िाजसत प्रिेि में जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी जविेष न् ा ाल , एन आई ए और उच्च न् ा ाल के समक्ष राष्ट्री

अन्वेषण अजभकरण की ओर से मामलों में ृजरवी करने के जलए, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिकों के प ृ में जन ुि दक ा ा:-

ि.सं.

जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक का नाम

राज् /केंद्र िाजसत प्रिेि

श्री राम जबन ससंि

जबिार

श्री दिनेि ृाजणग्रिी

छत्तीसगढ़

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-19102023-249459

CG-DL-W-19102023-249459

3558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्री रजव भूषण िमाा

दिल्ली

श्री राहुल त् ागी

दिल्ली

अब, केंद्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृ-िारा (8) के सा ृठ त

रा्‍ री अन् वेषण अजभकरण अजिजन म, 2008 (2008 का 34) की िारा 15 की उृ-िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजि ों का

प्र ोग करते हुए उृरोि अजिविाओं को जविेष लोक अजभ ोिकों के प ृ में जन ुजि की जम ाि को तीन वषों की अवजि

के जलए एति् द्वारा, बढ़ाती िज।

[फा. सं. 11011/40/2019/एनआईए (ृाटा-I)]

जवृुल आलोक, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(CTCR DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2023

S.O. 1599.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 15 of the National

Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), read with sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government, vide Gazette Notification S.O. 3104(E) dated, the 09^th

September 2020, had appointed following advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the cases on behalf

of the National Investigation Agency before any Special Courts, NIA and High Courts established by law in territory

of the States and Union Territory indicated against their names for a period of three years with effect from the date of

publication of the said notification:-

S.N.

Name of Special Public Prosecutor

State/UTs

Sh. Ram Binay Singh

Bihar

Sh. Dinesh Panigrahi

Chhattisgarh

Sh. Ravi Bhushan Sharma

Delhi

Sh. Rahul Tyagi

Delhi

Now, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 15 of the National Investigation

Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), read with sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of

1974), the Central Government hereby extends the term of engagement of the aforesaid advocates as Special Public

Prosecutors for a further period of three years.

[F. No. 11011/40/2019/NIA (Part-I)]

VIPUL ALOK, Under Secy.

कार्माक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्माक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 13 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1600.—केन्द्र सरकार एति् द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए जनम्नजलज त अृरािों को दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों द्वारा

भी अन्वेषण दकए िाने के जलए जवजनर्िाष्ट करती िज, नामतः-

(क) “िजव जवजविता अजिजन म, 2002 (2003 का अजिजन म 18)” के तित िण्डनी अृराि;

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3559

( ) उृ ुाि अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी

संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि(िों)।

[फा. सं. 228/49/2023-एवीडी-II]

संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING)

New Delhi, the 13th September, 2023

S.O. 1600.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are also to be investigated

by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely :-

(a)

Offence punishable under “The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (Act 18 of 2003)”;

(b)

Any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with above mentioned

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

out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/49/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 18 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1601.—केन्द्र सरकार एति् द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए कनााटक राज् सरकार का आिेि

सं. एचडी 39 सीओडी 2022, दिनांक 13.03.2023, गषि जवभाग (िाइम्स), बंगलुरु के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से

अजभकज त िुर्वाजन ोिन में संजलप्त व्यजि ों के जवरुद्ध कनााटक राज् मुि जववविजवयालाल (कनााटक स्ट्टेट ओृन ुजनवर्साटी)

और भारत भर में फजले इसके सि ोगी संस्ट् ानों से वषा 2009-10 से 2015-16 के जलए संग्रजित िुल्क के िुर्वाजन ोिन से

िुड़े अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा

षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए

दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त कनााटक राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/46/2023-एवीडी-II]

संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2023

S.O. 1601.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Karnataka, issued vide Order No. HD 39 COD 2022 dated 13.03.2023, Home Department (Crimes),

Bengaluru, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to

the whole State of Karnataka for investigation into the offence(s) pertaining to misappropriation of fees collected for

the period 2009-10 to 2015-16 from Karnataka State Open University and its collaborative institutions spread all over

India against the persons involved in connection with the alleged misappropriation and any attempt, abetment and/or

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

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

[F. No. 228/46/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

3560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल् ली, 18 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1602.—केन् द्र सरकार, एति् द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, झार ंड राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना

सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-409/2023-3250/रांची, दिनांक 20.07.2023, गषि, कारागार एवं आृिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची के

माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से, श्री संतोष रस्ट्तोगी, मिाजनरीक्षक (इन्व.-II), राष्ट्री िााँच एिेंसी, नई दिल्ली द्वारा केंद्र

सरकार के कमाचाठर ों व अन् नामतः (1) श्री जवमल कांत िुक्ला, तत्कालीन ृठर ोिना अजिकारी, जृृरवार

ृठर ोिना, (2) श्री भागीर प्रसाि ससंि, तत्कालीन ृठर ोिना अजिकारी, अिोका ृठर ोिना, (3) श्री िीृक कुमार

वमाा, तत्कालीन वठरष्ठ प्रबंिक (जवत्त) (एल&आर), (4) श्री ृरणव कुमार जसन्िा, तत्कालीन वठरष्ठ प्रबंिक (एम)

(एल&आर), सीसीएल, मु्‍ ाल , (5) श्री दिलीृ कुमार, तत्कालीन अंचल अजिकारी, तंडवा, (6) श्री िीृक कुमार उफा

िीृक गंझू, (7) श्री तूफान गंझू, सीसीएल के अज्ञात अजिकाठर ों व अन् के जवरुद्ध भारती िंड संजिता (1860 का 45)

की िारा 120-बी सृठ त िाराएं 420, 467, 468 और 471 त ा भ्र्‍ टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का

49) की िारा 13(2) सृठ त िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िंडनी अृराि(िों) के संबंि में दिनांक 22.12.2020 को ििा

कराई गई जिका त से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी

िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्

अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त झार ंड राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/53/2023-एवीडी-II]

संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2023

S.O. 1602.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No.-10/C.B.I.-409/2023-3250/Ranchi dated 20.07.2023, Home,

Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

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

of the complaint dated 22.12.2020 lodged by Shri Santosh Rastogi, Inspector General (Inv.-II), National Investigation

Agency, New Delhi against Central Government employees and others namely (1) Shri Vimal Kant Shukla, the then

Project Officer, Piparwar Project, (2) Shri Bhagirath Prasad Singh, the then Project Officer, Ashoka Project, (3) Shri

Deepak Kumar Verma, the then Sr. Manager (Fin.)(L&R), (4) Shri Paranaw Kumar Sinha, the then Sr. Manager (M)

(L&R), CCL, HQ, (5) Shri Dileep Kumar, the then Circle Officer, Tandwa, (6) Shri Deepak Kumar @ Deepak

Ganjhu, (7) Shri Toofan Ganjhu, unknown officials of CCL and others, punishable under section 120-B r/w sections

420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection

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

same facts.

[F. No. 228/53/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 27 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1603.—केन् द्र सरकार, एति द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार के आिेि सं.

सीआईटी-3423/सी.आर.75/ ृोल-11, दिनांक 01.03.2023, गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से दिनांक

14.11.2022 को ृुजलस स्ट्टेिन वली मे ृंिीकषत दकए गए प्रकरण सीआर(एफआईआर) सं. 1181 से संबंजित

अृराि(िों), िो भारती िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 की 45) की िारा 120बी, 384 और 386 के तित िण्डनी िैं, का

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3561

अन्वेषण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी

संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/17/2023-एवीडी-II]

संि कुमार चौरजस ा, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2023

S.O. 1603.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CIT-3423/C.R.75/Pol-11 dated 01.03.2023, Home Department,

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

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) relating to CR(FIR) No. 1181 dated 14.11.2022

registered at Police Station Worli, under sections 120B, 384 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and

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

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

[F. No. 228/17/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

जवयालुत मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 3 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1604.—केंद्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के

जन म 10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में जवयालुत मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्वासेि

जलजमटेड के जनम्नजलज त का ााल ों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित कमाचारीवषंि ने सिंिी का का ासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को

एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज।

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्वासेि जलजमटेड,

एनएफ़एल जबसल्डंग, 5वां एवं 6 ा तल,

कोर-3, स्ट्कोृ कॉम्प्लेक्स, लोिी रोड,

नई दिल्ली-110003

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्वासेि जलजमटेड,

राज् का ााल छतीसगढ़,

509-510, 5वां तल, मजग्नेटो मॉल, लाभांडी,

रा ृुर, छतीसगढ़-492001

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्वासेि जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्री का ााल ृटना,

5^वीं मंजिल, िषाविान आकेड,

लोक ना क भवन के ृास, फ्रेज़र रोड,

ृटना-800001, जबिार

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्वासेि जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्री का ााल जिमला,

प्र म तल, ाकुर जनवास,

एचडीएफ़सी लाइफ के सामने, ाजलनी,

जिमला-171002, जिमाचल प्रिेि

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्वासेि जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्री का ााल ि ृुर,

जद्वती मंजिल, एनबीसीसी सेंटर,

सिकार मागा, ि ृुर-302007,

रािस्ट् ान

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्वासेि जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्री का ााल मुंबई,

ऑदफस नं. 103-106, एफ सवंग,

ृिली मंजिल, टावर-2,

नेरुल नवी मुंबई-400706, मिाराष्ट्र

[फा. सं. 11011/08/9/2023-सिंिी]

नरेंद्र ससंि, मु्‍ अजभ ंता (प्रभारी रा.भा.)

3562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2023

S.O. 1604.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of Energy Efficiency Services

Limited (EESL) under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi:

Energy Efficiency Services Limited,

NFL Building, 5th & 6th Floor,

Core-III, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi-110003

Energy Efficiency Services Limited,

State Office Chhattisgarh,

509-510, 5th floor,

Magneto Mall, Labhandi,

Raipur-492001, Chhattisgarh

Energy Efficiency Services Limited,

Regional Office Patna,

5th Floor, Harshwardhan Arcade,

Near Lok Nayak Bhawan, Frazer Road,

Patna, Bihar-800001

Energy Efficiency Services Limited,

Regional Office Shimla,

Ist Floor, Thakur Niwas,

Opposite HDFC Life, Khalini,

Shimla-171002, Himachal Pradesh

Energy Efficiency Services Limited,

Regional Office Jaipur,

2^nd Floor, NBCC Center,

Sahakar Marg, Jaipur,

Rajasthan-302007

Energy Efficiency Services Limited,

Regional Office Mumbai ,

Office No.103-106, F Wing,

Ist Floor, Tower-2,

Nerul Navi Mumbai-400706, Maharashtra

[F. No.11011/08/9/2023-Hindi]

NARENDER SINGH, Chief Engineer(In-Charge O.L.)

वाजणज् एवं उयालोग मंत्राल

(वाजणज् जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 4 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1605.—केन्द्री सरकार, जन ाात (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963 (1963 का 22) की िारा 7 की उृिारा

(1) के सा ृठ त जन ाात (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1964 के जन म 12, के उृजन म (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए

मजससा इंस्ट्ृेक्टोरेट जग्रदफ इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, एच. न. 341 बी, रेडी ृोस्ट्ट ृर, तालुका- वेंगुलाा, जिला -ससंिुिुगा, मिाराष्ट्र-416517, (जिसे

एतद्ृश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िा ेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषा के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल की िासकी

रािृत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्िा्‍ ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ. 3975 के

तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-।, अ ाात लौि अ स्ट्क और बॉक्साइट के जन ाात से ृूवा

जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन रेडी ृत्तन, दकरणृनी ृत्तन , ि गढ़ ृत्तन , केलिी ृत्तन त ा बंकोट ृत्तन में उक् त जनि और अ स्ट्क के जनरीक्षण

करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुृ में मान् ता िेती िज, अ ाात् :

(i)

ि अजभकरण, जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-। का जन ाात (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 के जन म 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की ृद्धजत की

िााँच करने के जल े जन ाात जनरीक्षण ृठरषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाठर ों को ृ ााप्त सि ोग और सिा ता प्रिान करेगी;और

(ii) ि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में ा जवजनर्िा्‍ ट अृने का ो का जन्‍ ृािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता

जन ंत्रण) जन ाात जनरीक्षण ृठरषि द्वारा सम -सम ृर, जलज त प ृ में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी।

[फा. सं. के-16014/8/2023 - जन ाात जनरीक्षण]

एम० बालािी, सं ुि सजचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2023

S.O. 1605.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt, Limited House

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3563

No. 341B, At Post Redi, Taluka – Vengurla, District – Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, 416517 (hereinafter referred to as

the said agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the

Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Iron Ore and Bauxite, as specified in the

Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the

Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965, respectively, before export of the said Minerals

and Ores at Redi Port, Kiranpani Port, Jaigarh Port, Kelshi Port and Bankot Port, subject to the following conditions,

namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the

Export Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the

Export of Minerals and Ores – Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by

such directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give,

in writing from time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/8/2023 - Export Inspection]

M. BALAJI, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1606.—केन्द्री सरकार, जन ाात (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963 (1963 का 22) की िारा 7 की उृिारा

मजससा इंस्ट्ृेक्टोरेट जग्रदफ इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िूसरी मंजिल, ृेरेर चेम्बर, ृीई िोस वाज़ रोड, वास्ट्को डी गामा, मोरमुगाओ, गोवा- 403802,

(जिसे एतद्ृश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िा ेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषा के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल की

िासकी रािृत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्िा्‍ ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ.

3975 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-।, अ ाात लौि अ स्ट्क और बॉक्साइट के जन ाात से

ृूवा जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन गोवा ृत्तन में उक् त जनि और अ स्ट्क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुृ में मान् ता िेती िज, अ ाात् :

(i)

[फा. सं. के-16014/9/2023 - जन ाात जनरीक्षण]

एम० बालािी, सं ुि सजचव

New Delhi, the 4th October, 2023

S.O. 1606.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Limited, 2nd

floor, Pereir Chamber, PE Jose Vaz Road, Vasco Da Gama, Mormugao, Goa-403802 (hereinafter referred to as the

said agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Iron Ore and Bauxite, as specified in the Schedule

annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official

Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965, respectively, before export of the said Minerals and Ores

at Goa Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the

Export Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the

Export of Minerals and Ores – Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by

such directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give,

in writing from time to time

[F. No. K-16014/9/2023 - Export Inspection]

M. BALAJI, Jt. Secy.

3564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

रेल मंत्राल

(रेलवे बोडा)

नई दिल् ली, 16 अगस्ट् त, 2023

का.आ. 1607.—रेल मंत्राल (रेलवे बोडा), रािभाषा जन म 1976 (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग)

के जन म 10 के उृजन म (2) और (4) के अनुसरण में जनम्नजलज त का ााल ों ििां 80 प्रजतित से अजिक

अजिकाठर ों/कमाचाठर ों ने सिंिी का का ासाि क ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िज:-

प्रिान का ााल , िजक्षण ृजश्चम रेलवे, हुब्बजल.

मु्‍ ृठर ोिना जनिेिक, केन्द्री रेल जवयालुतीकरण संग न , कोलकाता.

मंडल रेल प्रबंिक का ााल , िजक्षण मध् रेलवे, गुंटूर.

गुंटुृल्ली कार ाना, िजक्षण मध् रेलवे, जसकंिराबाि.

[फा. सं. सिंिी-2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/( 1561389)]

डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(Railway Board)

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1607.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the

Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where

80% or more Officers/ Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Headquarters, South Western Railways, Hubballi.

Chief Project Director’s Office, Central Organisation for Railway Electrification, Kolkata.

Divisional Railway Manager, South Cental Railway, Guntur.

Guntupalli Workshop, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L-1/12/1/( 1561389)]

Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director(O.L.)

नई दिल् ली, 31 अगस्ट् त, 2023

का.आ. 1608.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj स्ट्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड ि ृुर ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vk|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (09/2001) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12011/45/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st August, 2023

S.O. 1608.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.09/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/45/2000- IR(B.I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3565

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 09 OF 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

AND

It’s Workmen/Union

Appearance:

On behalf of Central Bank of India: Absent

On behalf of the Workman : Absent

Dated: 13^th July, 2023

AWARD

By Order No. L-12011/45/2000/IR(B-I) dated 15-02-2001 the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise

of power conferred under section 10(1`)(d) and (2A) of the Act of 1947 has referred the following issue to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in not regularising the service of its canteen

employees as per annexure enclosed herewith in the service of the bank and refusing them to grant and scale and all

other benefits available to the members of subordinate staff of the bank is justified? If not, what relief are the

concerned workmen entitled?

The facts necessary for the determination of the above issue are in brief is that the State Bank of Bikaner and

Jaipur was a subsidiary bank of the State Bank of India constituted under SBI (Subsidiary Bank) Act 1959. The State

Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur is now has become State Bank of India on and after 22-02-2017 by virtue of a Gazette of

India Extraordinarily Notification dated 22-02-2017, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has been acquired by the State

Bank of India.

The erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at its N.S. Road Branch had a canteen run by the Local

Implementation Committee. However, the union which has espoused the present dispute has alleged it was the bank

which used to aid and control the management of the canteen by granting subsidy, providing space, furniture,

crockeries, electricity, gas etc. The bank provided subsidy for making payment of wages to the canteen staff. The

wages of those canteen staff was directly paid by the bank and it was the bank which used to decide on the increment

in their wages. The canteen facility is incidental to running of the bank and it is an obligation on the part of the

management of the bank to provide canteen facility to its employees.

The bank adopted unfair labour practice and to deprive them the facilities and benefits of a regular

subordinate/Group-IV staff of the bank, the bank never issued any appointment letter to them and minimum basic

wages which was otherwise paid to the Group-IV staff of the bank and who are also entitled to get 45 days leave,

medical allowance, DA, HRA, CCA, washing allowance etc.

It has been alleged by the Union that Local Implementation Committee /Canteen Administrative Committee

or any other intermediary committee is nothing but an agent of the bank and which has no independent legal and

factual existence. It is the bank which directly control the administrative and financial matter of the canteen. The

presence of intermediary is of no consequence when on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors

governing employment, the naked truth, though draped in different malafide arrangements will be discerned that the

real employer is bank and not the intermediary committee of which chairman is a high officer of the bank and other

members are also employees of the bank.

The Union raises dispute before the management of the bank claiming regularisation of those canteen staff as

Group-IV staff of the bank, but management never paid heed to its written representation and finding no other

alternative, the Union had to initiate an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Kolkata.

Conciliation failed. Hence, this reference.

Per contra the management of the bank has alleged the bank created a several welfare fund. The Board of

Directors of the bank, at their discretion allocate the amount to be expended from time to time for the purpose of staff

welfare. The said funds are utilised in various welfare activities of the staff of the bank. The funds allocated for

welfare activities are paid by the bank Head Office Welfare Committee of the employees in the respective branches,

Zonal Office, Administrative office/ head office. The bank never engaged any canteen staff as the canteen is not

managed by the bank. In order run the canteen, the local implementation committee engaged canteen staff. The local

implementation committee in the absolute discretion fix the wages or salary of the persons engaged by them. The

post of canteen staff cannot be compared with the Group-IV staff of the bank. The bank has no control over the

3566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appointment of a canteen staff or their attendant or cessation. The bank has no right to supervise or control the work

done by the staff of the canteen. The bank has no right to take disciplinary action against the canteen staff. The bank

has no authority to instruct canteen staff in which manner the work has to be discharged. There is no post of canteen

staff in the bank. That canteen facility is not a part of the service condition of the bank employees. The service

conditions of the bank staff are governed by the bipartite settlement and no part of the bipartite settlement makes

obligatory to the bank to provide canteen facility to its staff. The bank only provides subsidy to the local

implementation committee from the staff welfare fund. The bank from time to time increase the amount in the welfare

fund as per circular issued. The circular dated 07-08-1989 clearly provides the bank has no responsibility towards

canteen staff engaged by the local implementation committee. That expenditure incurred by the canteen is borne by

the local implementation committee or the fund provides by the bank in the staff welfare fund and sale proceeds of the

canteen. That services render by the canteen boys are not incidental to the business of the bank.

As per the Govt. of India guidelines there is a set procedure for appointment in subordinate cadre in the bank

without following which no one can be appointed in the bank and there has to be vacancy and one should be aged

between 18 to 26 years with minimum educational qualification. Therefore, it has prayed for rejection of the claim of

the canteen staff for their absorption as regular staff of the bank in the category of Group-IV.

The Union in order to substantiate its claim that canteen is a part and parcel of the establishment of the bank

and as such the canteen staff are entitled to regularisation in the post of Group-IV of the bank has examined all those

six employees namely Sri Sasanka Sekhar Pandey, Sri Tapan Kumar Chakraborty, Sri Subhas Chandra Pandit, Sri

Paresh Chandra Sahu, Sri Shyamal Dey and Sri Sukumar Mitra as W.W. No. 1 to W.W. no.6.

Record further shows that during the pendency of the case Sri Subhas Chandra Pandit had expired and his

daughter Smt.Madhabi Pandit has been substituted. Said Smt. Madhabi Pandit has been examined by the Union as

W.W. No.7.

The management of the bank has examined Sri Samir Kumar Das Chief Manager, Calcutta Service

Branch as M.W.no.1.

Having regards to the materials on record, the only question that needs determination in this reference is

whether the bank has a statutory obligation to provide canteen facility to its employees?

It is settled principle of law, if there is an obligation to provide a canteen, then the canteen will become a part

of the establishment of the bank. The employees working in the canteen would be the employees of the bank. If the

bank has no statutory obligation to provide canteen facility to its employees then the employees working in the

canteen cannot become the part of the establishment of the bank.

Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Reserve Bank of India Vs Their Workmen 1996 SCC(3)267, has

been pleased to mention the law that emerges from the statute law and the judicial decisions on the issue under what

circumstances a canteen can be a part of the establishment and when it cannot be treated as a part of the establishment

as follows;-

(i) Whereas under the provisions of the Factories Act, it is statutorily obligatory on the employer to provide and

maintain canteen for the use of his employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and, therefore, the

workers employed in such canteen are the employees of the management.

(ii) Where, although it is not statutorily obligatory to provide a canteen, it is otherwise an obligation on the employer

to provide a canteen, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers working in the canteen, the

employees of the management. The obligation to provide a canteen has to be distinguished from the obligation to

provide facilities to run canteen. The canteen run pursuant to the latter obligation, does not become a part of the

establishment.

(iii) The obligation to provide canteen may be explicit or implicit. Where the obligation is not explicitly accepted by

or cast upon the employer either by an agreement or an award, etc., it may be inferred from the circumstances, and the

provisions of the canteen may be held to have become a part of the service conditions of the employees. Whether the

provision for canteen service has become a part of the service conditions or not, is a question of fact to be determined

on the facts and circumstances in each case. Where to provide canteen services has become a part of the service

conditions of the employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers in such canteen become

the employees of the management.

(iv) Whether a particular facility or service has become implicitly part of the service conditions of the employees or

not, will depend, among others, on the nature of the service/facility, the contribution the service in question makes to

the efficiency of the employees and the establishment, whether the service is available as a matter of right to all the

employees in their capacity as employees and nothing more, the number of employees employed in the establishment

and the number of employees who avail of the service, the length of time for which the service has been continuously

available, the hours during which it is available, the nature and character of management, the interest taken by the

employer in providing, maintaining, supervising and controlling the service, the contribution made by the

management in the form of infrastructure and funds for making the service available etc.

Now, let me decide the present dispute in the light of the above settled principle.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3567

Those six canteen staff during their cross examination have admitted the fact, the canteen in the N.S. Road

Branch is run by the Local Implementation Committee. They are paid wages by the said Local Implementation

Committee. They were never given any appointment letter. They do not have to submit any leave application either to

the management of the bank or to the Local Implementation Committee. They just have to produce medical certificate

when they return back from the leave to join the duty.

W.W.No.4 Sri Paresh Chandra Sahu in his evidence in chief has admitted the salary which he gets is through

a cheque issued in favour State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Staff Welfare Fund and he deposits the cheque in the bank

for encashment.

W.W. No.7 Smt. Madhabi Pandit in her evidence in affidavit stated that on the demise of her father on 1^st

July, 2006 she being the only legal heirs, she was appointed to work in the canteen in the N.S. Road Branch. She was

given monthly salary of Rs.1250/-. She has also stated that she should be treated as an employee of the bank.

Thus from the evidence of those canteen staff and whose names appears in the order of reference have

admitted that there is a Local Implementation Committee in the bank and which runs the canteen in question.

The issue whether the canteens run by the Local Implementation Committee of SBI can be considered to be a

part and parcel of the establishment of the bank, has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in State Bank of India –vs- State Bank of India Canteen in Civil Appeal No. 552-553 of 1994 arising out of an

Award passed by the predecessor of this tribunal, where similar issue was in dispute and was raised against State

Bank of India by its canteen employees. More so, the facts of the present reference case appears to be similar to the

one decided by the Apex court in the above cited decision.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 17-04-2004 has discussed in details about Sastri Award,

Reserve Bank of India vs- Workmen (1996) 3 SCC 267, Hussainbhai vs Alath Factory Thezhilali Union & Ors.

(`1978) 4 SCC 257, M.M.R. Khan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors 1990,(Sup) SCC 191 and Parimal Chandra Raha

vs LIC of India (1995) Suppl (2) 611 and observed paragraph 609 of Sastri Award does not cast any obligation that

amenities such as canteen club house, payment of taxes, etc. must be provided by the bank. Not a single part of the

Sastri Award makes it obligatory for the bank to provide canteen facility by running a canteen. It nowhere provides

bank shall provide canteen for its staff. Therefore, held that Sastri Award nowhere cast obligation on the State Bank

of India to run a canteen.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed as per Sastri Award, the bank maintains staff welfare funds

for promoting welfare activities and such activities include promotion of canteen facility, library, cultural activities,

establishment of Holiday Homes etc. which also provides creation of Local Implementation Committee at each

branch, regional office, local head office and central office establishment and other offices and who will determine the

particular activity or activities to be conducted at the respective establishment out of the fund allocated to them by the

Circle Welfare Committee within the heads of activities specified. The Local Implementation Committee will be in

charge of the management of the welfare activities, if necessary through subcommittee and will also suggest which

consulted by the Circle Welfare Committee, the particular type of activities which should be undertaken by the

respective office. The Local Implementation Committee will render proper account of the Circle Welfare Committee

every six months or as otherwise directed.

To provide further subsidy to staff canteen from outside the scope of the staff welfare fund and wages of the

canteen employees on a uniform scale on monthly basis paid out of the bank charges account on the basis of the

member of the employees served at the canteen and there will be no order to utilise for the canteen any amount excess

of its actual wage bill or the prescribed ceiling. Whenever canteen employees are engaged by the Local

Implementation Committee the wages in excess of the subsidy will have to be borne by the Local Implementation

Committee. Providing for subsidy is based on number of employees working in the branch not on the basis of the

persons working in the canteen. There is no compulsion on Local Implementation Committee to run canteen. The

Local Implementation Committee may not opt for canteen facility but may opt for other facilities such as sports,

games, library, reading rooms etc.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to discuss the settlement dated 31-10-1977, 17-09-1984, 09-

01-1981 and 02-04-1992 and held that such settlements nowhere put obligation on the bank to provide canteen facility

to its staff. At the most, it can be inferred that Bank has an obligation to promote running of canteens at its branches

as a part of its staff welfare activities.

The Local Implementation Committee may have the member of the staff of the bank and a canteen having

run under the welfare scheme cannot be said to be an establishment of the bank, though the bank may provide subsidy

for payment towards cost incurred against salary, P.F. contribution, gratuity, uniform etc. beside fuel, water, fixture,

utensils, furniture, electricity, premises etc. free of charge. The bank has no absolute right to take any disciplinary

action or direct any canteen employee to do a particular work. The bank has no direct control and supervision over the

canteen run by the Local Implementation Committee. Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the bank to run a

canteen or just because the bank provides subsidy, furniture, fixture, gas and space in the bank, the bank is only

promoting the canteen. The bank is not the employer of the canteen workers. It may be audit the work of the Local

Implementation Committee just to check whether subsidy given by it is properly utilised or not.

3568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further, the appointment of the employees by the Bank has been regulated by the State Bank of India

General Regulations, which are statutory regulations framed by the Reserve Bank of India with previous sanction of

the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India

Act, 1955. In the case of canteen employees run by the LIC, the Bank does not have any control in their appointment

and the aforesaid recruitment rules are not required to be observed. The recruitment by the bank is to make as per the

statutory rules framed by it after giving proper advertisement, test or interview. No rules has been framed by the bank

for appointment of a canteen employee.

Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a canteen run by Local

Implementation Committee of SBI or in the present case by it's the then subsidiary bank is not a part of the

establishment of the Bank or there was no obligation on the part of the bank to set up a canteen, rather it appears as a

welfare measure to its staff the bank has promoted a canteen run by local implementation committee by providing a

space, furniture, fixtures utensils, gas, water, electricity etc. and subsidy fund from welfare fund. Thus, canteen staff

employed by such Local Implementation Committee and who works or discharge their function as per the direction of

Local Implementation Committee cannot claim regularisation or their absorption against permanent post in the

category of Group IV sub ordinate staff of the Bank. Consequently, those canteen staff cannot claim themselves to be

in the service of the bank or claim their regularisation and absorption in the regular service of the bank in the category

of group IV staff and this Tribunal finds no merit in the present reference. Accordingly, Reference Case no.09 of 2001

is dismissed and away to that effect is passed.

K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 29 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1609.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–

Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 06/2020) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@09@2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y- 22012/109/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th September, 2023

S.O. 1609.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/09/2023.

[No. L-22012/109/2019 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 06 OF 2020

PARTIES:

Gopal Ray

Vs.

Management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: None.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3569

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

28.06.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/109/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.02.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Khas Kajora

Colliery under Kajora Area in imposing a punishment of dismissal on Shri Gopal Ray, General Mazdoor of

Khas Kajora Colliery w.e.f. 29-11-1999 vide order No. KA/PM/C-6/10/3356/7694 dated 29-11-1999 is just

and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/109/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.02.2020 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 06 of 2020 was registered on

24.02.2020 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and

submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The Management of Eastern

Coalfields Limited has already filed as written statement in this case on 24.01.2023. On the direction of this Tribunal,

Management produced a copy of the Form ‘B’ Register of Gopal Ray for his permanent address. Accordingly, a

notice was issued at his address on 25.05.2023 directing him to appear before this Tribunal today (28.06.2023). On

repeated calls at 1:20 PM none appears for Gopal Ray. Mr. S. K. Pandey, the union representative is also found

absent.

After reasonable and ample opportunity given to the workman to contest this case, he has not turned up nor

is he represented by any competent person to assist him. Under such circumstances it is presumed that the dismissed

workman Gopal Ray is not inclined to proceed with this case any further. The Industrial Dispute is therefore disposed

of in form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 29 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1610.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01/2022)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@09@2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y- 22012/02/2022-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th September, 2023

S.O. 1610.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/09/2023

[No. L-22012/02/2022-IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

3570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 01 OF 2022

PARTIES: Smt. Gunjara Bouri, wife of Late Sriniwas Bouri

Vs.

Management of Dhemomain Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Bhajaram Bouri (son of Late Sriniwas Bouri).

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

28.06.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/02/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 13.01.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Dhemomain Colliery under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Dhemomain Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Ltd. in regretting the claim for employment /MMCC to Smt. Gunjora Bouri, W/o Late Sriniwas Bouri,

Ex-Pump Khalasi of Dhemomain Colliery is just and legal? If not, to what relief the dependent wife is entitled to?

”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/02/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 13.01.2022 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 01 of 2022 was registered on

01.07.2022 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and

submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case is fixed

up today for evidence of workman witness. On call, Bhajaram Bouri, son of Late Sriniwas Bouri appeared before the

Tribunal and submitted that his mother, Smt. Gunjara Bouri has expired. None appeared to assist the dependent of

deceased workman.

Written statement has been filed by Bhajaram Bouri on 31.10.2022 enclosing a copy of the Death Certificate

of his mother. The Management filed their written statement on 18.01.2023.

The subject matter of the Industrial Dispute is regarding not providing employment to Smt. Gunjara Bouri,

wife of the deceased workman Sriniwas Bouri. Since Smt. Gunjara Bouri has expired and the same is supported by a

copy of her Death Certificate, I am of the considered view that nothing remains for further consideration. Under the

facts and circumstances, the Industrial Dispute is dismissed.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Reference case is dismissed. An award be drawn up in the light of the above finding. Let copies of

the Award in duplicate be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India for

information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3571

ubZ fnYyh ] 29 flrEcj] 2023

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

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

–

सि

–

] आसनसोल ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/56/2021-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th September, 2023

S.O. 1611.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/09/2023.

[No. L-22012/56/2021 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 23 OF 2021

PARTIES: Dilip Bouri

Vs.

Management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Bipul Banerjee, learned advocate.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

27.06.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/56/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 30.11.2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Khas Kajora Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. E.C.Ltd. in non-reinstatement in

service of Dilip Bouri, U.G. General Mazdoor is justified or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? ”

3572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On receiving Order No. L-22012/56/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 30.11.2021 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 23 of 2021 was registered on 01.07.2022

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited. It appears from

the record that the Management has already filed written statement on 09.01.2023. The case was fixed up on

23.06.2023 for appearance of the workman, Dilip Bouri and for filing written statement. On repeated calls on

23.06.2023 at 02:10 PM, Dilip Bouri and Mr. Bipul Banerjee, learned advocate were not found available. Since

registration of this case on 01.07.2022 sufficient opportunities were given to the workman to represent the case but no

step has been taken.

The case was registered and Notice were issued to parties. The workman has not turned up after Notice.

Therefore, I am of the view that Dilip Bouri is not inclined to proceed with this case, hence, the Industrial Dispute is

disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2023

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

ljdkj बी बी एम बी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

-

सि

-

नं

2] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/56/2021-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th September, 2023

S.O. 1612.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.25/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/09/2023.

[No. L-22012/56/2021 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. J.K. Tripathi, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer.

ID No.25/2019

Registered on:-04.04.2019

Sh. Prem Kumar S/o Sh. Mahant Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Badehar, Tehsil & District Hamirpur-

Himachal Pradesh.

….…..Workman

Versus

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3573

The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038.

.....…Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:-27.04.2023

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/56/2017-IR(CM-II), Dated 13.03.2019, under clause (d)

of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether demand of Shri Prem Kumar S/o Shri Mahant Ram for reinstatement in the

management of BBMB is legal, just and vaild? If yes, then, to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to and from which date?

The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition is that as per claim of workman, the workman was

engaged on 28.06.1973 for the construction of BSL Project Sundernagar in Mandi District of Himachal Pradesh. The

said project remained initially under the management of Beas Control Board which was established on 10.02.1961

and after Punjab Re-Organisation Act 1966, it was renamed Beas Construction Board and also Bhakra Management

Board w.e.f. 01.10.1967 and later on it was renamed as Bhakra Beas Management Board(BBMB) which is working as

such w.e.f. 15.05.1976 till date. The management made illegal retrenchment of its employees in phases and the

workman was also retrenched/discharged on 13.02.1978 from regulation division of the management wrongly and

illegally by the management. The worman was having token no.680-I holding the post of Beldar at the time of

discharge. The workman worked continuously from the date of his initial appointment as work charge till his

retrenchment and has completed more than 240 days in each calendar year and the retrenchment of the workman is

wrong and illegal and in violation of Section 25-F, 25-H, Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules

1957 and in violation of Section 25-N of the ID Act, 1947. The management appointed fresh workmen/employees

secretly after the retrenchment of the workman but preference was not given to the workman which is clear violation

of Section 25-H of the ID Act, 1947. This action of the management also violates the directions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court as mentioned in Para 40 of the case of Jaswant Singh and others VS. Union of India and others,

AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 115. No notice as per Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 which

is statutory requirement has been issued to the workman. The workman is not gainfully employed anywhere after his

illegal termination by the management and have no income from any source and even faced food scarcity. It is

therefore, respectfully prayed that the retrenchment/discharge dated 13.02.1978 of the workman from service by the

management may be declared illegal, unconditional and arbitrary and in violation of the various mandatory provisions

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the workman may be deemed to be considered in continuous service up to the

ear April 2012 along with all consequential benefits.

The management has filed written statement, alleging therein that the the workman had slept over the

matter for more than 32 long years and raised the present dispute at a belated stage without furnishing any plausible

reason for extraordinary delay. The present dispute suffers from the vice of delay and latches and is hopelessly time

barred. There was no master and servant relation between the management of Bhakra Beas Management Board

(BBMB) and the workman. The workman is the Ex-workcharge employee of the Beas Construction Board (for short

BCB) which was constituted under Section 80(1) of the Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966. The workman was

retrenched after completion/part completion of the works of BCB in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and settlement in this behalf. The workman was paid all the terminal benefits i.e. retrenchment

compensation, gratuity and ex-gratia etc. on account of his retrenchment from Bead Construction Board as per

provision of ID Act and other relevant laws. The ex-work charged employes of the BCB had filed a writ petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Jaswant Singh and

others VS. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 115, in which their prayed for absorbing them

in Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) was not granted but instead their retrenchment from the BCB was

upheld by the Apex Court. The BCB and BBMB are two distinct and separate legal entities/industrial establishments

under the provision of Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966 as well as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The construction

of Beas Project was undertaken by the Irregation Department of Punjab Government prior to the Re-organisation of

the erstwhile State of Punjab on 01.11.1966. Consequent to Re-Organisation, the work of the construction of the Beas

Sutlej Link Project was taken over by the Central Government on behalf of the partner State of Punjab, Haryana and

Rajasthan etc. The Central Government for discharging its responsibility of construction and completion of the

Project, constituted Beas Construction Board (BCB) under Sub-Section (2) of Section 80 of the Re-Organisation Act.

As per sub-section (5) of Section 80 of the Act, when any competent of the Beas Project in relation to which the

construction was completed before the appointed day, was to be transferred by the Central Government to the Bhakra

Management Board constituted under Section 79(1) of the aforesaid Act which was to be renamed as Bhakra Beas

3574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management Board. Section 25-H and 25-G of the ID Act are not applicable in the present case. In view of the

submission made hereinabove, the claim of the workman is devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed.

On 27.04.2023 Sh. S.C. Gupta, Learned AR of the workman has submitted that the workman Prem Kumar

has died. None has to come to prosecute the case. Since none is appearing on behalf of the LRs of the late workman,

which shows that the LRs of the late workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

Since the LRs of the late workman has neither put their appearance nor they have filed any replication to

prove their cause against the respondents/managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a

‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer -cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2023

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

भारती ायाल जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

-

सि

-

नं. 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2023-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th September, 2023

S.O. 1613.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.15/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court NO. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Food Corporations of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/09/2023.

[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. J.K. Tripathi, Presiding Officer.

ID No.15/2012

Registered On:-11.09.2012

Gulzar Singh S/o Sh. Banta Singh, R/o VPO Chari, The. Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib(Pb.).

Workman

Versus

The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, Head Quarter, 16-20, Barakamba Lane, New Delhi.

General Manager, FCI, Regional Office, Punjab, Near Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh.

Senior Manager, FCI, Regional Office, Punjab, Near Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh

The Distt. Manager, FCI Basant Road, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana.

Respondents/Managements

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3575

AWARD

Passed On:-19.05.2023

The workman Gulzar Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer that the management may be directed to reinstate the

workman with full back wages and continuity of service.

The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition as per the claim of the workman is that the workman was

joined FCI on the post of Class IV. The workman w.e.f. 29.11.2007 as Assistant I-Grade-II was terminated from

service/compulsorily retired w.e.f. 29.11.2007. The workman worked continuously without any break. His last

drawn monthly wages were Rs.21,960/- per month. The workman was a sincere and hard working person. The

enquiry held by the respondent-management against the workman was not just, fair and proper. The workman

was not allowed an assistance of defence assistant. The enquiry was held against the rules of natural justice. The

workman filed a review petition before the competent authority of FCI but the same was not properly

considered. The workman has been victimized by the conspiracy made his superiors and has also imposed

double penalty on the workman. The workman was not given proper opportunity to defend himself as per rules

and regulations of the Corporation which is a violation of rules of natural justice. The punishing authority has

not considered whether the workman was holding the independent incharge of Food Grains and holding charge

of dead stock articles or during the relevant period the workman was permanently posted at Rail Head Khanna.

The impugned order has been passed on the basis of enquiry conducted by a retired officer is not lawful in

character of the impugned penalty in order rejecting the appeal dated 2.6.2008 are not legally sustainable. The

workman is unemployed since the date of his termination. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to pass an award in favour of workman and against the management holding that the termination of

workman is illegal and unjustified and directing the management to reinstate the workman with full back wages

and continuity of service.

Management filed written statement, alleging therein that the workman was ordered to be compulsorily retired

from services on 29.11.2007 by way of punishment in a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the workman

as the workman was charge-sheeted for his various acts of negligence, omission and commission committed by

the workman in the performance of his duties. The workman has approached to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner(Central) on 29.11.2011 i.e. after the lapse of three years which is not maintainable. As per

Section 2-A(3) of the amended provision of the ID Act, an application can be made before the expiry of three

years from the date of discharge. In the present case, the workman was ordered to be compulsorily retired from

service on 29.11.2007 and the application has been filed on 29.11.2011 before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner and the present application has been filed on 7.9.2012. A charge-sheet was issued to the

workman clearly intimating the charges and other misconduct committed by the workman during service. The

workman was given full opportunity to defend himself. The workman was associated with the departmental

enquiry even the workman was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The workman is responsible

for his acts and deeds which he has done during service. The workman has accepted the fact of compulsory

retirement as imposed by way of punishment on account of the acts of willful omission, commission and

negligence causing loss to property belonging to the corporation. The workman was proceeded with

departmental enquiry and after affording full opportunity of defence the disciplinary authority has passed the

order of punishment as the charges were proved during the enquiry. Before passing the final order, all the rules

of natural justice were complied with at every stage and the workman was given full opportunity to defend

himself. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that there is no merit in the present case and the same be

dismissed.

The workman filed rejoinder against the written statement filed by the management, alleging therein that the

respondent/management had resorted to unfair labour practice. The demand notice is not belated. The enquiry

held was not just, fair and proper. The rules of natural justice were violated. When the workman did not hear

from the Managing Director, FCI about his review petition, the workman filed the present case. The workman

performed his duties as per law. The respondent has levied two punishment one of compulsory retirement and

other of forfeiture of his retiral benefits. The workman has been victimized in an illegal, unjust and arbitrary

manner. Therefore, it is prayed that the workman be reinstated retrospectively with full back wages and with

other benefits as per law by setting aside the illegal and harsh punishment inflicted on the workman.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal at the stage of cross-examination of the workman

on 27.05.2019 it is informed by the AR of the workman that the workman Gulzar Singh is died. Till today, the

case is pending for filing amended claim petition but none is responding on behalf of legal heir/s of the

deceased workman Gulzar Singh, which shows that the legal heir/s of the deceased workman Gulzar Singh

is/are not interested in adjudication of the case on merit. Since several opportunities have already given to the

legal heir/s of the deceased workman Gulzar Singh but none appeared on behalf of the legal heir/s of the

3576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

deceased workman Gulzar Singh this Tribunal is left with no alternative except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’.

Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present claim petition. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID

Act, 1947.

J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2023

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

ljdkj भारती ायाल जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

-

सि

-

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22011/20/2014-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2023

S.O. 1614.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 46/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.

[No. L-22011/20/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 46/2014

Ref. No. No. L-22011/20/2014- (IR(CM-II) dt. 01.07.2014

BETWEEN

Shubhash Chandra R/o Mohalla- Chah Icharam,

Near Sanatan Dharam Sabha District- Rampur

PIN-244901

……… Workman

AND

Executive Director, (North Centre)

Food Corporation of India, Vibhuti

Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

General Manager, U.P.

Food Corporation of India

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

……. Respondent

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3577

AWARD

Heard Sri S.K. Shukla counsel for workman and Sri A.P. Singh for respondent.

By an order dated 01.07.2014 the appropriate authority as referred the following reference to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

**D;k izca/ku] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk ofj"Brk lwph ds vk/kkj ij Jh lqHkk"k pUnz] ,-th-&I dks eSustj ds in ij

mlls twfu;lZ dks fnukad 30-07-2008 ds }kjk nh x;h inksUufr ykHk u fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn

ugh arks dkexkj fdl jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\^^

Accordingly ID case 46/2014 registered before this Tribunal.

Case of claimant

Sri S.K. Shukla Learned Counsel for workman in brief submits as under:-

On 11.01.2016 claimant filed the claim petition in brief the case taken him that he joined the services of Food

Corporation of India (in short hereinafter referred as ‘FCI’) on 05.04.1972, as AG III and rendered his services to the

corporation with utmost good faith.

Applicant performed his duties in different district as per the requirement of smooth functioning of the corporation. It

is pertinent to mention here that the services of applicant were up to the mark as required by the corporation and no

complaint was received by the corporation in respect of applicant.

Applicant retired from services of ‘FCI’ w.e.f. 30.06.2009, from the post of AG I (PP), at the time of superannuation

the applicant was posted at FSD/FCI Dhamoura, District Rampur (U.P.)

During tenure of his service applicant was promoted on the post of AG II (PP) from AG III (PP) on 30/31.12.1980. It

was also pertinent to mention here that applicant’s promotion was due for next promotional post i.e. AG I (PP) in the

year 2000, but the same was denied on the pretext of pending vigilance case against the applicant, without considering

the fact that on that point of time applicant was not given any punishment therefore, he could not be debarred from his

right of promotion. Moreover, applicant was given promotion on said post in the year 206 i.e. 20.11.2006.

Further the next promotion for the post of Manager from the post of AG I (PP) was due to the applicant in year 2001

as per the seniority roll dated 31.12.2001, in that, applicant’s name was shown at serial No. 1305.

But in year 2008 vide office memorandum bearing No. E-1/2(4)/N (Depot) 2008/NZ dated 30.07.2008, promotion list

for the post of Manager has been issued, in which junior to appellant were given promotion on the next higher post

i.e. on the post of Manger, ignoring him.

Further in year 2001 a seniority list of AG-1(PP) dated 31.12.2001 was issued in which the name of appellant fined

place at serial No. 1305 further in year 2006 again seniority list of AG-I was issued but arbitrarily and reason best to

known by authority concerned the name of the applicant finds place at Serial No. 1899.

Moreover as per seniority list dated 31.12.2006, the applicant’s name was shown at serial No. 1899(A) without

assigning any reason and the applicant was placed below more than 500 steps down on comparing with the seniority

list dated 31.12.2001.

Applicant had made several applications either by registered post or by speed or Fax and also several reminders had

been sent by the applicant in this regard to the higher authority of the respondent corporation, to remove this

anomalies and to grant promotion according to the law by giving right place in the seniority list issued in the year

31.12.2001, but no heed was paid by them.

In view of the above said facts that applicant has prayed the following relief:-

In view of aforesaid facts, the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to allow the case granting promotion to the

workman with antedate seniority w.e.f. 31.12.2001, when junior to the applicant promoted on the post of Manager

and workman be also given the consequential serviced and monetary benefits.

Case of Respondent

Sri Ashish Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents submits till date on behalf of claimant neither rejoinder

affidavit nor any evidence in support of his case has been filed so in spite of opportunity has been given to him so

present case is liable to be dismissed on the ground, appellant failed to prove his case.

Finding & Conclusion.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

3578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

When the matter was taken up for hearing Sri S.K. Shukla learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant informed

the Tribunal that Sri claimant has died he sent information initially to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit before his

death to his legal heirs, however no response was received by him.

Taken into consideration the said facts as well as the provision as provided under Sub-Section 8 of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is quoted herein below:-

(8) “No proceedings pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to

an industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispte

being a workman, and such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall complete such

proceedings and submit its award to the appropriate Government”.

So I proceeded to decide the matter on merit.

Taking into consideration the above said fact and from the perusal of record the position is emerge out that for the

first time was granted to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit on 08.03.2021 and thereafter several opportunities was

granted, lastly by an order dated 28.12.2022, last opportunity granted to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit failing

which the matter shall be preceded for ex-parte hearing.

Thus, admittedly till date neither any rejoinder nor any evidence has been filed by claimant in order to establish in his

claim as per the reference dated 01.07.2014.

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 UptronPowertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of ShankerChakravarti 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 workman/Sri Shubhash Chandra (now deceased) is not entitled

for any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

03.07. 2023

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3579

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2023

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

ljdkj भारती ायाल जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

-

सि

-

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22011/20/2017-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2023

S.O. 1615.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 24/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.

[No. L-22011/20/2017 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 24/2019

Ref. No. L-22011/20/2017-IR CM-II) dated 12.11.2018

BETWEEN

सं ुि सजचव, भारती ायाल जनगम मििूर संघ, कजम्ृ का ााल

12/58, ििीि नगर, ृुराना दकला, ल नऊ - 226001

AND

1. क्षेत्र प्रबंिक, भारती ायाल जनगम 07-आर, डालीबाग ल नऊ-226001

2. मिा प्रबन्िक उ० प्र०, भारती ायाल जनगम, टी० सी० / ०३ बी, जवभूजत ण्ड, गोमती नगर ल नऊ - 226001

3. प्रबन्ि जनिेिक, भारती ायाल जनगम अंसल भवन कस्ट्तूरबा गााँिी मागा, नई दिल्ली-110001

4. प्रबन्ि जनिेिक, भारती ायाल जनगम प्लाट नं० 2 ए, 2 बी सेक्िन -२४ गौतम बुद्ध नगर नो डा - 201307

AWARD

By order No. L-22011/20/2017-IR CM-II) dated 12.11.2018 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:

“क् ा प्रबंिन, भारती ायाल जनगम, नई दिल्ली व अन् द्वारा भा० ा० जन०, भण्डारण जडृों, तालकटोरा, ल नऊ के

श्रजमकों को अगस्ट्त 2016 से 35% इन्सेंठटव कम भुगतान करना न् ा ोजचत एंव वजि िज ? दि निी तो कामगार दकस राित

को ृाने के िक़िार िज ?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 24/2019 has been registered on 16.08.2019

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

3580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 12.11.2018.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2023

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

ljdkj भारती ायाल जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

-

सि

-

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22011/22/2014-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2023

S.O. 1616.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 48/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.

[No. L-22011/22/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3581

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 48/2016

Ref. No. No. L-22011/22/2014- (IR(CM-II) dt. 08.07.2014

BETWEEN

Shubhash Chandra R/o Mohalla- Chah Icharam,

Near Sanatan Dharam Sabha District- Rampur

PIN-244901

……… Workman

AND

Executive Director, (North Centre)

Food Corporation of India, Vibhuti

Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

General Manager, U.P.

Food Corporation of India

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

……. Respondent

AWARD

Heard Sri S.K. Shukla counsel for workman and Sri Ashish Srivastava for respondent.

By an order dated 08.07.2014 the appropriate authority as referred the following reference to be adjudicated

by this Tribunal.

**D;k izca/ku] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk Jh lqHkk"k pUnz ,-th-&III dks fn;s x;s n.Mkns'k fnukad 26-11-2009 o

fnukad 07-07-2010 U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugh arks dkexkj fdl jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\^^

Accordingly ID case 48/2014 registered before this Tribunal.

Case of Claimant

Sri S.K. Shukla learned counsel for workman in brief submits as under:-

On 11.01.2016 claimant Shubhash Chandra filed the claim petition in brief the facts were taken him are that

applicant had joined the services of Food Corporation of India ( in short hereinafter referred as ‘FCI’) on 05.04.1972,

as AG III and rendered his service to the corporation with utmost good faith.

Applicant performed his duties in different district as per term and condition as per the claimant of his

seniors without any complaint there was no complaint against him from the authorities corporation in respect to

service performed by him.

Applicant retired from services of ‘FCI’ w.e.f. 30.06.2009, from the post of AG I, (PP), at the time of

superannuation applicant was posted at FSD/FCI Dhamoura, district Rampur (U.P.)

During tenure of his service show Cause notice dated 15/21.12.2006, was received to what alleging that

while he was posted and functioning at FSD Rampur, during year 1993 failed to perform his signed duties, as a

consignment of rice, dispatched Ex-FSD Rampur to Agra Cantt, on 24 February 1994, was found beyond rejection

limit owing to excessive percentage of broken grains.

As issue was very old so claimant request by letter dated 18.01.2007, to General Manager FCI Lucknow to

provide some relevant documents (13 different relevant documents), and also requested to quash the show cause

notice dated 15/21.12.2006.

3582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

However in spite of report demanded relevant document respondent corporation issued a memorandum dated

27.11.2008, along with statement of imputation of misconduct which is nothing but in sheer, illegal and arbitrary

manner which action on the preliminary of report, was received by applicant on 08.12.2008.

Feeling aggrieved by the memorandum dated 27.11.2008, received on 20.12.2008, appellant again requested

to provide document and also permit him to inspect the same in order to submit his reply but instead of providing the

said documents only he was allowed to inspect only three documents, and for rest documents it was told that same are

untraceable.

In spite of said conduct/action on the part of concerned authority, in compelling circumstances applicant

submitted his rely/explanation dated 27.12.2008 to the memorandum, denying the charge leveled against him and also

making request to exonerate him from said charge, in his reply applicant pointed out 10 point in his defense and also

annexed relevant document support of his case/defense.

However without considering and appreciating the reply of applicant and also without applying the judicial

mind, authority concerned passed non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 24/26 Nov. 2009, whereby penalty of

recovery of Rs. 35002/- leveled against applicant is illegal and arbitrary manner, the same was also recovered from

post retiral benefits.

Feeling aggrieved by foresaid order dated 24/26 Nov. 2009 applicant filed an appeal dated 10.01.2010,

making request to exonerate to him and to expunge punishment of recovery Rs. 35002/- but appeal was rejected in

sheer and illegal manner without appreciating the submission of the applicant in a mechanical manner by order dated

07.07.2010.

Thereafter applicant preferred an application under Right to Information Act 2005, seeking copy of some

relied upon/relevant documents of the case as well as relevant information of the case but no satisfactory reply has

been given

Against impugned order dated 24/26 Nov. 2001 of the authorities filed a review application dated

19.10.2010, before Managing Director, FCI HQ New Delhi, but till date the same has not been decided till filing of

the present case.

Accordingly it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that for redressal of his grievances in view of

the above said facts. Workman filed the present claim petition with the following relief:-

(i)

To set aside the recovery order dated 24/26.11.2009 and appellate order dated 07.07.2010.

(ii)

To direct authority concern to refund the amount of Rs. Rs. 35002/- as deducted from the terminal

benefit of the applicant.

(iii) To direct authority concern to pay interest @ 18% per annum on aforesaid amounts till the actual

payment.

Case of Respondent

Sri Ashish Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents submits as under-

On 01.12.2016 on behalf of the respondent a written statement has been filed, denying the contents of the

paragraphs which were pleaded by the claimant in his written statement and it was also pleaded on behalf of the

respondent and thereafter taking into consideration the material of fact the order was passed for recovery of sum of

Rs. 35,200/- which was perfectly valid in accordance with law. So applicant/workman is not entitled for any relief so

the case filed by him is liable to be dismissed.

Finding and Conclusion

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

When the matter was taken up for hearing Sri S.K. Shukla learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant

informed the Tribunal that Sri claimant has died he sent information initially to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit

before his death to his legal heirs, however no response was received by him.

Taken into consideration the said facts as well as the provision as provided under Sub-Section 8 of Section

10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is quoted herein below:-

(8) “No proceedings pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to an

industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispute being a

workman, and such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall complete such proceedings and

submit its award to the appropriate Government”

So I proceeded to decide the matter on merit.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3583

Thus, taking into consideration the facts on record admittedly till date nether any rejoinder nor any evidence

has been filed by the claimant in order to establish in his claim as per the reference dated 08.07.2014

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 194as 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 UptronPowertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as

under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of ShankerChakravarti 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 workman/Sri Shubhash Chandra (now deceased) is not

entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

30.06.2023

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2023

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

ljdkj भारती ायाल जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

-

सि

-

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22011/21/2014-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2023

S.O. 1617.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 47/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.

[No. L-22011/21/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

3584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 47/2014

Ref. No. No. L-22011/21/2014- (IR(CM-II) dt. 08.07.2014

BETWEEN

Shubhash Chandra R/o Mohalla- Chah Icharam,

Near Sanatan Dharam Sabha District- Rampur

PIN-244901

……… Workman

AND

Executive Director, (North Centre)

Food Corporation of India, Vibhuti

Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

General Manager, U.P.

Food Corporation of India

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

……. Respondent

AWARD

Heard Sri S.K. Shukla counsel for workman and Sri A.P. Singh for respondent.

By means of the letter dated 08.07.2014 passed by the the appropriate Government the following reference

as made

**D;k izca/ku] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk Jh lqHkk"k pUnz] ,-th-&I dks fn;s x;s n.Mkns'k fnukad 07-12-2004 jnn~

djkus mlls :i;s 55000-00 dh olwyh 36 buLVkyesaV esa dj yh x;h ,oa o"kZ 2001 dh osru c<ksRrjh tks ,d

o"kZ ds fy, jksdh x;h dk ,fj;j Hkh Hkqxrku u djuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugh arks dkexkj fdl jkgr dks

ikus dk gdnkj gS\^^

Accordingly ID case No. 47/2014 registered before this Tribunal.

Case of Claimant

Sri S.K. Shukla Learned Counsel for workman in brief submits as under:-

On 11.01.2016 claimant filed the claim petition, the facts as stated therein in brief are as under:-

Applicant had joined the services of Food Corporation of India (in short hereinafter referred as ‘FCI’) on

05.04.1972, as AG III and rendered his services to the corporation with utmost good faith. The applicant also

performed his duties in different district as per the requirement of smooth function of the corporation It is pertinent to

mention here that the services of the applicant were up to the mark as required by the corporation and no complaint

was received by the corporation in respect of applicant. The applicant has been retired from service of ‘FCI’ w.e.f.

30.06.2009, from the post of AG I (PP), at the time of superannuation the applicant was posted at FSD/FCI)

Dhamoura, District Rampur (U.P.)

In year 1998, a show cause notice dated 17.07.1998, received on 27.07.1998, was issued against the

applicant to explain as to how he allowed dispatches of inferior quality of rice in year 1990, without specifically

mention and date of dispatch.

Aggrieved by aforesaid show cause notice the applicant preferred a letter dated 04.01.1999, to the authority

concerned to provide some relevant documents to give proper explanation, since the show cause notice was issued

after lapse of 8 years. It will not be out of place to mention here that by above letter date 04.01.1999, the applicant

requested to the authority concerned to provide 16 specific relied upon documents to the applicant.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3585

That despite authority concerned had permitted to provide relied upon documents but only six documents

were provided to the applicant instead of 16 documents as asked by the applicant vide letter dated 04.01.1999. Further

in one hand authority concern was asking explanation to the show cause notice but in other hand they were not

provided the remaining relied upon documents despite applicant was repeatedly demanded the foresaid relied upon

documents but no provided to the applicant reason best know to the authority.

In the above compelling circumstances, applicant preferred his explanation/reply to show cause notice dated

in absence of relied upon documents on 20.04.1999, making request to discharge him from the matter and he also

explained to the authority concern, that at that point of time applicant was not discharging the duties at Railway Head

Rampur.

However without considering the request of applicant authority concerned had issued a memorandum dated

04.07.2000, for two different year i.e. 1987 and for year 1990 in sheer illegal and arbitrary manner. It will not be out

of place to mention here that issuing a common memorandum after lapse of long time of 13 & 10 years respectively is

voilative of natural justice.

Aggrieved by aforesaid act and memorandum the applicant has preferred a detailed reply to the aforesaid

memorandum explaining that on 07.11.1986 to 23.04.1987 applicant was posted at Jaspur and not performing his

duties at Rampur. Not only the above the applicant also explained that in the month of January and February of 1990,

applicant was posted at Central Warehouse Corporation Rampur therefore, he could not be held liable to loading

inferior quality of rice. As he was not discharging the duty on Railway mall Godam at Rampur.

However without considering/appreciating the reply of applicant and also without applying the judicial mind

the authority concerned passed an unspeaking and unreasoned order dated 21/22 September 2001, whereby, applicant

had been awarded penalty of reduction to 1 stage in present time scale of pay for a period of one year along with

recovery of Rs. 55,000/- in 36 equal installments with immediate effect.

Aggrieved by above order dated 21/22 September 2001, applicant filed an appeal dated 05.12.2001, making

request to exonerate to the aforesaid matter and order of the disciplinary authority may be rejected in want of justice.

But appeal has also been rejected in sheer and illegal manner without appreciating the submission of the applicant in a

mechanical manner by order dated 07.12.2004 received on 19.01.2005.

Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that for redressal of his grievances in view of the above said

facts. Workman filed the present claim petition with the following relief:-

(i)

To set aside order dated 21/22 September 2001 and order dated 07.12.2004.

(ii)

To direct authority concern to refund the amount of Rs. Rs. 55,000/- as deducted from the salary of the

petitioner in 36 installments.

(iii) To direct authority concern to pay arrears of the salary as one increment for year 2001, has been

stopped in furtherance of above impugned order,

(iv) To direct authority concern to pay interest @ 18% per annum on aforesaid amounts.

Case of Respondent

Sri Ashish Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents submits till date on behalf of claimant neither rejoinder

affidavit nor any evidence in support of his case has been filed so in spite of opportunity has been given to him so

present case is liable to be dismissed on the ground, appellant failed to prove his case.

Finding & Conclusion.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

When the matter was taken up for hearing Sri S.K. Shukla learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant informed

the Tribunal that Sri claimant has died he sent information initially to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit before his

death to his legal heirs, however no response was received by him.

Taken into consideration the said facts as well as the provision as provided under Sub-Section 8 of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is quoted herein below:-

(8)“No proceedings pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to an

industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispte being a

workman, and such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall complete such proceedings and

submit its award to the appropriate Government”.

So I proceeded to decide the matter on merit.

Taking into consideration the above said fact and from the perusal of record the position is emerge out that for the

first time was granted to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit on 08.03.2021 and thereafter several opportunities was

granted, lastly by an order dated 28.12.2022, last opportunity granted to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit failing

which the matter shall be preceded for ex-parte hearing.

3586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, admittedly till date neither any rejoinder nor any evidence has been filed by claimant in order to establish in his

claim as per the reference dated 08.07.2014

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 194as 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 UptronPowertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of ShankerChakravarti 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 workman/Sri Shubhash Chandra (now deceased) is not entitled

for any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

03.07. 2023

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2023

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

ljdkj भारती ायाल जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

-

सि

-

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22011/44/2014-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2023

S.O. 1618.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 56/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023

[No. L-22011/44/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3587

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 56/2014

Ref. No. No. L-22011/44/2014- (IR(CM-II) dt. 12.09.2014

BETWEEN

Shubhash Chandra R/o Mohalla- Chah Icharam,

Near Sanatan Dharam Sabha District- Rampur

PIN-244901

……… Workman

AND

Executive Director, (North Centre)

Food Corporation of India, Vibhuti

Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

General Manager, U.P.

Food Corporation of India

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

……. Respondent

AWARD

Heard Sri S.K. Shukla counsel for workman and Sri A.P. Singh for respondent.

By means of the letter dated 12.09.2014 the appropriate authority as referred the following reference to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

**D;k izca/ku] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe }kjk Jh lqHkk"k pUnz ,-th-&I dks fn;s x;s n.Mkns'k fnukad 04-08-2007 jnn~

djus o vihy fnukad 04-10-2007 dks fuLrkj.k u fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugh arks dkexkj fdl

jkgr dks ikus dk gdnkj gS\^^

In response to the said reference adjudication case No. 56/2014 registered before this Tribunal.

Case of claimant

Sri S.K. Shukla Learned Counsel for workman in brief submits as under:-

On 11.01.2016 claimant filed the claim petition and the facts which is stated therein in brief are as under:-

Applicant had joined the services of Food Corporation of India (in short hereinafter referred as ‘FCI’) on

05.04.1972, as AG III and rendered his services to the corporation with utmost good faith. The applicant also

performed his duties in different district as per the requirme3nt of smooth function of the corporation It is

pertinent to mention here that the services of the applicant were up to the mark as required by the corporation

and no complaint was received by the corporation in respect of applicant. The applicant has been retired from

service of ‘FCI’ w.e.f. 30.06.2009, from the post of AG I (PP), at the time of superannuation the applicant was

posted at FSD/FCI) Dhamoura, District Rampur (U.P.)

Further by letter dated 04/5 December 2001, a punishment order was issued against the applicant for quality

complaint for receipt of rice stock in Midnapur during December 1983, without giving any show cause notice,

office memorandum as well as opportunity of hearing in sheer, illegally and arbitrary manner. Moreover, by

above order applicant was punished with the punishment of recovery o Rs. 7,767/- and said recovery amount

was deducted from the salary of applicant in 10 equal installment without providing the opportunity of hearing

in mechanical manner.

Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid order dated 04/05 December 2001, applicant filed an appeal dated 08.08.2003

making request to the authority concern to set aside the order dated 04/05/ December 2001, and to refund

recovered amount of Rs. 4,767/- in the interest of justice.

And after considering the submission made by the applicant in his appeal the appellate authority vide its order

dated 28.02.2006, was pleased to set aside the order of recovery dated 04/05/ December 2001,, and remanded

back the case to disciplinary authority i.e. General Manager (U.P.) FCI R.O. Lucknow to decide the case of

quality control after following the proper procedure as laid down in FCI (Staff) Regulation 1971.

3588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2023/ASVINA 15, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In furtherance of appellate order dated 28.02.2006, the respondent corporation issued a memorandum dated

05.02.2007 by covering letter dated 21.02.2007, seeking explanation for the dispatch of rice Ex. Rampur to

Midnapur, which took place during December 1983.

After receiving the aforesaid memorandum dated 05.02.2007 applicant requested to the authority concerned

vide his letter dated 22.02.2007, 01.03.2007 and letter dated 06.03.2007, respectively, to provide some relied

upon document for his comprehensive explanation but same were not provide despite specific order to provide

relied upon document to the applicant was issued by the authority concern.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid memorandum and inaction of the authority concern by not providing the relied upon

document the applicant had preferred his explanation/rely dated 08.03.2007, to the same in these compelling

circumstances, explaining that he was not performing the duty of rail head in December 1983. As je was

performing the duties of preservation of wheat/rice and other work of godown i.e. M.F. Buland Unit and Rail

Head Rampur on the direction of A.M. (Q.C.) he also explained that he was engaged to look after office work in

addition to duties given as above. Therefore, he could not be charged for any anomalies which taken place in

dispatch of the rice Rampur to Midnapur during December 1983, as no documentary proof against the applicant

were given in the support of alleged allegation.

But without considering and appreciating the reply of the applicant and also without applying the judicial mind

the authority concerned passed an unspeaking and unreasoned order dated 04.08.2007, whereby, recovery of

Rs. 4,767/- in 5 equal installments had been issued against the applicant in mechanical manner.

Aggrieved by aforesaid order dated 04.08.2007, applicant filed an appeal dated 04.10.2007, making request to

exonerate to him and to expunge the given punishment of Recovery Rs. 4,767/- in the interest of justice. The

said appeal has not been decided by the appellate authority till date, despite specific request to disposed off the

same has been made by the applicant through his letter dated 22.09.2010, but no heed has been paid by the

appellate authority till date on the specific request of the applicant.

Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that for redressal of his grievances in view of the above said

facts. Workman filed the present claim petition with the following relief:-

(i)

To set aside the recovery order dated 04.08.2007.

(ii)

To direct authority concern to refund the amount of Rs. Rs. 4, 767/- as deducted from the salary of the

petitioner in 5 equal installments.

(iii) To direct authority concern to pay interest @ 18% per annum on aforesaid amounts till the actual

payment.

Case of Respondent

Sri Ashish Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents submits till date on behalf of claimant neither rejoinder

affidavit nor any evidence in support of his case has been filed so in spite of opportunity has been given to him so

present case is liable to be dismissed on the ground, appellant failed to prove his case.

Finding & Conclusion.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

When the matter was taken up for hearing Sri S.K. Shukla learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant informed

the Tribunal that Sri claimant has died he sent information initially to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit before his

death to his legal heirs, however no response was received by him.

Taken into consideration the said facts as well as the provision as provided under Sub-Section 8 of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is quoted herein below:-

(8) “No proceedings pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to an

industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispte being a

workman, and such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall complete such proceedings and

submit its award to the appropriate Government”.

So I proceeded to decide the matter on merit.

Taking into consideration the above said fact and from the perusal of record the position is emerge out that for the

first time was granted to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit on 08.03.2021 and thereafter several opportunities was

granted, lastly by an order dated 28.12.2022, last opportunity granted to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit failing

which the matter shall be preceded for ex-parte hearing.

Thus, admittedly till date neither any rejoinder nor any evidence has been filed by claimant in order to establish in his

claim as per the reference dated 12.09.2014.

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 194as under:

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 7, 2023/आज‍ वन 15, 1945

3589

“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.”