7483 GI/2023

(4285)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 50]

नइ ददल् ली, ददसम् बर 10—ददसम् बर 16, 2023, िजनवार/ऄग्रहायण 19—ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

No. 50] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 10—DECEMBER 16, 2023, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 19—AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

आस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती हज जजससे दक यह ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—ईृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

ृजरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 30 नवम् बर, 2023

का.अ. 1870.—जबदक भारत सरकार को लो कजहत में यह अवश् यक प्रतीत होता हज दक हररयाणा राज्य में

सुल्तानृुर–झज्जर-जहसार प्राकृजतक गजस ृाइृलाइन (एस जे एच ृी एल) के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गजस के ृररवहन के जलए

गेल (आजण्डया) जलजमटेड द्वारा एक ृाइृलाइन जबछाइ जानी चाजहए ;

और भारत सरकार को ईक् त ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोजन के जलए यह अवश् यक प्रतीत होता हज दक ईस भूजम

में, जजसमें ईक् त ृाइृलाइन जबछाए जाने का प्रस्ट् ताव हज और जो आस ऄजधसूचना में संल‍ न ऄनुसूची में व्णत हज, ईृयोग के

ऄजधकार का ऄजजन दकया जाए ;

ऄत: ऄब, भारत सरकार, ृजरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में ईृयोग के ऄजधकर का ऄजजन)

ऄजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) दक धारा 3 की ईृधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत् त िजतिययों का प्रयोग करते ुए, ईस भूजम में

ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजजन करने के ऄृने अिय की घोषणा करती हज ;

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-16122023-250712

CG-DL-W-16122023-250712

4286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कोइ व् यजतिय, जो ईक् त ऄनुसूची में व्णत भूजम में जहतबद्ध हज, ईस तारीख से जजसको ईक् त ऄजधजनयम की

धारा 3 की ईृधारा (1) के ऄधीन भारत के राजृत्र में यथा प्रकाजित आस ऄजधसूचना की प्रजतयों साधारण जनता को

ईृलब् ध कर दी जाती हज, 21 ददन के भी तर, भूजम के नीचे ृाइृलाइन जबछाए जाने की संबंध में, सक्षम प्राजधकारी, गेल

(आजण्डया) जलजमटेड, हररयाणा राज्य, को जलजखत प ृ में अक्षेृ भेज सकेगा।

सुल्तानृुर-झज्जर-जहसार गजस ृाइृलाइन ृररयोजना

ऄनुसूची

राज्य -हररयाणा

जजला

तहसील

गााँव

खसरा सं्‍यां

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

अर

वगज मीटर

झज्जर

गुढ़ा

46//19

कुल=

जहसार

हांसी

ढन्ढेरी

30//24

30//17

30//14

30//7

30//4

30//3

2//23

2//22

2//21

1//25

35//12

35//13

35//14

35//24

35//25/2

47//1

47//2

कुल=

जहसार

भगाना

50//24

50//18

50//13

50//12

50//11

51//14

51//16

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 16, 2023/ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

4287

51//17

51//8/2

38//25

52//5

38//24

52//4

52//3/2

52//3/1

52//8/1

52//8/2

52//9

52//12

52//11

52//10/1

53//15

53//14

53//17/1

29//16

29//17/1

29//14

29//15

29//7

53//13/1/1

53//12/2

53//9/2

53//10

53//1/1

54//5/1

जहसार

भगाना

36//25/1

36//24

36//17/2

36//18

36//13/1

36//12

36//9/2

36//10

4288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

36//1/1

29//25/1/1

77//24

77//1

78//4

77//17

77//14

77//7

77//8

77//4

77//3

77//2/2

77//2/1

कुल=

[फा. सं. एल-14014/67/2022-जी-ृी-II(इ-42162)]

jkethyky ehuk, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2023

S.O. 1870.—Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for

transportation of natural gas through Sultanpur–Jhajjar–Hisar Natural Gas Pipeline (SJHPL) in the State of Haryana, a

pipeline should be laid by GAIL (India) Limited;

And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is

described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby

declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date

of which the copies of the notification issued under sub– section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the

Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of User

therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, State of Haryana.

SULTANPUR - JHAJJAR - HISAR GAS PIPELINE PROJECT

SCHEDULE

State : HARYANA

District

Tehsil

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hect.

Are

Sq. mt.

JHAJJAR

GUDHA

46//19

TOTAL

HISAR

HANSI

DHANDHERI

30//24

30//17

30//14

30//7

30//4

30//3

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 16, 2023/ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

4289

2//23

2//22

2//21

1//25

35//12

35//13

35//14

35//24

35//25/2

47//1

47//2

TOTAL

HISAR

BHAGANA

50//24

50//18

50//13

50//12

50//11

51//14

51//16

51//17

51//8/2

38//25

52//5

38//24

52//4

52//3/2

52//3/1

52//8/1

52//8/2

52//9

52//12

52//11

52//10/1

53//15

53//14

53//17/1

29//16

HISAR

BHAGANA

29//17/1

29//14

29//15

29//7

53//13/1/1

53//12/2

53//9/2

53//10

53//1/1

54//5/1

36//25/1

36//24

36//17/2

36//18

36//13/1

36//12

36//9/2

36//10

36//1/1

29//25/1/1

77//24

4290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

77//1

78//4

77//17

77//14

77//7

77//8

77//4

77//3

77//2/2

77//2/1

TOTAL

[F. No. L-14014/67/2022-GP-II(E-42162)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 30 नवम् बर, 2023

का.अ. 1871.—भारत सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजजन)

ऄजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जजसे आसमें आसके ृश्चात ईतिय ऄजधजनयम कहा गया हज) की धारा 3 की ईृधारा (1) के

ऄधीन जारी भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय की ऄजधसूचना सं्‍या का.अ. 1603 (ऄ)

तारीख 28.03.2023 जो भारत के ऄसाधारण राजृत्र तारीख 03.04.2023, में प्रकाजित की गयी थी, दूवारा ईस

ऄजधसूचना से संलग्न ऄनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भुजम में गेल (आजण्डया) जलजमटेड दवारा गुजरात राज्य में दहेज-उरान ृनवेल -

दाबोल प्राकृजतक गेस ृाआृलाआन के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गजस के ृररवहन के जलए ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के प्रयोजन के जलए

ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजजन करने के ऄृने अिय की घोषणा की थी;

और ईतिय राजृत्र ऄजधसूचना की प्रजतयां जनता को ईृलब्ध करा दी गइ थी;

और सक्षम प्राजधकारी ने जनता से प्रा्त अक्षेृों को ृरीक्षण के ईृरांत जनृटान कर ददया हज:

और सक्षम प्राजधकारी ने, ईतिय ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (1) के ऄधीन भारत सरकार को ऄृनी ररृोटज

दे दी हज;

और भारत सरकार ने, ईतिय ररृोटज ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात् और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने ृर दक ईतिय भूजम

ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के जलए ऄृेजक्षत हज, ईस में ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजजन करने का जवजनश्चय दकया हज;

ऄतः ऄब, भारत सरकार, ईतिय ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त्त्त िजतिययों का प्रयोग करते ुए,

यह घोषणा करती हज दक आस ऄजधसूचना से संलग्न ऄनुसूची में जवजनदद्‍ ट भूजम में ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के जलए ईृयोग के

ऄजधकार का ऄजजन दकया जाता हज:

और, भारत सरकार, ईतिय ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 दक ईृधारा (4) द्ववारा प्रदत्त्त्त िजतिययों का प्रयोग करते ुए,

जनदेि देती हज दक ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के जलए भूजम में ईृयोग का ऄजधकार, आस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से, भारत

सरकार में जनजहत होने के बजाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुतिय होकर, गेल (आजण्डया) जलजमटेड में जनजहत होगा।

ृररयोजना

ऄनुसूची

तहसील

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

अर

वगज मीटर

Lqkjr

Pkks;kZlh

mecsj

256

257

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 16, 2023/ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

4291

258

288

289

290

291

306

[Qk- सं. एल-14014/160/2021-जी-ृी-II(इ-40357)]

jkethyky ehuk, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2023

S.O. 1871.—Whereas by notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

S.O. No. 1603 (E) Dated 28.03.2023 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),

Published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 03.04.2023 , the Government of India declared its intention to

acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying

pipeline for transportation of natural gas through Dahej-Uran Panvel - Dhabol Natural Gas Pipeline in the State of

Gujarat by GAIL (India) Limited

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public;

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and

disposed of by the Competent Authority;

And whereas the competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted its

report to Government of India;

And whereas Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land

is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, Government

of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, Government of

India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in Government

of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

Dahej-Uran Pipeline Project

Dahej to Uran

SCHEDULE

State : Gujarat

District

Tehsil

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hect. Are Sq. mtr.

Surat

Choryasi

Umber

256

257

258

288

289

290

291

306

[F. No.-L-14014/160/2021-GP-II(E-40357)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

4292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 uoEcj] 2023

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

एजक्सस बैंक जलजमटेडds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] लखनउ ds iapkV (28/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12012/01/2021-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2023

S.O. 1872.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Axis Bank Ltd and their

workmen.

[No. L-12012/01/2021-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 28/2021

Ref. No. L-12012/01/2021-IR(B-I) dated: 15.02.2021

BETWEEN

Smt. Renu Sharma Mail id- [email protected]

AND

1. The MD & CEO, Axis Bank Ltd.

(mail [email protected]

2. The HR Head, Axis Bank Ltd.

(Mail id- [email protected])

3. The Vice President, HR, Axis Bank Ltd.

(Mail id- [email protected])

4. The JGM (legal & compliance), Axis Securities Limited

(Mail id- [email protected])

AWARD

Heard Sri Govardhan Lal Gupta, learned counsel for claimant who has been appointed by State Legal Aid Authority

and Smt. Renu Sharma who also argued her case on merit, with assistance of her husband, Sri Susheel Kumar

Sharma.

Sri Shrikant Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent.

By order No. L-12012/01/2021-IR(B-I) dated: 15.02.2021the 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:

“1. Whether the action of the management of Axis Securities Ltd., to re-design the job description of the

employee Ms. Renu Sharma due to closing of retail asset product is illegal and unjustified in eye of law or

not?

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 16, 2023/ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

4293

2 If yes, as to what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to.".

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 28/2021 has been registered on 01.03.2021.

In response to said reference, a claim statement has been filed by the claimant on 26.04.2021 inter alia stating therein

that she was appointed as Senior Executive in the Axis Bank & Sales Limited vide a appointment letter dated

03.11.2011 in Retail Sales Vertical & Delivering in Branch Office Human Resources work.

It is further pleaded in paragraph 3, 4 & 5 of the claim petition as under:

“3. That the fact that complainant had been sent offer letter from a 3rd party i.e. IKYA Human Capital

Solution (a division of Quess Corp Ltd.) on dated 31.12.2019 for job offer and the same was

acknowledged by the respondent Company in subsequent emails that were sent to complainant clearly

shows that complainant personal information was shared without her consent with a third party so as

to undue influence and pressurize the complainant in quitting respondent Company. A copy of the

third party offer letter dated 31.12.2019 is being attached herewith as Annexure No. 3 to the instant

claim statement.

4. That it is needless to say that the respondent Company gave complainant an undue and conditional

offer of either joining the said third party Company or joining such other job profile of the respondent

company of which the complainant does not have any experience of, whatsoever. That the said act by

the officials of the respondent company was done solely to force the complainant into termination as a

changed job profile wherein complainant has never had any experience would any how have led to her

termination. Also, the same amounts to infringement of the right to privacy of the complainant. A copy

of the email of the respondent company to change job profile forcefully is attached as Annexure No. 4

to the instant claim statement

5. That it is needless to say that complainant had visited respondent office during the ongoing

pandemic and had requested not to change her job profile in its entirety which would have any how

led to deterioration of her job profile as well as the work delivered by respondent Company because of

lack of experience of the complainant in the re-allocated field. However, to the worst of her

nightmares, respondent Company's officials told the complainant that the same is a part of the strategy

of the respondent company to lessen the total number of employees, owing to the pandemic. In the

light of the same. It is also pertinent to take into consideration that there are a total of about 40000

employees that have been transited by the respondent Company's office in the garb of one or the other

frivolous reason. That the complainant was threatened with dire consequences in case she became the

whistle-blower.”

In view of the above said factual background, as per averment as made in para 6 of claim petition are quoted herein

below, on the basis of which in the present industrial dispute, following prayers have been prayed by claimant:

―Para 6:

6. That the complainant was terminated without any prior information/notice, without giving any

opportunity of hearing, without adhering to the principles of natural justice and also without any valid

proof. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant was deprived of her salary from January 2021

till the date of her termination, i.e. 02.03.2021, date despite the fact that the case was pending

adjudication and was sub- judice before the conciliation officer appointed viz-a-viz by Ministry of

Labour, Lucknow. A copy of the termination letter dated 02.03.2021 is being attached herewith as

Annexure No. 5 to the instant claim statement. It is Needless to say that the same is violation of Section

33(1) and 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That the verbatim language of section 33 is being

iterated hereunder:-

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

proceedings.

1/33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency

of proceedings.- (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer

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

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

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

concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the

commencement of such proceeding; or

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

otherwise, concerned in such dispute, any workmen concerned in such dispute,

save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending

4294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute 2 [or,

where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether

express or implied, between him and the workman),-

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

applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or

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

dismissal or otherwise, that workman:

Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for

one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the

proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.”

Prayer:

“1. Issue a order, or direction to the respondent company to revoke the termination order dated

02.03.2021 and reinstate the complainant in the service on the same post.

2. Issue a order to the respondent company to pay the salary from January to till the reinstation of the

complainant as well as implement 5 pending promotion and grade pay

3. Issue any other suitable, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the

facts and circumstances of the case.”

On behalf of the respondent a preliminary objection on the basis of which Sri Srikant Tripathi, advocate submits that

reference dated 15.02.2021, sent by Appropriate Authority for adjudication is in respect to action of the management

of Axis Bank to redesignate the job description of Mrs. Renu Sharma due to closing of retail product is illegal and

unjustified in the eye of law or not?

Learned counsel for respondent further submits that there is no reference in respect to the prayer, made by the

claimant that the order of termination dated 02.03.2021 may be revoked and she may be reinstated in service.

Accordingly, it is submitted by Sri Srikant Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent that as relief claimed by the

claimant for revocation of her termination order dated 02.03.2021 and for reinstatement of her service is beyond the

scope of refence so the same cannot be granted.

Smt. Renu Sharma, claimant, in response, to above said objection submits and placed reliance on para 14 and 5 of the

document viz. Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, Form-I, which are filed along with her application dated

01.09.2023 supported by an affidavit, reproduced herein below:

Para 14, 15:

“14- That the opponent has crossed the limits in the eyes of law by sending termination letter on dated

2.03.2021 on Absconding basis instead of the complainant being in regular touch of the opponent

Party. Which is in complete violation of section 33(1) and (2) of the ID Act 1947. In the case of

pendency, where the concerned authority haven't directed for any permission and case is pending for

adjudication which is clear from letter dated 15.02.21 & 2.03.21 Of Appropriate Government(Central)

& Honorable CGIT-Lucknow Court. Opposite party has no right to take action Whatsoever. A copy of

termination letter sent to complainant by the opposite party. ANNEXURE NO. 6

15- That the termination stands void and it should be revoke by providing all the rights of the

complainant till this date as employee till the final order. That the complainant is availing its rights by

filling complaint under section 33(a) of the ID act 1947. That the verbatim language of section 33(a)

is being iterated hereunder:-

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

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

pendency of proceedings 6 before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour Court,

Tribunal or National Tribunal), any employee aggrieved by such contravention may, make a

complaint in writing. 1 in the prescribed manner,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 16, 2023/ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

4295

provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly."

The Claimant has also placed reliance on order dated 19.07.2021, passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Lucknow, annexed with her application dated 01.09.2023 by which claimant has raised her dispute against

here termination order dated 02.03.2021 u/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010, the same reads as

under:

“File No. LKO 7(1-17)/2021 Dated: 19.07.2021

Certificate to be issued by the conciliation officer as provided under section 2 A of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947

(TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN)

This is to certify that Mrs Renu Sharma, Lucknow filed an industrial dispute dated 27.03.2021 under

section 2 A of Industrial Dispute (amendment) Act 2010 in the office of Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central)- II, Mumbai. Subsequently, this application forwarded to the Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow consequent upon her termination from the services by the

employer.

The conciliation officer took up the matter in conciliation on the dates 16.07.2021 and 19.07.2021.

The workman has stated that she is not interested to continue her case in conciliation proceeding and

requested to issue certificate provided under section 2 A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. As on date,

no settlement has been reached. Now applicant wants to discontinue to the present conciliation

process and to take up the matter with the Central Govt Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court

directly under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 2A of Industrial Dispute (amendment) Act 2010. The

mandatory 45 days of filing her dispute before the conciliation officer as provided under section 2A

(2) of the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act 2010 has been completed.

This certificate is being issued to her exclusively for the purpose of enabling her to approach the

Central Govt Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication of the said dispute. The

workman is advised to file her dispute before the concerned CGIT-cum-Labour Court.”

Accordingly, Smt. Renu Sharma in view of the facts as submitted by her in application dated 01.09.2023, supported

by an affidavit and the documents which are annexed along with said affidavit, specially above mentioned facts,

keeping in view order dated 19.07.2021, passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, the

matter in regard to termination of the services of the applicant by the respondent i.e. Axis Securities by an order dated

02.03.2021 may be revoked/set aside and she may be reinstated in service on the post from which her services have

been terminated, has to be decided by this Tribunal.

The claimant submits that she does not want to submit anything/anymore on the point in issue which are already been

argued by her and once again emphasized that termination order dated 02.03.2021 may be cancelled and she may be

reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits in accordance with law.

I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through record and also to the application dated 01.09.2023 filed

by the claimant supported by an affidavit.

Before deciding the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through aims and objects of

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in brief which are that Industrial Disputes Bill was introduced by the Government of

India in the Legislative Assembly on the 28^th October 1946. After the Select Committee‘s report on 3^rd February

1947, with some amendments, it was passed in March 1947 and became the law from Ist April 1947 repealing the

Trade Disputes Act 1929.

While retaining most of the provisions of the earlier law, this Act introduced two new institutions for the prevention

and settlement of industrial disputes; works committees consisting of representatives of employers and workers; and

machinery for industrial adjudication.

A reference to an industrial tribunal under this Act lies where both parties to any industrial dispute apply for such

reference, and also where the appropriate Government considers it expedient so to do. An award of a tribunal has

normally to be enforced by the Government and is binding on both parties to the dispute for such periods as may be

specified, up to a maximum of one year. This Act seeks to give a new orientation to the entire conciliation

machinery.

Another important new feature of the Act is the prohibition of strikes and lockouts during the pendency of

conciliation and adjudication proceedings of settlements reached in the course of conciliation proceedings and of

awards of industrial tribunals declared binding by the appropriate government.

Rules, orders or notifications requiring the larger industrial establishments to set up works committees were issued by

4296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Government of India and most of the State Governments.

Objectives: General

The objectives of industrial relations and industrial disputes legislation, may be outlined as under:

(i)

Industrial Peace: For prosperity of industry, it is necessary that there be a continuous and growing production

which is only possible if (a) there are no interruptions and stoppages in production i.e. absence of disputes,

and (b) if the various agencies of production are satisfied and are in a harmonious bent to work. In other

words, industrial peace is very necessary for the vitality of industry.

(ii)

Economic Justice: All interruptions in production arising out of industrial dispute are really caused by the

dissatisfaction of labour with their existing economic condition. The history of labour struggle is nothing but

a continuous demand for fair return to labour expressed in varied forms e.g. (a) increase in wages, (b)

resistance to decrease in wages, (c) grant of allowances and benefits etc. (Hariprasad Vs. A. D. Divelkar,

AIR 1957 SC 121)

Social and economic justice which is the bedrock of our Constitution and economic organization also requires that

any industrial relations or disputes legislation, to be effective remedial statute, must embrace not only law for

regulation of labour relations with capital, process for channelizing collective bargaining methods for negotiation,

mediation, conciliation and settlements of industrial conflict, but also a system for giving fair play and justice to

labour and removal of economic injustice.

The preamble of the Act states that its main object is to make provision for investigation and settlement of industrial

disputes. Viewed in the above background, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is a progressive piece of social

legislation and is designed to settle the disputes on a new pattern known under the Act as adjudication machinery.

The object of all labour legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent disputes so that production might not be

adversely affected. (Banaras Ice Factory Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1957 SC 167)

The purpose of the Act is to provide machinery for a just and equitable settlement by adjudication, (G. Claridge and

Company Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, AIR 1951 Bombay 100) and amelioration of the conditions of

workmen in industry.

Individual and collective industrial disputes: Individual as well as collective disputes may ripen into industrial

disputes. The true nature of an individual dispute is that it is a collective dispute. Though a dispute may at the

inception be initiated by an individual, yet if it is taken up by the fellow-workers or a union, or a sufficient number of

workers, it may assume the collective character and would become an industrial dispute. (Standard Vacum Oil Co.

Errakulam Vs. I. Tribunal, Errakulam 1952-II LLJ 612). A dispute which continues to retain its individual

character cannot be regarded as an industrial dispute. This being the basic law, it is within the competence of the

legislature to widen or narrow the coverage of an industrial dispute. The Industrial Disputes Act has also been

amended to cover some individual disputes. It is not necessary that a majority should take an industrial dispute. It is

sufficient if a substantial group of workmen take it up. When thus taken, it becomes an industrial or collective

dispute.

Individual dispute an industrial dispute: The important amongst the above are however the amendments of 1965.

By the Act of 1965, a new Section 2A has been added in Act whereby specified categories of individual disputes are

also deemed to be industrial disputes. The section reads as under:

―2A. Dismissal, etc of an individual workman to be deemed to be industrial dispute-

Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual

workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out

of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute

notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.‖

This amendment revives, impediment in the way of workman with the necessity that to make an industrial dispute it

must be taken up or espoused by substantial section of the workmen or any union of those workmen and gives an

individual workman a remedy for security of his service and indirectly freedom to join or not to join any union. Thus,

individual disputes could be referred to Tribunal as per Section 2A after 1.12.1965. (National Productivity Council,

1969-II LLJ 186).

Thereafter, by Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 2010 (Act No. 24 of 2010), Section 2A(a), was renumbered as

Sub-section (1) and by the same Act i.e. Act No.24 of 2010 Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) have been inserted

after Section 2A (1) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 which came into effect w.e.f. 15.09.2010, which reads as under:

"2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute -

"(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 16, 2023/ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

4297

services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his

employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other

workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified in

sub-Section(1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for

adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date

he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for

conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal

shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute

referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act

and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in

relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-Section(2) shall be made to the Labour Court or

Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment

or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-Section(1)."

Reverting to the facts of the present case, by an order dated 15.02.2021 the following reference has been referred to

this Tribunal for adjudication:

“1. Whether the action of the management of Axis Securities Ltd., to re-design the job description of

the employee Ms. Renu Sharma due to closing of retail asset product is illegal and unjustified in eye

of law or not?

2 If yes, as to what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to.".

In response to above said reference, as per the facts stated hereinabove, the relief which has been prayed by the

claimant, as quoted hereinabove; however, once against quoted as under:

“1. Issue a order, or direction to the respondent company to revoke the termination order dated

02.03.2021 and reinstate the complainant in the service on the same post.

2. Issue a order to the respondent company to pay the salary from January to till the reinstation of the

complainant as well as implement 5 pending promotion and grade pay

3. Issue any other suitable, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the

facts and circumstances of the case.”

Accordingly, first and foremost question to be decided in present case, whether the relief as claimed by the claimant

in present case, can be granted to her by this Tribunal as per the term of reference or not?

Answer to said question find place in the case of Hochtef Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Orissa

and ors. AIR 1964 SC 1746 wherein it has been held as under:

“9. In dealing with this question, it is necessary to bear in mind one essential fact, and that is that the

Industrial Tribunal is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction is to try an industrial dispute

referred to it for its adjudication by the appropriate Government by an order of reference passed

under s. 10. It is not open to the Tribunal to travel materially beyond the terms of reference, for it is

well-settled that the terms of reference determine the scope of its power and jurisdiction from case to

case. Section 10 itself had been subsequently amended from time to time. Act 18 of 1952 made

substantial amendments in s. 10. One of these amendments was that s. 10(1)(d) now empowers the

appropriate Government to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or

relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, or the Third

Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication. In other words, under s. 10(1)(d), the appropriate

Government can refer to the Industrial Tribunal not only a specific industrial dispute, but can also

refer along with it matters appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the said dispute. In that

sense, the power of the appropriate Government has been enlarged in regard to the reference of

industrial disputes to the Tribunal.

10. Section 10(4) which was also added by the same amending Act provides, inter alia, that the

jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal would be confined to the points of dispute specified by the order

of reference, and adds that the said jurisdiction may take within its sweep matters incidental to the

said points. In other words, where certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial

Tribunal for adjudication, it may, while dealing with the said points, deal with matters incidental

thereto, and that means that if, while dealing with such incidental matters, the Tribunal feels that some

persons who are not jointed to the reference should be brought before it, it may be able to make an

order in that behalf under s. 18(3)(b) as it now stands.

4298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11. Section 10(5) has now conferred power on the appropriate Government to add to the reference

other establishments, groups or classes of establishments of a similar nature, if it is satisfied that these

establishments are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such dispute. In other words, if industrial

dispute is referred to a Tribunal for adjudication, and in the area within the territorial jurisdiction of

the appropriate Government there are other establishments which would be affected by, or interested

in, such a dispute, the appropriate Government may add them to the said reference either at the time

when the reference is initially made, or during the pendency of the said reference proceedings; but in

every case, such additions can be made before the award is submitted. Now, if such persons are added

to the reference, the industrial Tribunal may in exercise of its powers under s. 18(3)(b) summon them

to appear before it.”

In the case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. & ors. AIR 1979 SC 1356.

“5. On July 1, 1967 the respondent purported to close down the business. We say "purported",

because whether the business was, truly and in fact, closed or not is a matter on which the parties

have joined issue. The case of the appellant is that respondent had closed the place of business and not

the business itself. After the closure, or shall we say the 'alleged closure', the Central Government on

September 16, 1967, made a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Central Act to the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, on the following question :

Whether the employers in relation to the Poly Pather Clay Mines of Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd.,

Jabalpur, were justified in closing down the said mine and retrenching the following 81 workers with

effect from July 1, 1967. If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?

…………………………

16. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the

two Tribunals had no jurisdiction to go behind the references and inquire into the question whether

the closure of business, which was in fact effected,, was decided upon for reasons which were proper

and justifiable. The propriety of or justification for the closure of a business, in fact and truly effected,

cannot raise an industrial dispute as contemplated by the State and Central Acts.”

In the case of Mahendra L. Jain & ors v. Indore Development Authority & ors 2005 (1) SCC 639 held as under‖

“34. ………………… Furthermore, the Labour Court having derived its jurisdiction from the reference

made by the State Government, it was bound to act within the four-corners thereof. It could not

enlarge the scope of the reference nor could deviate therefrom. A demand which was not raised at the

time of raising the dispute could not have been gone into by the Labour Court being not the subject-

matter thereof.”

Hon‘ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of the Management, M/s. Rambagh Palace Hotel Ltd. V. Sate of

Rajasthan 2000 (86) FLR 134 observed as under:

“It is settled law that the Industrial Tribunal can only adjudicate the reference made to it by the

Government and cannot substitute its own reference or terms of reference or even cannot go beyond

the terms of the reference. It is the function of the Tribunal to answer the reference as is referred to

and once the reference has been made on the demand made by the workers/union, it is incumbent on

the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to decide the same………”

In Tarsem Singh vs. Judge, Labour Court & others 2008 (116) FLR 346, it was held as under:

“8.

The Labour Court cannot enlarge the scope of reference nor can it deviate therefrom. It may

be observed that the Labour that the Labour Court derives its jurisdiction from the reference made by

the appropriate government and, therefore, it is bound to act within the four corners of the reference.

Hon‘ble Supreme Court, in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Om Prakash Sharma 2006 (109) FLR

1203 laid bare the well settled proposition of law and, in the context, categorically held as follows:

“In the instant case, the award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality, which appears on the

face of the record. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of the reference. It

could not have passed an order going beyond the terms of reference. While passing the award, if the

Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction, the award must be held to the suffering from a jurisdictional

error. It was capable of being corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.

He High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The award and

the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained …………….. “

Hon‘ble Apex Court in Bhogpur cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Harmesh Kumar (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 128

observed as under:

“The Labour Court derived its jurisdiction from the terms in reference. It ought to have exercised its

jurisdiction within the four corners thereof.”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 16, 2023/ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

4299

Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Osshiar Prasad & others vs Employers in Relation to Management of

Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad 2015 (144) FLR 830 observed as under:

“25. It is thus clear that the appropriate Government is empowered to make a reference under section

10 of the Act only when “Industrial dispute exists” or “is apprehended between the parties”.

Similarly, it is also clear that the Tribunal while answering the reference has to confine its inquiry to

the question(s) referred and has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the question(s) or/and the terms of

the reference while answering the reference. A fortiori, no inquiry can be made on those questions,

which are not specifically referred to the Tribunal while answering the reference.”

Thus, in nut shell the position of law on the point in issue can be summarized as under:

Undoubtedly the Labour Court gets its jurisdiction from the reference and it is not like the Civil Court that any one

Court, which entertains every suit. The Labour Court cannot go beyond the terms of reference nor it can travel beyond

the pleadings and arrogate the power to raise issues which the parties to the reference are precluded to raise. The

terms of reference determine the scope of the power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court, from case to case. Whether

certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication it may, while dealing with the

said points, deal with matters incidental thereto. However, such power cannot be exercised by the Court/Tribunal so

as to enlarge materially the scope of reference itself for the reason that the Court/Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from

the order of reference passed by the appropriate Government.

In view of the above said position of law and the relief for setting aside/revoking the termination order dated

02.03.2021, is beyond the terms of reference, which cannot be adjudicated in present case as the same is not as per the

term of the reference dated 15.02.2021 referred by the Appropriate Authority (quoted hereinabove) for adjudication of

the present industrial dispute.

For foregoing reasons, the prayer as made by claimant, Smt. Renu Sharma, which is reproduced hereinabove, which is

quoted once again:

“1. Issue a order, or direction to the respondent company to revoke the termination order dated

02.03.2021 and reinstate the complainant in the service on the same post.

2. Issue a order to the respondent company to pay the salary from January to till the reinstation of the

complainant as well as implement 5 pending promotion and grade pay

3. Issue any other suitable, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the

facts and circumstances of the case.”

Cannot be granted as the same is beyond the term of the reference dated 15.02.2021, referred by the Appropriate

Government for adjudication to this Tribunal.

Reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

Lucknow.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

26^th September, 2023

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2023

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

बड़़ौदा यूृी ग्रामीण बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] लखनउ ds iapkV (07/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12011/42/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2023

S.O. 1873.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.07/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda UP Gramin Bank

and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/42/2022-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

4300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 07/2023

Ref. No. No. L-12011/42/2022-IR(B-I) dated 04.01.2023

G. Secy. Baroda UP Gramin Bank Vs Baroda UP Gramin Bank

BETWEEN

The General Secretary,

Baroda UP Gramin Bank, Kailashpuri Colony, Allahpur, Allahabad- 211006

……… Workman

AND

The Chairman

Baroda UP Gramin Bank,

Hqrs, Shivpur Colony, Taramandal,

Gorakhpur- 273016

……. Respondent

AWARD

By an order dated 04.01.2023 appropriate authority as referred the following reference to this Tribunal for

adjudication.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the charter of demand raised by the Baroda UP Bank Employees Union Allahabad through letter dated 5^th

June, 2022 against the management of Boroda UP Gramin Bank, Gorakhpur is proper, legal & justified? If yes, what

relief the union is entitled to and what directions, if any, are necessary in this respect?’’

Accordingly ID case 07/2023 registered before this Tribunal.

Matter taken up in revised list.

None is present on behalf of appellant.

Sri A.K. Singh learned counsel for respondent is present.

After hearing learned counsel for respondent going through record the following facts are emerged out,

Thus 06.03.2023

None is present on behalf of the workman.

Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla and Sri Alok Kumar Singh Submitted representative authorization on behalf of the

respondent, taken on record. Further time is granted to the workman to file statement of claim. Office is directed to

issue notice to the claimant.

List on 04.05.2023.

On 27.06.2023 an order was passed, reads as under:-

Matter taken in revised list.

Sri S.K. Shukla counsel for respondent. None for claimant.

Last Opportunity is granted for claim statement.

List on 19.10.2023. Notice to claimant.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 16, 2023/ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

4301

19.10.2023

Matter taken up in revised list.

None for claimant. Sri A.K. Singh for respondent.

By order dated 27.06.2023, last opportunity has been granted to the workman to file statement of claim. The claimant

has neither turned nor filed statement of claim, in spite of notice, accordingly, heard learned counsel for respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Finding & conclusion

Accordingly After hearing Sri. A.K. Singh learned counsel for respondent, taking into consideration the above said

fact as till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order to establish his claim as per the reference

dated 04.01.2023 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 life 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 government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to

any relief.’’

So in view of the said facts as well as the judgment passed 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 by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:-

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of shankar Chadravarti 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 the 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.

Service 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 reason, the case is dismissed as such the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

01.11.2023

ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2023

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

यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ आंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] लखनउ ds iapkV (80/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-39025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]-47

सलोनी] ईृ जनदेिक

4302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th December, 2023

S.O. 1874.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 80/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and

their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2023-IR(B-II)]-47

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 80/2021

BETWEEN

Sri Sanjay Kumar S/o Satyanarayan Mohilla- Lodipur Near Union Bank, Kasba Ward

No. 5. District Gajipur, (U.P.)- 232329

AND

Regional Manager,

Union Bank of India, Shubhra Motel, Complex

Mahuwa Bhagh Gajipur- 257203.

AWARD

Facts of the case:

Sri Sanjay Kuamar/claimant filed claim petition dated 24.06.2016 before this Tribunal on 17.07.2021,facts in brief

and relief claimed by claimant are as under:-

Workman Sanjay Kumar was appointed as peon in the Union Bank of India Regional Office Subhra Motel Complex

Mahuwa Bagh Gajipur (U.P.) and he works in the said capacity till 24.06.2016.

It is also pleaded by claimant in its claim petition that on 24.06.2016 he was injured in accident, admitted in hospital

at Gajipur on 17.12.2017 recovered from injury which was sustained by him thereafter approached the bank to allow

him to discharge his duties however the bank does not allow him discharge his duties. On the ground that his services

are terminated on 24.06.2016.

In view of the above said factual background the present claim petition has been filed under Section 2-A, with the

following relief quoted herein below:-

vr% fuosnu gS fd ,okMZ }kjk fuEu mi'ke fnyk;s&

cSad izcU/ku o ;wfu;u ds e/; gq, le>kSrs dk ikyu u djus ds dkj.k cSad izcU/ku ds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh dh

tk;A

[k&

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 10 o"kksZ dh lsok gksus ij LFkk;h ?kksf"kr fd;k tk; rFkk

fnukad 24-06-2016 ls vLirky esa HkrhZ gksus ds dkj.k dk;Z ij ugha vk ldk tks esfMdy vodk'k dk mYy?kau gS

28-06-2016 ls dk;Z ij fy;k tk; rFkk osru vkfn lHkh fgrykHk fnyk;k tk;A

Xk&

;g fd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk mYy?kau djus ds dkj.k lTkk fnyk;h tk;A

On behalf of respondent written statement was filed on 20^th March 2023 in which the following preliminary objection

was taken:-

Present claim statement filed under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is bad in the eye of law, inter-alia

on the following grounds:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 16, 2023/ऄग्रहायण 25, 1945

4303

(a) Because claim filed by applicant is belated one and specifically barred by the law of the limitation as

such on this score application is liable to be rejected.

(b) Because applicant Sri Sanjay Kumar was not employed/appointed in the services of the Bank as such

there was no question of termination of his services as mentioned in the claim statement by applicant.

party bank at any point of time as such, he does not fall under the purview of the provisions of definition

of workman as envisaged under Section 2(s), Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as such there is no question of

application of any provisions of Industrial Dispute Act,1947.

(d) Because present application is out of the purview of provisions as contained in Section 2(K) of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947.

Accordingly it is submitted by the respondent that present case filed by claimant is liable to be dismissed as barred by

limitation.

I have heard learned counsel for claimant/workman Sri Vijay Vishwakarman and Sri Chandra Shekhar holding brief

of Sri Gunjan Gupta on behalf of respondent and gone through the record.

In order to decide the preliminary objection, taken by respondent, it will be appropriate to go through aims and

objects of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

In brief which, the same are that Industrial Disputes Bill was introduced by the Government of India in the Legislative

Assembly on the 28^th October 1946. After the Select Committee‘s report on 3^rd February 1947, with some

amendments, it was passed in

March 1947 and became the law from Ist April 1947 repealing the Trade Disputes Act 1929.

While retaining most of the provisions of the earlier law, this Act introduced two new institutions for the prevention

and settlement of industrial disputes; works committees consisting of representatives of employers and workers; and

machinery for industrial adjudication.

A reference to an industrial tribunal under this Act lies where both parties to any industrial dispute apply for such

reference, and also where the appropriate Government considers it expedient so to do. An award of a tribunal has

normally to be enforced by the Government and is binding on both parties to the dispute for such periods as may be

specified, upto a maximum of one year. This Act seeks to give a new orientation to the entire conciliation machinery.

Another important new feature of the Act is the prohibition of strikes and lockouts during the pendency of

conciliation and adjudication proceedings of settlements reached in the course of conciliation proceedings and of

awards of industrial tribunals declared binding by the appropriate government.

Rules, orders or notifications requiring the larger industrial establishments to set up works committees were issued by

the Government of India and most of the State Governments.

Objectives: General

The objectives of industrial relations and industrial disputes legislation, may be outlined as under:-

(i)

Industrial Peace: For prosperity of industry, it is necessary that there be a continuous and growing production

which is only possible if (a) there are no interruptions and stoppages in production i.e. absence of disputes,

and (b) if the various agencies of production are satisfied and are in a harmonious bent to work. In other

words, industrial peace is very necessary for the vitality of industry.

(ii)

Economic Justice: All interruptions in production arising out of industrial dispute are really caused by the

dissatisfaction of labour with their existing economic condition. The history of labour struggle is nothing but

a continuous demand for fair return to labour expressed in varied forms e.g. (a) increase in wages, (b)

resistance to decrease in wages, (c) grant of allowances and benefits etc.(Hariprasad Vs. A.D.Divelkar, AIR

1957 SC 121)

Social and economic justice which is the bedrock of our Constitution and economic organization also requires that

any industrial relations or disputes legislation, to be effective remedial statute, must embrace not only law for

regulation of labour relations with capital, process for channelizing collective bargaining methods for negotiation,

mediation, conciliation and settlements of industrial conflict, but also a system for giving fair play and justice to

labour and removal of economic injustice.

The preamble of the Act states that its main object is to make provision for investigation and settlement of industrial

disputes. Viewed in the above background, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is a progressive piece of social

legislation and is designed to settle the disputes on a new pattern known under the Act as adjudication machinery.

The object of all labour legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent disputes so that production might not be

4304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

adversely affected. (Banaras Ice Factory Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1957 SC 167)

The purpose of the Act is to provide machinery for a just and equitable settlement by adjudication, (G. Claridge and

Company Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, AIR 1951 Bombay 100) and amelioration of the conditions of

workmen in industry.

Individual and collective industrial disputes: Individual as well as collective disputes may ripen into industrial

disputes. The true nature of an individual dispute is that it is a collective dispute. Though a dispute may at the

inception be initiated by an individual, yet if it is taken up by the fellow-workers or a union, or a sufficient number of

workers, it may assume the collective character and would become an industrial dispute. (Standard Vacum Oil Co.

Errakulam Vs. I.Tribunal, Errakulam 1952-II LLJ 612). A dispute which continues to retain its individual