2557 GI/2024

(1603)

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. 16]

नई दिल् ली, अप्रैल 21—अप्रैल 27, 2024, िजनवार/ वैिाख 1 —वैिाख 7, 1946

No. 16]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 21—APRIL 27, 2024, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 1– VAISAKHA 7, 1946

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

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

भागII—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्राल

(व्य जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 18 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 727.—केन्र 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 एति् द्वारा, भारत सरकार के मिालेखा जन ंत्रक का ााल के जनम्नजलजखत का ााल ों,

जिनके 80% (अस्ट्सी प्रजतित) कमाचारर ों ने जिन्िी का का ासािक ज्ञान अर्िात कर जल ा िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िै,

नामतः

1. सावािजनक जवत्ती प्रबंिन प्रणाली, राज् जनिेिाल , तीसरा तल, ृंजडत िीनि ाल उृाध् ा भवन, ृुंडलीक

िेवस्ट् ान के जनकट, ृुंडलीक नगर, ोिना, सांज्‍ की और मूल् ांकन जनिेिाल , आल्टो ृोरवोररम,

गोवा-403521

2. सावािजनक जवत्ती प्रबंिन प्रणाली, राज् जनिेिाल , तीसरा तल, िीवन संजृगे भवन, संजृगे मागा, मल्लेश्वरम,

बेंगलुरु, कनााटक-560003

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-01052024-253998

CG-DL-W-01052024-253998

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-01052024-253998

CG-DL-W-01052024-253998

1604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. सावािजनक जवत्ती प्रबंिन प्रणाली, राज् जनिेिाल , कमरा सं. 15, सीृीएओ कॉम्पप्लेक्स, ृोटा ब्ले र, अंडमान

एवं जनकोबार द्वीृ समूि-744101

4. सावािजनक जवत्ती प्रबंिन प्रणाली, राज् जनिेिाल , िूसरा तल, स्ट्ृाका जबलल्डंग, उप्ृलम रोड, बीएसएनएल

भवन के सामने, जतरुवनंतृुरम, केरल

5. सावािजनक जवत्ती प्रबंिन प्रणाली, राज् जनिेिाल , ृिला तल, लजलत भवन, बेली रोड, ृटना,

जबिार-800001

[फा. सं. ई-11016/1/2021-जिन्िी]

ृरमा सेन, अृर सजचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the18th April, 2024

S.O. 727.—In pursuance of sub-rule(4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the

union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Controller General of

Accounts, New Delhi, Government of India, in which 80% (eighty percent) of the staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi, namely:-

1. Public Finance Management System, State Directorate, Goa, 3rd floor, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay

Bhawan, Near Pundalik Devasthan, Pundalik Nagar, O/o Directorate of Planning, Statistics and

Evaluation, Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521

2. Public Finance Management System, State Directorate, Karnataka, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Sampige Building,

Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bengluru-560003

3. Public Finance Management System, State Directorate, Room No. 15, CPAO Complex, Port Blair,

Andaman and Nicobar Island-744101

4. Public Finance Management System, State Directorate, Kerala, 2nd Floor, Spark Building, Uppalam road,

Opp. BSNL Bhawan, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

5. Public Finance Management System, State Directorate, Bihar, 1st Floor, Lalit Bhawan, Bailey Road,

Patna-800001

[F. No. E.-11016/1/2021-Hindi]

PARAMA SEN, Addl. Secy.

कार्माक, लोक जिका त और ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्माक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्प बर, 2024

का.आ. 728.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, (i) श्री िीृक सबरवाल (ii) श्री रजव कुमार गुप्ता (iii) श्री आकाििीृ लसंि (iv)

श्री प्रतीक गुप्ता और (v) श्री गगनिीृ वासू को चंडीगढ़ में माननी ृंिाब और िरर ाणा उच् च न् ा ाल के समक्ष अृील,

ृुनरीक्षण और दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा अन्वेजषत मामलों से उद्भूत अन् मामलों में

अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने के जलए प्रभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा और आिेिों तक

इनमें से िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक/ररटेनर काउंजसल के प ृ में जन ुक्त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/05/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1605

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the14th December, 2023

S.O. 728.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints (i) Sh. Deepak Sabherwal, (ii) Sh. Ravi Kamal

Gupta, (iii) Sh. Akashdeep Singh, (iv) Sh. Prateek Gupta and (v) Gagandeep Singh Wasu as Special Public

Prosecutor/Retainer Counsels for conducting prosecution, appeals, revisions and other matters arising out of the cases

investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the Hon’ble High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, for a period of

three years from the date of their assumption of charge or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/05/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्प बर, 2023

का.आ. 729.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृ िारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री वैक्िोम िाराकेश्वर लसंि और श्री सालाम समरिीत लसंि, अजिवक् ताओं क को, मणीृुर

उच् च न् ा ाल के समक्ष केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो का प्रजतजनजित्व करने के जलए, उनकी जन ुजक् त की तारीख से तीन वषक की

अवजि के जलए ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, िो भी ृूवातर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक (रीटेनर कौंजसल) जन ुक् त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/18/2021-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2023

S.O. 729.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Waikhom Darakeshwar Singh and Shri

Salam Samarjeet Singh, Advocates, as Special Public Prosecutors (Retainer Counsels) to represent the Central Bureau

of Investigation before the High Court of Manipur for a period of three years from the date of their appointment or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/18/2021-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्प बर, 2023

का.आ. 730.—केन् री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट् तंभ (2) में जवजनर्िाष्ट अजिवक् ताओं क को, सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (3) में

प्रत् ेक के समक्ष ा उजल् लजखत दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त मामलों के, उक्त

सारणी स्ट्तंभ (4) में उजल्लजखत, जत्रृुरा राज् के जवचारण न् ा ाल ों के समक्ष संजस्ट् त दकए गए मामालों में अजभ ोिन के

संचालन के जलए उनके का ाभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषक की अवजि के जलए अ वा मामलों का जनृटान िोने

तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक् त करती िै ।

ि. सं.

अजिवक् ता का नाम

(श्री/श्रीमती)

आर.सी. सं.

न् ा ाल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1.

प्रबीर सािा

(i) आरसी5ए2012एसएचिी

जिला और सेिन न् ा ािीि, ृजिमी

जत्रृुरा, अगरतला

(ii) आरसी4ए2014एसएचिी

जिला और सेिन न् ा ािीि, ृजिमी

जत्रृुरा, अगरतला

1606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii) आरसी2ए2019एसएचिी

जविेष न् ा ािीि, न् ा ाल सं. 2,

ृजिमी जत्रृुरा, अगरतला

(iv) आरसी3ए2014एसएचिी

जिला और सेिन न् ा ािीि, उत्तरी

जत्रृुरा, िमाानगर

(v) आरसी10(ई)2013

जविेष न् ा ािीि (जिला और सेिन

न् ा ािीि), ृजिमी जत्रृुरा, अगरतला

2.

ररचडा जसन्िा

(i) आरसी9ए2008एसएचिी

न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, अगरतला

(ii) आरसी9(ई)2013

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, उि ृुर,

गोमाटी, जिला उि ृुर, जत्रृुरा

(iii) आरसी11(ई)2013

जविेष न् ा ािीि, ृजिमी जत्रृुरा,

अगरतला

3.

प्रसन्निीत सािा

(i) आरसी12(ई)2013केओएल

जविेष न् ा ािीि, (जिला और सेिन

न् ा ािीि), ऊमाकोटी

[फा. सं. 225/43/2022-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2023

S.O. 730.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the Advocates specified in column (2) of the

Table below as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of the cases instituted by the Delhi Special

Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) mentioned against each in column (3) of the table, before trial

courts mentioned in column (4) of the said Table, in the State of Tripura, for a period of three years from the date of

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

Sl. No.

Name of Advocate

(Sh./Smt.)

RC No.

Name of the Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1.

Prabir Saha

(i) RC5A2012SHG

District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.

(ii) RC4A2014SHG

District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.

(iii) RC2A2019SHG

Special Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala.

(iv) RC3A2014SHG

District

&

Sessions

Judge,

North

Tripura,

Dharamanagar.

(v) RC10(E)/2013

Special Judge (District & Sessions Judge), West

Tripura, Agartala.

2.

Richard Sinha

(i) RC9A2008SHG

Judicial Magistrate, Agartala

(ii) RC9(E)/2013

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District,

Udaipur, Tripura

(iii) RC11(E)/2013

Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala

3.

Prasenjit Saha

(i) RC12(E)/2013KOL

Special Judge, District & Sessions Judge, Unakoti.

[F. No. 225/43/2022-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1607

नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्प बर, 2023

का.आ. 731.—केन् री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट् तंभ (2) में जवजनर्िाष्ट अजिवक् ताओं क को उक् त सारणी में प्रत् ेक

के समक्ष ा उजल् लजखत दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त चौबीस मामलों (ृजिमी

बंगाल राज् के मतिान ृिात् लिंसा के मामले) और तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृीली ा ृुनरीक्षण

न् ा ाल में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों के अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने के जलए उनके

का ाभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषक की अवजि के जलए अ वा मामलों का जनृटान िोने तक, िो भी ृिले िो,

जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक् त करती िै।

ि. सं.

अजिवक् ता का

नाम (श्री/श्रीमती)

आर0सी0सं0

न् ा ाल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1.

कौजिक भरा

(i) आरसी0562021एस0010

अजतररक्त मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, तूफानगंि,

जिला-कूच जबिार

(ii) आरसी0562021एस0014

अजतररक्त जिला और सेिन न् ा ाल ,

दिनिाता, जिला-कूच जबिार

(iii) आरसी0562022एस0010

अजतररक्त मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, दिनिाता,

जिला-कूच जबिार

(iv) आरसी0562021एस0019

अजतररक्त मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, म ाभंगा,

जिला-कूच जबिार

(v) आरसी0562021एस0037

अजतररक्त सेिन न् ा ाल , प्र म न् ा ाल ,

जविेष

एससी/एसटी

न् ा ाल ,

जिला-

कूचजबिार

2.

अजमत्वा जमत्रा

(i) आरसी0562021एस000044

अजतररक्त जिला और सेिन न् ा ाल , प्र म

न् ा ाल , जविेष एससी/एसटी न् ा ाल ,

बालूरघाट, जिला-दिनांिृुर

3.

सत् ेन्र ना िास

(i) आरसी0562021एस0018

अजतररक्त जिला न् ा ािीि प्र म, बोलृुर,

जिला-बीरभूम

(ii) आरसी0562021एस0025

अजतररक्त जिला न् ा ािीि, बोलृुर, जिला-

बीरभूम

(iii) आरसी0562021एस0020

एसीिेएम रामृुर िाट, जिला-बीरभूम

4.

सोमना मुखिी

(i) आरसी0562021एस0024

अजतररक्त जिला न् ा ािीि द्वीती , फास्ट्ट

रेक न् ा ाल , रामृुर िाट, जिला-बीरभूम

(ii) आरसी0562021एस0023

अजतररक्त जिला न् ा ािीि तषती न् ा ाल ,

सूरी, जिला-बीरभूम

(iii) आरसी0562021एस0051

अजतररक्त जिला न् ा ािीि, सूरी, जिला-

बीरभूम

5.

प्रिीृ कुमार

प्रमाजनक

(i) आरसी0562021एस0011

अजतररक्त सेिन न् ा ािीि, तषती न् ा ाल ,

कष्‍णा नगर, जिला-नादि ा

(ii) आरसी0562021एस0005

अजतररक्त जिला न् ा ािीि, सातवां, फास्ट्ट

1608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

रेक न् ा ाल -I, कष्‍णा नगर, जिला-नादि ा

(iii) आरसी0562021एस0034

अजतररक्त मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, कल् ाणी,

जिला-नादि ा

6.

जबस्ट्वािीत बासु

(i) आरसी0562021एस0003

अजतररक्त सेिन न् ा ािीि, फास्ट्ट रेक

न् ा ाल , राना घाटा, जिला-नादि ा

(ii) आरसी0562022एस0002

अजतररक्त मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, राना घाट,

जिला-नादि ा

7.

सुभािीत लसंिा

(i) आरसी0562021एस0046

अजतररक्त जिला और सेिन न् ा ािीि, फास्ट्ट

रैक

न् ा ाल -III,

जिला

-

ृश्मचमी

जमिनाृुर

8.

प्रोसुन चिवती

(i) आरसी0562021एस0041

जिला और सेसन न् ा ािीि झारागांव,

जिला-झारागांव

(ii) आरसी0562021एस0031

अजतररक्त जिला न् ा ािीि प्र म, झारागांव,

जिला-झारागांव

9.

मला कुमार

जसन्िा

(i) आरसी0562021एस0032

अजतररक्त सेसन न् ा ािीि, फास्ट्ट रेक

न् ा ाल , िजल्ि ा, जिला-ृूवी जमिनाृुर

(ii) आरसी0562021एस0003

अजतररक्त मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, िजल्ि ा,

जिला-ृूवी जमिनाृुर

(iii) आरसी562021एस0033

अजतररक्त जिला और सेिन न् ा ाल , प्र म

न् ा ाल , (जविेष एससी/एसटी न् ा ाल ),

तामलुक जिला-ृूवी जमिनाृुर

(iv) आरसी0562021एस0052

अजतररक्त मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट, कोंताई,

जिला-ृूवी जमिनाृुर

[फा. सं. 225/02/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th December, 2023

S.O. 731.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Advocates specified in column (2) of the Table

below, as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the prosecution of twenty four cases (Post Poll Violence cases of

the State of West Bengal) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) as

mentioned against each in the said table and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of the those cases in any

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

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

Sl.No.

(1)

Name of Advocate

(Sh./Smt.)

(2)

RC. No.

(3)

Name of the Court

(4)

1.

Kaushik Bhadra

(i) RC0562021S0010

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tufanganj,

District-Cooch Behar

(ii) RC0562021S0014

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dinhata,

District - Cooch Behar

(iii) RC0562022S0010

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata,

District - Cooch Behar

(iv) RC0562021S0019

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mathabhanga,

District - Cooch Behar

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1609

(v) RC0562021S0037

Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Special SC/ST

Court, District Cooch Behar.

2.

Amitava Maitra

(i)RC0562021S000044

Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Court,

Special SC/ST Court Balurghat, District-South

Dinajpur

3.

Satyendra Nath Das

(i) RC0562021S0018

Additional District Judge 1st, Bolpur, District -

Birbhum

(ii) RC0562021S0025

Additional District Judge, Bolpur, District - Birbhum

(iii) RC0562021S0020

ACJM Rampurhat, District- Birbhum

4.

Somenath Mukherjee

(i) RC0562021S0024

Additional District Judge 2nd, Fast Track Court,

Rampurhat District - Birbhum

(ii) RC0562021S0023

Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Suri, District -

Birbhum

(iii) RC0562021S0051

Additional Sessions Judge, Suri, District - Birbhum

5.

Pradip Kumar

Pramanik

(i) RC0562021S0011

Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar,

District - Nadia

(ii) RC0562021S0005

Additional District Judge, 7th, Fast Track Court-I,

Krishnanagar, Distt.- Nadia

(iii) RC0562021S0034

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani,

District -Nadia

6.

Biswajit Basu

(i) RC0562021S0003

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,

Ranaghat, District - Nadia

(ii) RC0562022S0002

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat,

District - Nadia

7.

Subhajit Singha

(i) RC0562021S0046

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court-II, District – Pashchimi Medinipur

8.

Prosun Chakraborty

(i) RC0562021S0041

District & Sessions Judge Jhargram, District -

Jhargram

(ii) RC0562021S0031

Additional

District

Judge

1st,

Jhargram,

District Jhargram

9.

Malay Kumar Sinha

(i) RC0562021S0032

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Haldia,

District – Purba Medinipur

(ii) RC0562022S0003

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Haldia, District

– Purba Medinipur

(iii) RC0562021S0033

Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Court

(Special SC/ST Court) Tamluk, District – Purba

Medinipur

(iv) RC0562021S0052

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, District

– Purba Medinipur

[F. No. 225/02/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्प बर, 2023

का.आ. 732.—केन् री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट् तंभ (2) में जवजनर्िा्‍ ट अजिवक् तागणों को उक् त सारणी में

उनके नाम के समक्ष उजल् लजखत दकए गए दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (सीबीआई) द्वारा संजस्ट् त मामलों और जवजि द्वारा

स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृीली ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों के

अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने के जलए उसके भार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषक की अवजि के जलए अ वा मामलें के

जनृटान िोने तक, िो भी ृिले िो जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक् त करती िै ।

1610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सारणी

ि. सं. अजिवक् ता का

नाम

(श्री/श्रीमती)

आर.सी.सं.

न् ा ाल मामला सं.

न् ा ाल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1.

अि चौिरी

आरसी.43/ए/1988(आंजिक प ृ

से जनृटा ा ग ा मामला)

जविेष17/2012(न ा)

जविेष48/2011(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.45/ए/1995

जविेष38/2012(न ा)

जविेष7/2011(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.23/ए/1996

जविेष19/2012(न ा)

जविेष46/2011(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.17/ए/2000

जविेष21/2012(न ा)

जविेष20/2011(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो ) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.39/ए/2000

(िनबाि)

जविेष6/2012(न ा)

जविेष2/2007(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो ) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.33/ए/2010

जविेष18/2012(न ा)

जविेष4/2011(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.1/ए/2011

जविेष41/2012

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.14/ए/2011

जविे39/2012(न ा)

जविेष10/2011(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.17/ए/2012

जविेष1/2013

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.34/ए/2012

जविेष2/2013

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.3/ए/2013

जविेष3/2013

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.23/ए/2013

जविेष5/2014

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.25/ए/2013

जविेष5/2013

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.27/ए/2013

जविेष3/2014

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.30/ए/2013

जविेष2/2014

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.2/ए/2015

जविेष3/2016

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.3/ए/2015

जविेष1/2015

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.28/ए/2015

जविेष2/2016

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1611

आरसी.34/ए/2015

जविेष1/2016

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.28/ए/2016

जविेष1/2019

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.34/ए/2016

जविेष2/2019(न ा)

जविेष3/2018(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.35/ए/2016

जविेष4/2018

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.6/ए/2017

जविेष1/2018(न ा)

जविेष1/2017(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.13/ए/2017

जविेष3/2019

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.14/ए/2017

जविेष7/2019(न ा)

जविेष3/2017(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.15/ए/2017

जविेष4/2019(न ा)

जविेष4/2017(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.18/ए/2017

जविेष6/2019(न ा)

जविेष5/2017(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.38/ए/2017

जविेष2/2020

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.39/ए/2017

जविेष1/2020(न ा)

जविेष2/2018(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.24/ए/2017

जविेष3/2020(न ा)

जविेष2/2019(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.1/ई/2008

जविेष23/2012(न ा)

जविेष12/2011(ृुराना)

जविेष न् ा ािीि (केन् री

अन् वेषण ब् ूरो) जसलीगुडी

आरसी.38/एस/2001-कोल

एसटी-1/2013(न ा)

एससी-62/2006 (ृुराना)

अृर सत्र न् ा ािीि, प्र म

त् वररत जनृटान न् ा ाल ,

जसलीगुडी

आरसी.25/ए/1998

िीआर/571/1998

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट जसलीगुडी

आरसी.12/ए/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट जसलीगुडी

आरसी.2/एस/2011-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट जसलीगुडी

आरसी.18/ई/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट जसलीगुडी

2.

आिीष मुखिी आरसी-6/एस/2021-कोल,

अन् वेषणािीन

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, जब्‍ णुृुर

1612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

आरसी-18/एस/2021-कोल,

अन् वेषणािीन

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बोलृुर

आरसी-20/एस/2021-कोल,

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, रामृुरिाट

आरसी-23/एस/2021-कोल,

-

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

िुबरािृुर (बीरभूम)

आरसी-24/एस/2021-कोल,

-

अृर सत्र न् ा ािीि

रामृुरिाट

आरसी-25/एस/2021-कोल,

अन् वेषणािीन

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बोलृुर

आरसी-24/ए/2012

सी-105/2015(न ा)

िीआर-

59(सी)2015(ृुराना)

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बांकुरा

आरसी-13/ए/2013

सी-108/2014(न ा)

िीआर-

36(सी)2014(ृुराना)

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

बांकुरा

आरसी-12/ए/2010

टीआर-145/2012

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

आसनसोल

आरसी-23/ए/2012

टीआर-110/2015

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

आसनसोल

आरसी-19/ए/2014

टीआर-705/2015

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

आसनसोल

आरसी-20/ए/2014

टीआर-598/2015

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

आसनसोल

आरसी-35/ए/2015

टीआर-446/2016

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

आसनसोल

आरसी-36/ए/2015

टीआर-544/2016

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

आसनसोल

आरसी-38/ए/2015

टीआर-667/2016

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

आसनसोल

आरसी-37/ए/2015

टीआर-582/2016

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, आसनसोल

3.

ृा ा सा ी

ित् ता

आरसी-9/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बैरकृुर

आरसी-16/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1613

मजिस्ट् रेट, बैरकृुर

आरसी-27/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बैरकृुर

आरसी-27/एस/2021-कोल

-

दकिोरन् ा बोडा,सॉंल् ट

लेक, कोलकाता

आरसी-35/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर जिला एवं सत्र

न् ा िीि-iv, बारासात

आरसी-45/एस/2021-कोल

अन् वेषणािीन

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बारासात

आरसी-48/एस/2021-कोल

अन् वेषणािीन

-

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

बारासात

4.

गौर सुंिर

मुखोृाध् ा

आरसी-10/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

तूफानगंि, कूचजबिार

आरसी-14/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, दिनिाटा,

कूचजबिार

आरसी-19/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, मा ाभांगा

आरसी-37/एस/2021-कोल

अन् वेषणािीन

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, मा ाभांगा

आरसी-38/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर सत्र न् ा ािीि

ृोक् सो न् ा ाल , मालिा

आरसी-44/एस/2021-कोल

अन् वेषणािीन

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बुजन ािृुर

(िजक्षण दिनािृुर)

आरसी-4/एस/2005-कोल

एससी-361/2014(न ा)

एसटी-2(09)/2011

(ृुराना)

अृर सत्र न् ा ािीि

(चतु ा न् ा ाल )

िलृाईगुडी

आरसी-13/ई/2020-कोल

-

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

कूचजबिार

आरसी-15/ई/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, दिनिाटा

आरसी-10/ई/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, दिनिाटा

आरसी-14/ई/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, दिनिाटा

5.

रजव िंकर

आरसी-13/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

1614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मजिस्ट् रेट, डा मंडिाबार

आरसी-26/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, डा मंडिाबार

आरसी-28/एस/2021-कोल,

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बाप ईृुर

आरसी-36/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बाप ईृुर

आरसी-39/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, अलीृूर

आरसी-42/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बाप ईृुर

आरसी-2ए/2020

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बाप ईृुर

आरसी-4ए/2020

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बाप ईृुर

आरसी-7/ई/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बाप ईृुर

आरसी-8/ई/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बाप ईृुर

आरसी-9/ई/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, बाप ईृुर

आरसी-4/ई/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, डा मंडिाबार

आरसी-6/ई/2020-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, काकद्वीृ

6.

मषणाल कांती

िेब

आरसी-31/एस/2021-कोल

अन् वेषणािीन

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, झाडग्राम

आरसी-32/एस/2021-कोल

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, िजल् ि ा

आरसी-33/एस/2021-कोल

-

जविेष न् ा ािीि

(एससीएसटी) तमलूक, ृूवा

मेदिनीृुर

आरसी-41/एस/2021-कोल

-

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

झाडग्राम

आरसी-46/एस/2021-कोल

-

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट

(ृजश् चमी) मेदिनीृुर

आरसी-52/एस/2021-कोल

अन् वेषणािीन

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, कोंटाई

आरसी-1/एस/2022-कोल

अन् वेषणािीन

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, िजल् ि ा

आरसी-6/एस/2009-कोल

िीआर-952/2009

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, िजल् ि ा

आरसी-9/ए/2009-कोल

िीआर-373/2005

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1615

मजिस्ट् रेट, िजल् ि ा

आरसी-12/एस/1991-कोल,

िीआर-1/1992

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट II िजल् ि ा

आरसी-20/ई/2020-कोल,

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, िजल् ि ा

आरसी-19/ई/2020-कोल,

-

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, कोंटाई

7.

अजविीत बरन

िास

आरसी-29/ए/2012

टीआर-2/2016

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, िुगााृुर

आरसी-2/ई/2016-कोल,

टीआर-235/2016

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, िुगााृुर

आरसी-27/ए/2012

टीआर-417/2015

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, िुगााृुर

आरसी-06/ए/2010

टीआर-19/2012

अृर मु्‍ न् ाज क

मजिस्ट् रेट, िुगााृुर

आरसी-25/ए/2011

-

दकिोर न् ा बोडा िुगााृुर

आरसी-2/एस/2015-कोल,

एससी-20/2020

अृर जिला न् ा ािीि -1

िुगााृुर

आरसी-2/ई/2018-कोल,

िीआर-702/2018

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

आसनसोल

आरसी-12/ए/2013-कोल,

सी-344/2015(न ा)

िीआर-35(सी)/2014

(ृुराना)

मु्‍ न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

बांकुडा

आरसी-31/ए/1999

िीआर-1256/99

जद्वती न् ाज क मजिस्ट् रेट,

आसनसोल

[फा. सं. 225/44/2022-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2023

S.O. 732.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the Advocates specified in column (2) of the

table below as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) mentioned against each in the said table and any appeal, revision or

other matters arising out of those cases in any appellate or revisional Court established by law, for a period of three

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

TABLE

Sl.

No.

Name of

Advocate

(Sh./Smt.)

RC. No.

Court Case No.

Name of the Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1

Ajay Chaudhuri

RC. 43/A/1988

(Partly Disposed Off

Case)

Spl.17/2012(New)

Spl.48/2011(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

1616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RC. 45/A/1995

Spl.38/2012(New)

Spl.7/2011(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC. 23/A/1996

Spl.19/2012(New)

Spl.46/2011(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.17/A/2000

Spl.21/2012(New)

Spl.20/2011(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.39/A/2000

(Dhanbad)

Spl.6/2012(New)

Spl.2/2007(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.33/A/2010

Spl.18/2012(New)

Spl.4/2011(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.1/A/2011

Spl.41/2012

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.14/A/2011

Spl.39/2012(New)

Spl.10/2011(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.17/A/2012

Spl.1/2013

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.34/A/2012

Spl.2/2013

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.3/A/2013

Spl.3/2013

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.23/A/2013

Spl.5/2014

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.25/A/2013

Spl.5/2013

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.27/A/2013

Spl.3/2014

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.30/A/2013

Spl.2/2014

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.2/A/2015

Spl.3/2016

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.3/A/2015

Spl.1/2015

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.28/A/2015

Spl.2/2016

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.34/A/2015

Spl.1/2016

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.28/A/2016

Spl.1/2019

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.34/A/2016

Spl.2/2019(New)

Spl.3/2018(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.35/A/2016

Spl.4/2018

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.6/A/2017

Spl.1/2018(New)

Spl.1/2017(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.13/A/2017

Spl.3/2019

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.14/A/2017

Spl.7/2019(New)

Spl.3/2017(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.15/A/2017

Spl.4/2019(New)

Spl.4/2017(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.18/A/2017

Spl.6/2019(New)

Spl.5/2017(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.38/A/2017

Spl.2/2020

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.39/A/2017

Spl.1/2020(New)

Spl.2/2018(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.24/A/2017

Spl.3/2020(New)

Spl.2/2019(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.1/E/2008

Spl.23/2012(New)

Spl.12/2011(Old)

Special Judge (Central Bureau Of

Investigation), Siliguri

RC.38/S/2001-Kol

ST-1/2013(New)

Additional Sessions Judge, 1st

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1617

SC-62/2006(Old)

Fast Track Court Siliguri

RC-25/A/1998

GR-571/1998

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Siliguri

RC-12/A/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Siliguri

RC-2/S/2011-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Siliguri

RC-18/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Siliguri

2

Ashis

Mukherjee

RC-6/S/2021-Kol

Under Investigation

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Bishnupur

RC-18/S/2021-Kol

Under Investigation

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Bolpur

RC-20/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Rampurhat

RC-23/S/2021-Kol

-

Judicial Magistrate Dubrajpur

(Birbhum)

RC-24/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Sessions

Judge

Rampurhat

RC-25/S/2021-Kol

Under Investigation

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Bolpur

RC-24/A/2012

C-105/2015 (New)

GR-59 ( C ) 2015(Old)

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate

Bankura

RC-13/A/2013

C-108/2014 (New)

GR-36( C ) 2014(Old)

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate

Bankura

RC-12/A/2010

TR-145/2012

Chief Judicial Magistrate Asansol

RC-23/A/2012

TR-110/2015

Chief Judicial Magistrate Asansol

RC-19/A/2014

TR-705/2015

Chief Judicial Magistrate Asansol

RC-20/A/2014

TR-598/2015

Chief Judicial Magistrate Asansol

RC-35/A/2015

TR-446/2016

Chief Judicial Magistrate Asansol

RC-36/A/2015

TR-544/2016

Chief Judicial Magistrate Asansol

RC-38/A/2015

TR-667/2016

Chief Judicial Magistrate Asansol

RC-37/A/2015

TR-582/2016

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Asansol

3

Partha Sarathi

Dutta

RC-9/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Barrackpore

RC-16/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Barrackpore

RC-27/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Barrackpore

RC-27/S/2021-Kol

-

Juvenile Justice Board, Salt Lake,

Kolkata

RC-35/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional District & Sessions

Judge-Iv, Barasat

RC-45/S/2021-Kol

Under Investigation

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Barasat

Rc-48/S/2021-Kol.

Under Investigation

-

Chief Judicial Magistrate Barasat

4

Gour Sundar

Mukhopadhyay

RC-10/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate

Tufanganj,

Coochbehar

RC-14/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate, Dinhata, Coochbehar

RC-19/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Mathabhanga

RC-37/S/2021-Kol

Under Investigation

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Mathabhanga

1618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RC-38/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd

POCSO Court, Maldah

RC-44//S/2021-Kol

Under Investigation

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate

Buniadpur

(South

Dinajpur)

RC-4/S/2005--Kol

SC-361/2014 (New)

ST-2(09)/2011 (Old)

Additional Sessions Judge (4th

Court) Jalpaiguri

RC-13/E/2020-Kol

-

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate

Coochbehar

RC-15/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Dinhata

RC-10/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Dinhata

RC-14/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Dinhata

5

Ravi Shankar

RC-13/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Diamondharbour

RC-26/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Diamondharbour

RC-28/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Baruipur

Rc-36/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Baruipur

RC-39/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Alipore

RC-42/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Baruipur

RC-2/A/2020

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Baruipur

RC-4/A/2020

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Baruipur

RC-7/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Baruipur

RC-8/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Baruipur

RC-9/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Baruipur

RC-4/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Diamondharbour

RC-6/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Kakdwip

6

Mrinal Kanti

Deb

RC-31/S/2021-Kol

Under Investigation

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Jhargram

RC-32/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Haldia

RC-33/S/2021-Kol

-

Special Judge (SCST), Tamluk,

Purba Medinipore

RC-41/S/2021-Kol

-

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate

Jhargram

RC-46/S/2021-Kol

-

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate

Paschim Medinipore

RC-52/S/2021-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1619

Under Investigation

Magistrate Contai

RC-1/S/2022-Kol

Under Investigation

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Haldia

RC-6/S/2009-Kol

GR-952/2009

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Haldia

RC-9/A/2005

GR-373/2005

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Haldia

RC-12/S/1991-Kol

Gr-1/1992

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate- Ii, Haldia

RC-20/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Haldia

RC-19/E/2020-Kol

-

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Contai

7

Avijit Baran

Das

RC-29/A/2012

TR-2/2016

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Durgapur

RC-2/E/2016-Kol

TR-235/2016

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Durgapur

RC-27/A/2012

TR-417/2015

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Durgapur

RC-6/A/2010

TR-19/2012

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate Durgapur

RC-25/A/2011

-

Juvenile Justice Board, Durgapur.

RC-2/S/2015-Kol

SC-20/2020

Additional

District

Judge-1,

Durgapur

RC-2/E/2018-Kol

GR-702/2018

Chief Judicial Magistrate Asansol

RC-12/A/2013

C-344/2015(New)

GR-35( C )/2014 (Old)

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate

Bankura

RC-31/A/1999

GR-1256/99

2nd JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

Asansol

[F. No. 225/44/2022–AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 733.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री एस. वी. रािू , भारत के अृर मिा-साजलजसटर को, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

(केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) की ओर से माननी कलकत्ता उच् च न् ा ाल के समक्ष (i) सीबीआई बनाम गुरुृि माझी और

अन् आरसी 22/2020 (अनूृ माझी को ला घोटाला मामला) से संबंजित 2022 का सीआरएम (डीबी) सं0 231; और

(ii) 2022 का सीआरआर सं. 2164, सीबीआई और अन् बनाम ृजिमी बंगाल राज् और अन् त ा 2022 के जबश्नुृुर

ृुजलस ाना, डा मंड िाबार ृुजलस जिला ृ. बं. ृुजलस मामला सं. 361 से संबंजित का ावाजि ों के संचालन के जलए भी,

उनके का ाभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख 28.04.2022 से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा अध् िीन मामलों के जनृटारे तक,

इनमें से िो भी ृूवातर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/46/2022-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2024

S.O. 733.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General

of India as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the (i) CRM (DB) No. 231 of 2022, CBI vs. Gurupada Majhi and

Others pertaining to RC 22/2020 (Anup Majhee Coal Scam Case); and (ii) CRR No. 2164 of 2022, CBI and Another

vs. State of West Bengal and Another and also proceedings pertaining to W.B. Police Case No. 361 of 2022 of

Bishnupur Police Station, Diamond Harbour Police District, on behalf of Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central

1620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bureau of Investigation) before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, for a period of three years with effect from

28.04.2022 or till disposal of the subject cases, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/46/2022-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 734.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1973 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री रजव िंकर, वररष्ठ अजिवक्ता को नीचे सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृना (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त मामलों का, उक्त सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (3) में उजल्लजखत न् ा ाल ों में और इन

मामलों से उद्भूत दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् मामलों में तत्सम प्रवषत्त दकसी जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा

ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में, अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने िेतु प्रभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा

मामलों के जनृटान तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै: -

ि.सं.

आरसी सं्‍ ा

न् ा ाल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

आरसी-7(ए)/1997-डी

जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, रांची

2.

आरसी-9(ए)/1997-डी

जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, रांची

3.

आरसी-10(ए)/1997-डी

जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, रांची

4.

आरसी-11(ए)/1997-डी

जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, रांची

5.

आरसी-12(ए)/1997-डी

जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, रांची

6.

आरसी-11 (ए)/2009-एएचडी-आर

जविेष न् ा ािीि, ृीएमएलए, रांची

7.

आरसी-14 (ए)/2009-एएचडी-आर

जविेष न् ा ािीि, ृीएमएलए, रांची

8.

आरसी-4 (ए)/2010-एएचडी-आर (एफ)

जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, रांची

9.

आरसी-4 (ए)/2010-एएचडी-आर (िी)

जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, रांची

10.

आरसी-4 (ए)/2010-एएचडी-आर (एच)

जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, रांची

[फा. सं. 225/14/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2024

S.O. 734.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ravi Shankar, Senior Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central

Bureau of Investigation) mentioned in column (2) of the table below, in the Courts mentioned in column (3) of the said

table and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional Court established

by law, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or till disposal of the cases, whichever is

earlier, namely: -

Sl. No.

RC No.

Name of the Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

1

RC-7(A)/1997-D

Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi

2

RC-9(A)/1997-D

Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi

3

RC-10(A)/1997-D

Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1621

4

RC-11(A)/1997-D

Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi

5

RC-12(A)/1997-D

Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi

6

RC-11(A)/2009-AHD-R

Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi

7

RC-14(A)/2009-AHD-R

Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi

8

RC-4(A)/2010-AHD-R(F)

Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi

9

RC-4(A)/2010-AHD-R(G)

Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi

10

RC-4(A)/2010-AHD-R(H)

Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi

[F. No. 225/14/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 735.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री ृी. एस. ईश्वरन, अजिवक्ता को, जविेष न् ा ाल अनााकुलम-I, न् ा ाल के समक्ष

लंजबत दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त सीबीआई के मामले आरसी

8(एस)/2016/सीबीआई/एससीबी/टीवीृीएम (ृाय् ोली मनोि ित् ा का मामला) के अजभ ोिन त ा तत्सम प्रवषत्त

जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में इस मामले से उद्भूत दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन्

जवष का संचालन करने के जलए, प्रभार संभालने की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा मामले का जनृटान िोने

तक, िो भी ृूवातर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुक् त करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/27/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 735.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P. S. Easwaran, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of CBI case RC 8(S)/2016/CBI/SCB/TVPM (Payyoli Manoj

Murder Case) instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), pending before the

Court of Special Court Ernakulam-I and any appeal, revision or other matter arising out of this case in any appellate

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

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

[F. No. 225/27/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 736.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री जप्र रंिन, अजिवक्ता को नीचे सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृना (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त मामलों का, उक्त सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (4) में उजल्लजखत न् ा ाल ों में और इन

मामलों से उद्भूत दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन् मामलों में तत्सम प्रवषत्त दकसी जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा

ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में, अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने िेतु प्रभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा

मामलों के जनृटान तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिन जन ुक्त करती िै:

1622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सारणी

ि.सं.

आरसी सं्‍ ा

िाखा का नाम

न् ा ाल का नाम

1.

आरसी0231987ए0010

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

2.

आरसी0241987एस0023

सीबीआई, एसीबी रांची

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

3.

आरसी0231992ए0044

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

4.

आरसी0231994एस0039

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

5.

आरसी0232001ए0015

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

6.

आरसी0232007ए0020

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

7.

आरसी0232008एस0015

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

8.

आरसी0232008एस0021

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

9.

आरसी023008ए0030

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

10.

आरसी0232009एस0029

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

11.

आरसी0232010ए0003

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

12.

आरसी0232010ए0004

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

13.

आरसी0232013ए0015

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

14.

आरसी0232014ए0012

सीबीआई, एसीबी ृटना

जविेष न् ाज क मजिस्ट्रेट मुज़फ्फरृुर

[फा. सं. 225/35/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 736.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau

of Investigation) as mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, in the Courts mentioned in column (4) of the said

Table and appeal, revision or other matter arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional Court established

by law, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or till disposal of the cases, whichever is

earlier, namely: -

TABLE

Sl. No.

RC No.

Name of the Branch

Name of the Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1

RC0231987A0010

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

2

RC0241987S0023

CBI ACB Ranchi

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

3

RC0231992A0044

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

4

RC0231994S0039

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

5

RC0232001A0015

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

6

RC0232007A0020

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

7

RC0232008S0015

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

8

RC0232008S0021

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

9

RC0232008A0030

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

10

RC0232009S0029

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

11

RC0232010A0003

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

12

RC0232010A0004

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1623

13

RC0232013A0015

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

14

RC0232014A0012

CBI ACB Patna

Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

[F. No. 225/35/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 737.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृ-िारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए श्री अरजवन्ि कुमार, अजिवक्ता को माननी अृर जिला न् ा ािीि/जविेष न् ा ािीि,

(सीबीआई) न् ा ाल सं. 2, ृटना के समक्ष लंजबत, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त

सीबीआई मामला आरसी-07(एस)/2004/सीबीआई/एससीआर-III/नई दिल्ली और तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत

अृीली ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में इस मामले से उत्ृन्न दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण अ वा अन् मामले में अजभ ोिन का

संचालन करने के जलए उनकी जन ुजक्त की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए अ वा मामले के जनृटान िोने तक, िो

भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/16/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 737.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of CBI Case RC 07(S)/2004/CBI/SCR-III/New Delhi instituted by

Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), pending before the Court of Additional District

Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Court No. 2, Patna and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of this case in any

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

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

[F. No. 225/16/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 738.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए , श्री एस. वी. रािू, भारत के जवद्वान अृर मिासॉलीजसटर को माननी उच्च न् ा ाल

के समक्ष, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) की ओर से िांजडक एम.सी. सं. 1331/2023 में

अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने और सीबीआई मामला आरसी 04(ए)/2017/सीबीआई, एसी-III/नई दिल्ली (सीबीआई

बनाम मिेि अग्रवाल और अन् ) से संबंजित अन् का ावाजि ों के जलए, तारीख 20 माचा, 2023 से मामले का जनृटान

िोने तक, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुक्त करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/13/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2024

S.O. 738.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. V. Raju, Ld. Additional Solicitor

General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of the Criminal MC No. 1331/2023 and

other proceedings pertaining to CBI case RC 04(A)/2017/CBI, AC-III/New Delhi (CBI vs Mahesh Agarwalla &

Others) on behalf of Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi with effect from the 20th March, 2023 till disposal of the case.

[F. No. 225/13/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

1624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 739.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृ-िारा) 8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए श्री अरजवन्ि कुमार, अजिवक्ता को त्वररत जनृटान न् ा ाल सं. 1, ृटना दिल्ली

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना) केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो (द्वारा संजस्ट् त सीबीआई मामला आरसी-2(एस/(2003/सीबीआई/

एससी-III/नई दिल्ली में, अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने के जलए उनकी जन ुजक्त की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए

अ वा मामले के जनृटान िोने तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/11/2021-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2024

S.O. 739.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of CBI case RC-2(S)/2003/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi, instituted by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Fast Track Court-I, Patna for a period of

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

[F. No. 225/11/2021-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 740.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृ-िारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए श्री मुजनन च बरुआ, अजिवक्ता को माननी जविेष न् ा ािीि न् ा ाल , मािक

औषजि और स्ट्वाृक ृिा ा, सोजनतृुर, तेिृुर, असम के समक्ष लंजबत दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (केन्री अन्वेषण

ब् ूरो) द्वारा रजिस्ट्रीकषत सीबीआई मामला आरसी06/99/एसआई ू/-XI/ईओ ू-V/नई दिल्ली से उत्ृन्न दकसी अजभ ोिन,

अृील और अन् का ावाजि ों का संचालन करने के जलए उनकी जन ुजक्त की तारीख से तीन वषा की अनजिक अवजि के

जलए अ वा मामले के जनृटान िोने तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/26/2023- एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2024

S.O. 740.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Munin Ch. Baruah, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeal or other proceedings arising out of CBI case Number

RC.06/99/SIU/-XI/EOU-V/New Delhi registered by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of

Investigation), before the court of Special Judge, Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance, Sonitpur, Tezpur,

Assam, for a period not exceeding three years from the date of assumption of charge or till disposal of the case,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/26/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 741.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री एस. वी. रािू, भारत का अृर साजलजसटर िनरल को दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) के जनजमत्त माननी दिल्ली उच्च न् ा ाल के समक्ष ररट ाजचका (जसजवल)

सं. 9406/2020 (अिोक कुमार गौतम बनाम जनिेिक, सीबीआई और अन् ) से उद्भूत अृील ा अन् का ावाजि ों में

अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने के जलए 6 अप्रैल, 2022 से ा मामले का जनृटान िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूवात्तर िो,

जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/17/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1625

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2024

S.O. 741.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General

of India as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeal or other proceedings in or arising out of

the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9406/2020 (Ashok Kumar Gautam Vs Director, CBI and others) on behalf of Delhi

Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, for a period

of three years with effect from the 6th April, 2022 or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/17/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 742.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री करण आनंि, अजिवक्ता को माननी उत्तराखंड उच्च न् ा ाल , नैनीताल के समक्ष

दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा रजिस्ट्रीकषत सीबीआई मामला सं्‍ ा आरसी एसी 1 2019ए

0005 से उत्ृन्न अजभ ोिन, अृील ा अन् का ावाजि ों का संचालन करने िेतु का ाभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से उस

अवजि तक िो तीन वषक से अजिक निीं िोगी ा मामले के जनृटान िोने तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक

जन ुक्त करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/23/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2024

S.O. 742.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Karan Anand, Advocate as Special Public

Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeal or other proceedings relating to CBI case RC. AC1 2019 A 0005 on

behalf of Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the Hon’ble High Court of

Uttarakhand at Nainital for a period not exceeding three years from the date of assumption of charge or till disposal of

the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/23/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 743.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्रीमती कजवता ृारटल, अजिवक्ता को दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण

ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त मामलों, जिन्िें नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) और स्ट्तंभ (3) में वर्णात दक ा ग ा िै, का उक्त सारणी

के स्ट्तंभ (4) में वर्णात न् ा ाल ों में और दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल , जिसे जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दक ा ग ा िै, में

ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत िोने वाली कोई अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों के अजभ ोिन संचालन के जलए प्रभार ग्रिण

करने की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा मामलों के जनृटान की तारीख तक, इनमें से िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष

लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुक्त करती िै:-

ि. सं.

आरसी.सं.

न् ा ाल मामला सं.

न् ा ाल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1

आरसी.9/ई/2000-मुबंई

7/सीृी/2003 (155/सीृीडब्ल् ू08)

766/ृीडब्ल् ू/09 (अनुृूरक आरोृ-ृत्र)

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

2

आरसी.5/ई/2000-मुबंई

860/सीृी/2003

(699/ृीडब्ल् ू/2009)

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

1626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3

आरसी.4/ई/2002-

EOU.IX.ND

51/सीृीडब्ल् ू/06

926/ृीडब्ल् ू/2009

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

4

आरसी.4/ई/2001-मुबंई

216/सीृीडब्ल् ू/2004

887/ृीडब्ल् ू/2009

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

5

आरसी.8/ई/2002-मुबंई

735/सीृीडब्ल् ू/2009

एवं

138/सीृीडब्ल् ू/2006

(अनुृूरक आरोृ-ृत्र)

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

6

आरसी.12/ई/2003-मुबंई

984/ृीडब्ल् ू/2014

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

7

आरसी.1/ई/2004-मुबंई

112/सीृीडब्ल् ू/2006

(724/ृीडब्ल् ू/09)

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

8

आरसी.11/ई/2004-मुबंई

864/ृीडब्ल् ू/2014

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

9

आरसी.8/ई/2005-मुबंई

266/ृीडब्ल् ू/2015

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

10

आरसी.4/ई/2004-मुबंई

202/ृीडब्ल् ू/2008

एसीएमएम 3रा न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

11

आरसी.10/ई/2004-मुबंई

1/सीृीडब्ल् ू/2006

(767/ृीडब्ल् ू/09)

एसीएमएम 19वां न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

12

आरसी.7/ई/2005-मुबंई

542/सीृीडब्ल् ू/2007

एसीएमएम 19वां न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

13

आरसी.2/ई/2007-मुबंई

836/सीृीडब्ल् ू/2003

एसीएमएम 19वां न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

14

आरसी.1/ई/2008-मुबंई

1041/सीृीडब्ल् ू/2008

एसीएमएम 19वां न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

15

आरसी.9/ई/2008-मुबंई

1091/सीृीडब्ल् ू/2008

एसीएमएम 19वां न् ा ाल ,

मुबंई

[फा. सं. 225/25/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2024

S.O. 743.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Kavita Patil, Advocate as Special Public

Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau

of Investigation) mentioned column (2) and (3) of table below, in the Courts mentioned in column (4) of the said

table and any appeal, revision or other matter arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional Court

established by law, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or till disposal of cases,

whichever is earlier, namely: -

Sl.

No.

RC. No.

Court Case No.

Name of the Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1

RC.9/E/2000-Mumbai

7/CP/2003 (155/CPW08)

766/PW/09 (Supplementary Chargesheet)

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1627

2

RC.5/E/2000-Mumbai

860/CP/2003

(699/PW/2009)

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

3

RC.4/E/2002-EOU.IX.ND

51/CPW/06

926/PW/2009

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

4

RC.4/E/2001-Mumbai

216/CPW/2004

887/PW/2009

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

5

RC.8/E/2002-Mumbai

735/CPW/2009

&

138/CPW/2006

(Supplementary Chargesheet)

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

6

RC.12/E/2003-Mumbai

984/PW/2014

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

7

RC.1/E/2004-Mumbai

112/CPW/2006

(724/PW/09)

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

8

RC.11/E/2004-Mumbai

864/PW/2014

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

9

RC.8/E/2005-Mumbai

266/PW/2015

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

10

RC.4/E/2004-Mumbai

202/PW/2008

ACMM

3rd

Court,

Mumbai

11

RC.10/E/2004-Mumbai

1/CPW/2006

(767/PW/09)

ACMM

19th

Court,

Mumbai

12

RC.7/E/2005-Mumbai

542/CPW/2007

ACMM

19th

Court,

Mumbai

13

RC.2/E/2007-Mumbai

836/CPW/2003

ACMM

19th

Court,

Mumbai

14

RC.1/E/2008-Mumbai

1041/CPW/2008

ACMM

19th

Court,

Mumbai

15

RC.9/E/2008-Mumbai

1091/CPW/2008

ACMM

19th

Court,

Mumbai

[F. No. 225/25/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 744.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में वर्णात अजिवक्ताओं क को दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त उक्त सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (3) और स्ट्तंभ (5) प्रत् ेक के सामने वर्णात मामलों के

अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने के जलए ृूवोक्त सारणी के (6) में वर्णात न् ा ाल ों में अजभ ोिन संचाजलत करने ा दकसी

अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल , जिसे तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि द्वारा अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल के प ृ में स्ट् ाजृत दक ा

ग ा िै, में ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत िोने वाली कोई अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों को संचाजलत करने के जलए प्रभार

ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा मामलों के जनृटान की तारीख तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूवात्तर िो,

जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै:-

सारणी

िम

सं.

अजिवक्ता

का नाम

आरसी. सं.

िाखा का नाम

न् ा ाल

मामला सं.

न् ा ाल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1

दिनाकेर

एम. वी.

आरसी 25(ए)/2013

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

03/2019

XI सीबीआई मामलों

के जलए अृर जविेष

आरसी 44(ए)/2013

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

1628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

आरसी 04(ए)/2014

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

न् ा ािीि, चेन्नई

आरसी 06(ए)/2014

सीबीआई,एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 07(ए)/2014

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 11(ए)/2014

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 12(ए)/2014

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 30(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 31(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 32(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 33(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 34(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 35(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

आरसी 02(ए)/2004

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

11/2006

08/2018

आरसी 43(ए)/2005

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

09/2008

आरसी 09(ए)/2007

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

20/2009

39/2012

आरसी 44(ए)/20 1 0

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

42/2011

आरसी 02(ए)/2013

सीबीआई ,एसीबी, चेन्नई

16/2014

आरसी 03(ए)/2014

सीबीआई , एसीबी, चेन्नई

21/2015

आरसी 55(ए)/2015

सीबीआई,एसीबी, चेन्नई

01/2017

आरसी 37(ए)/2017

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

12/2020

2

वी. आनंिन

आरसी 27(ए)/2008

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

28/2009

IX सीबीआई मामलों

के जलए अृर जविेष

न् ा ािीि, चेन्नई

आरसी 33(ए)/2011

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

03/2013

आरसी 24(ए)/2012

सीबीआई,एसीबी, चेन्नई

36/2013

आरसी 20(ए)/2013

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

28/2015

आरसी 38(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

35/2017

आरसी 04(ए)/2020

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

06/2022

आरसी 06(ए)/2020

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

16/2022

आरसी 38(ए)/2014

सीबीआई,एसीबी, चेन्नई

30/2015

31/2015

32/2015

33/2015

34/2015

XII सीबीआई मामलों

के जलए अृर जविेष

न् ा ािीि, चेन्नई

3.

रेव ी िी.

मोिन

आरसी 01(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

25/2016

IX सीबीआई मामलों

के जलए अृर जविेष

न् ा ािीि, चेन्नई

आरसी 16(ए)/2014

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

08/2015

आरसी 03(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

24/2015

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1629

आरसी 21(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

39/2015

आरसी 42(ए)/2016

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

05/2018

आरसी 09(ए)/2017

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

04/2020

आरसी 12(ए)/2017

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

09/2019

आरसी 07(ए)/2018

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

15/2021

आरसी 08(ए)/2018

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

08/2020

आरसी 01(ए)/2020

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

08/2022

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

10/2022

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

11/2022

आरसी 27(ए)/2020

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

04/2023

4.

एस.

जसवारमन

आरसी 25(ए)/2012

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

03/2014

XII सीबीआई मामलों

के जलए अृर जविेष

न् ा ािीि, चेन्नई

आरसी 45(ए)/2012

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

37/2013

आरसी 01(ए)/2013

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

15/2014

आरसी 36(ए)/2014

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

29/2017

आरसी 51(ए)/2014

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

07/2016

आरसी 52(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

22/2017

आरसी 23(ए)/2016

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

05/2022

आरसी 15(ए)/2019

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

14/2022

आरसी 02(ए)/2020

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

16/2021

आरसी 14(ए)/2021

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

08/2023

आरसी 49(ए)/2015

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई

23/2021

24/2021

25/2021

[फा. सं. 225/42/2022-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2024

S.O. 744.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the Advocates mentioned in column (2) of the

Table below as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) as mentioned against each in column (3) and (5) of the said Table, in

the courts mentioned in column (6) of the aforesaid Table and any appeal, revision or other matter arising out of these

cases in any appellate or revisional Court established by law, for a period not exceeding three years from the date of

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

TABLE

Sl.

No.

Name of

Advocate

RC. No.

Name of the Branch

Court

Case No.

Name of the Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1

Dinaker M. V.

RC 25(A)/2013

CBI, ACB, Chennai

03/2019

XI Additional Spe-

cial Judge for CBI

Cases, Chennai

RC 44(A)/2013

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 04(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 06(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

1630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RC 07(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 11(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 12(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 30(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 31(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 32(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 33(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 34(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 35(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

RC 02(A)/2004

CBI, ACB, Chennai

11/2006

08/2018

RC 43(A)/2005

CBI, ACB, Chennai

09/2008

RC 09(A)/2007

CBI, ACB, Chennai

20/2009

39/2012

RC 44(A)/2010

CBI, ACB, Chennai

42/2011

RC 02(A)/2013

CBI, ACB, Chennai

16/2014

RC 03(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

21/2015

RC 55(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

01/2017

RC 37(A)/2017

CBI, ACB, Chennai

12/2020

2

V. Anandan

RC 27(A)/2008

CBI, ACB, Chennai

28/2009

IX Additional Special

Judge for CBI Cases,

Chennai

RC 33(A)/2011

CBI, ACB, Chennai

03/2013

RC 24(A)/2012

CBI, ACB, Chennai

36/2013

RC 20(A)/2013

CBI, ACB, Chennai

28/2015

RC 38(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

35/2017

RC 04(A)/2020

CBI, ACB, Chennai

06/2022

RC 06(A)/2020

CBI, ACB, Chennai

16/2022

RC 38(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

30/2015

31/2015

32/2015

33/2015

34/2015

XII Additional Spe-

cial Judge for CBI

Cases Chennai

3

Revathi

G.

Mohan

RC 01(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

25/2016

IX Additional Spe-

cial Judge for CBI

cases Chennai

RC 16(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

08/2015

RC 03(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

24/2015

RC 21(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

39/2015

RC 42(A)/2016

CBI, ACB, Chennai

05/2018

RC 09(A)/2017

CBI, ACB, Chennai

04/2020

RC 12(A)/2017

CBI, ACB, Chennai

09/2019

RC 07(A)/2018

CBI, ACB, Chennai

15/2021

RC 08(A)/2018

CBI, ACB, Chennai

08/2020

RC 01(A)/2020

CBI, ACB, Chennai

08/2022

CBI, ACB, Chennai

10/2022

CBI, ACB, Chennai

11/2022

RC 27(A)/2020

CBI, ACB, Chennai

04/2023

4

M. Sivaraman

RC 25(A)/2012

CBI, ACB, Chennai

03/2014

XII Additional Spe-

cial Judge for CBI

cases Chennai

RC 45(A)/2012

CBI, ACB, Chennai

37/2013

RC 01(A)/2013

CBI, ACB, Chennai

15/2014

RC 36(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

29/2017

RC 51(A)/2014

CBI, ACB, Chennai

07/2016

RC 52(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

22/2017

RC 23(A)/2016

CBI, ACB, Chennai

05/2022

RC 15(A)/2019

CBI, ACB, Chennai

14/2022

RC 02(A)/2020

CBI, ACB, Chennai

16/2021

RC 14(A)/2021

CBI, ACB, Chennai

08/2023

RC 49(A)/2015

CBI, ACB, Chennai

23/2021

24/2021

25/2021

[F. No. 225/42/2022-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1631

नई दिल्ली, 8 माचा, 2024

का.आ. 745.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, नीचे सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में वर्णात अजिवक्ताओं क को, उक्त सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (3) और

स्ट्तंभ (4) में प्रत् ेक के सामने ा वर्णात दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त मामलों, िो

ृूवोक्त सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (5) में वर्णात न् ा ाल ों में और दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल जिसे जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत

दक ा ग ा िै, में इन मामलों से उद्भूत िोने वाली अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों के अजभ ोिन के संचालन के जलए

प्रभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषा से अनजिक की अवजि के जलए ा मामलों के जनृटान तक, इनमें से िो भी

ृूवातर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के रुृ में जन ुक्त करती िै, अ ाात्:

सारणी

िम सं.

अजिवक्ता का

नाम

सवा/श्री/श्रीमजत

जन जमत मामला सं्‍ ांक

न् ा ाल मामला

सं्‍ ांक

न् ा ाल का

नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1.

श्री बोब्बा

श्रीिरी प्रसाि

चौिरी

आरसी 08/2012-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 31/2023

सीबीआई

मामलों के जलए

जविेष

न् ा ािीि,

जवि वाड़ा

आरसी 04/2015-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 43/2022

आरसी 11/2014-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 44/2022

आरसी 04/2016-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 12/2023

आरसी 03/2016-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 45/2022

आरसी 06/2017-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 26/2023

आरसी 05/2018-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 53/2022

आरसी 11/2018-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 54/2022

आरसी 12/2018-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 24/2022

आरसी 01,02 और 03/2017-

सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 25/2022

आरसी 06/2018-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 26/2022

आरसी 10/2017-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 46/2022

आरसी 04/2017-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 48/2022

आरसी 10/2018-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 35/2022

आरसी 04/2019-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 06/2023

आरसी 10/2006-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 28/2023

आरसी 11/2006-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 29/2023

आरसी 11/2006-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 01/2023

आरसी 07/2014-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 32 एवं

33/2023

आरसी 15/2005-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

42/2022

55/2022

56/2022

57/2022

1632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

58/2022

आरसी 11/2022-सीबीआई/वीएसृी

सीसी 36/2023

आरसी 03/2020-ईओबी/सीएचएन

सीसी 05/2022

आरसी 11/2018-एचवाईडी/वीएसृी

सीसी 217/2023

5 वां अजतररक्त

मिानगर

मजिस्ट्रेट,

जवि वाड़ा

2.

एम. रामा प्रसाि

बाबू

आरसी 04/2014-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 14/2022

सीबीआई

मामलों के जलए

जविेष

न् ा ािीि,

जवि वाड़ा

आरसी 13/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 15/2022

आरसी 16/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 16/2022

आरसी 11/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 17/2022

आरसी 11/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 18/2022

आरसी 11/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 19/2022

आरसी 12/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 23/2022

आरसी 14/2004-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 02/2022

आरसी 01/2016-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 47/2022

आरसी 09/2010-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 09/2023

आरसी 07/2017-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 25/2023

आरसी 09/2011-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 03/2023

आरसी 06/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 04/2023

आरसी 19/2008-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 02/2023 और

34/2023

आरसी 15/2008-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 225/2023

5 वां अजतररक्त

मिानगर

मजिस्ट्रेट,

जवि वाड़ा

आरसी 14/2010-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 224/2023

आरसी 07/204-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 1530/2005

आरसी 24/2006-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 221/2023

आरसी 21/2006-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 769/2008

आरसी 03/2010-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 3804/2019

आरसी 13/2016-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 160/2018

आरसी 17/2016-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 220/2023

आरसी 13/2020-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 1830/2022

आरसी 07/2016-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 1107/2023

3

ृोलीसेट्टी

सोभना लक्ष्मी

आरसी 06/2017-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 26/2023

सीबीआई

मामलों के जलए

जविेष

न् ा ािीि,

जवि वाड़ा

आरसी 04/2013-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 07/2023

आरसी 09/2014-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 11/2023

आरसी 05/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 13/2023

आरसी 19/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 04/2022

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1633

आरसी 01/2014-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 05/2023

आरसी 19/2006-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 41/2022

आरसी 04/2020-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 905/2023

5 वां अजतररक्त

मिानगर

मजिस्ट्रेट,

जवि वाड़ा

आरसी 03/2021-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 906/2023

आरसी 04/2014-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 204/2023

आरसी 14/2021-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 210/2023

आरसी 15/2021-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 203/2023

आरसी 27/2006-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 01/2018

आरसी 02/2015-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 101/2017

आरसी 05(एस)/2020-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 218/2023

आरसी 05/2021-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 209/2023

आरसी 05 (ई)/2009-ईओडब्ल् ू /सीएचएन

सीसी 833/2011 और

सीसी 2076/

2018

आरसी 11/2021-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 1840/2022

आरसी 03/2001-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 1741/2022

आरसी 18/2005-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 476/2023

आरसी 08/2013-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 223/2023

आरसी 14/2020-सीबीआई /वीएसृी

सीसी 1829/2022

[फा. सं. 225/21/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2024

S.O. 745.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the Advocates mentioned in column (2) of the

Table below as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) as mentioned against each in column (3) and (4) of the said Table, in

the courts mentioned in column (5) of the aforesaid Table and appeal, revision or other matter arising out of these

cases in any appellate or revisional Court established by law, for a period not exceeding three years from the date of

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

TABLE

Sl.

No.

Name of Advocate

S/Shri /Smt.

Regular Case Numbers

Court Case

Number

Name of the Courts

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1

Bobba Srihari Prasad

Chowdary

RC 08/2012-CBI/VSP

CC 31/2023

Special Judge for CBI

Cases, Vijayawada

RC 04/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 43/2022

RC 11/2014-CBI/VSP

CC 44/2022

RC 04/2016-CBI/VSP

CC 12/2023

RC 03/2016-CBI/VSP

CC 45/2022

RC 06/2017-CBI/VSP

CC 26/2023

RC 05/2018-CBI/VSP

CC 53/2022

RC 11/2018-CBI/VSP

CC 54/2022

1634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RC 12/2018-CBI/VSP

CC 24/2022

RCs.

01, 02

&

03/2017-

CBI/VSP

CC 25/2022

RC 06/2018-CBI/VSP

CC 26/2022

RC 10/2017-CBI/VSP

CC 46/2022

RC 04/2017-CBI/VSP

CC 48/2022

RC 10/2018-CBI/VSP

CC 35/2023

RC 04/2019-CBI/VSP

CC 06/2023

RC 10/2006-CBI/VSP

CC 28/2023

RC 11/2006-CBI/VSP

CC 29/2023

RC 11/2006-CBI/VSP

CC 01/2023

RC 07/2014-CBI/VSP

CC 32 & 33/2023

RC 15/2005-CBI/VSP

42/2022,

55/2022,

56/2022,

57/2022,

58/2022

RC 11/2022-CBI/VSP

CC 36/2023

RC 03(E)/2020-EOB/CHN

CC 05/2022

RC 11/2018-HYD/VSP

CC 217/2023

Vth Additional Metro -

politan

Magistrate,

Vijayawada

2

M. Rama Prasad Babu

RC 04/2014-CBI/VSP

CC 14/2022

Special Judge for CBI

Cases, Vijayawada

RC 13/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 15/2022

RC 16/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 16/2022

RC 11/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 17/2022

RC 11/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 18/2022

RC 11/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 19/2022

RC 12/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 23/2022

RC 14/2004-CBI/VSP

CC 02/2022

RC 01/2016-CBI/VSP

CC 47/2022

RC 09/2010-CBI/VSP

CC 09/2023

RC 07/2017-CBI/VSP

CC 25/2023

RC 09/2011-CBI/VSP

CC 03/2023

RC 06/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 04/2023

RC 19/2008-CBI/VSP

CC

02/2023

&

34/2023

RC 15/2008-CBI/VSP

CC 225/2023

Vth Additional Metro-

politan

Magistrate,

Vijayawada

RC 14/2010-CBI/VSP

CC 224/2023

RC 07/2004-CBI/VSP

CC 1530/2005

RC 24/2006-CBI/VSP

CC 221/2023

RC 21/2006-CBI/VSP

CC 769/2008

RC 03/2010-CBI/VSP

CC 3804/2019

RC 13/2016-CBI/VSP

CC 160/2018

RC 17/2016-CBI/VSP

CC 220/2023

RC 13/2020-CBI/VSP

CC 1830/2022

RC 07/2016-HYD/VSP

CC 1107/2023

3

Polisetty

Sobhana

Lakshmi

RC 06/2017-CBI/VSP

CC 26/2023

Special Judge for CBI

Cases, Vijayawada

RC 04/2013-CBI/VSP

CC 07/2023

RC 09/2014-CBI/VSP

CC 11/2023

RC 05/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 13/2023

RC 19/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 04/2022

RC 01/2014-CBI/VSP

CC 05/2023

RC 19/2006-CBI/VSP

CC 41/2022

RC 04/2020-CBI/VSP

CC 905/2023

Vth Additional Metro-

politan

Magistrate

Vijayawada

RC 03/2021-CBI/VSP

CC 906/2023

RC 04/2021-CBI/VSP

CC 204/2023

RC 14/2021-CBI/VSP

CC 210/2023

RC 15/2021-CBI/VSP

CC 203/2023

RC 27/2006-CBI/VSP

CC 01/2018

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1635

RC 02/2015-CBI/VSP

CC 101/2017

RC 05(S)/2020-CBI/VSP

CC 218/2023

RC 05/2021-CBI/VSP

CC 209/2023

RC 05(E)/2009-EOW/CHN

CC 833/2011 &

CC 2076/2018

RC 11/2021-CBI/VSP

CC 1840/2022

RC 03/2001-CBI/VSP

CC 1741/2022

RC 18/2005-CBI/VSP

CC 476/2023

RC 08/2013-CBI/VSP

CC 223/2023

RC 14/2020-CBI/VSP

CC 1829/2022

[F. No. 225/21/2023–AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 माचा, 2024

का.आ. 746.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री वी. एस. िुक्ला, अजिवक्ता को दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण

ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त मामलों, जिन्िें नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में वर्णात दक ा ग ा िै, के उक्त सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (4)

में वर्णात न् ा ाल ों में अजभ ोिन संचाजलत करने ा दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल , जिसे तत्सम प्रवषत्त जवजि

द्वारा अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल के प ृ में स्ट् ाजृत दक ा ग ा िै, में ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत िोने वाली कोई अृील,

ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों को संचाजलत करने के जलए प्रभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि के जलए ा

मामलों के जनृटान की तारीख तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूवात्तर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै।

सारणी

िम सं.

आरसी. सं.

सी. सी. सं.

न् ा ाल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

l.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (अजनल कुमार

िैन और अन् )

3/2020

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

2.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (मनवीर लसंि

और अन् )

2/2020

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

3.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (मैससा बालािी

िाईटेक कंस्ट्रकिन प्राईवेट जलजमटेड)

1/2020

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

4.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (मैससा ृंकि

उृाध् ा और अन् )

6/2020

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

5.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (मैससा िेवेंर लसंि

और अन् )

5/2020

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

6.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (मैससा जवनोि

कुमार ृांडे और अन् )

04/2020

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

7.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (सीबीआई

बनाम चंिर प्रकाि जडमरी और अन् )

12/2020

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

8.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (सीबीआई

बनाम नीरि अग्रवाल और अन् )

11/2020

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

1636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (सीबीआई

बनाम अंकुर भसीन और अन् )

10/2020

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

10.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (िरप्रीत लसंि

सिगल और अन् )

06/2021

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

11.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (सत् िेव लसंि और

अन् )

03/2021

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

12.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (सीबीआई बनाम

बी. एल. मीणा और अन् )

06/2021

जविेष न् ा ािीि गाजि ाबाि

13.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (सीबीआई बनाम

जनकुन िुिेिा)

78/2023

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

14.

आरसी 219 2017 ई0017 (सीबीआई बनाम

ि िंकर सािी और अन् )

13/2023

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

15.

आरसी 3(ई) 2006 ईओडब्ल् ू-I (सीबीआई

बनाम सजलल बरगोटी और अन् )

05/2021

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

16.

आरसी 3(ई) 2006 ईओडब्ल् ू-I (सीबीआई

बनाम मििर अली और अन् )

04/2021

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

17.

आरसी 3(ई) 2006 ईओडब्ल् ू-I (सीबीआई

बनाम रािेन्र गुप्ता, प्रोृ. मैससा, आर. के. रैडसा

और अन् )

38/2021

जविेष न् ा ािीि, राउि एवेन् ू

जिला न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली

18.

आरसी 3(ई) 2006 ईओडब्ल् ू-I (सीबीआई

बनाम मोिम्पमि िमील प्रोृ. मैससा कलेक्िन

ब्रास इम्पृेक्स और अन् )

9/2021

जविेष न् ा ािीि गाजि ाबाि

19.

आरसी 3(ई) 2006 ईओडब्ल् ू-I (सीबीआई

बनाम िंिन ृा क, प्रोृ. सरोि इंटरप्राईिेि)

8/2021

जविेष न् ा ािीि गाजि ाबाि

20.

आरसी 3(ई) 2006 ईओडब्ल् ू-I (सीबीआई

बनाम वागीि कुमार िमाा,

प्रोृ. मैससा

सिाजिव एक्सृो्सा और अन् )

10/2021

जविेष न् ा ािीि गाजि ाबाि

21.

आरसी 2019 2016 ई0008- मैससा सीवीएस

स्ट्टील प्राईवेट जलजमटेड

6/2018

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

गाजि ाबाि

22.

आरसी 219 2019 ई0004 (मैससा एच. के.)

4/2022

जविेष न् ा ािीि गाजि ाबाि

[फा. सं. 225/33/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1637

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 746.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, instituted by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) before the courts mentioned in column (4) of

the said Table and any appeal, revision or other matter arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional court

established by any law for the time being in force, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or

till disposal of the cases, whichever is earlier.

TABLE

Sl. No.

RC Nos.

CC Nos.

Name of the Courts

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

l.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (Anil Kumar Jain and Ors.)

3/2020

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

2.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (Manveer Singh and Ors.)

2/2020

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

3.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (M/s Balaji Hitech Constructions

Pvt. Ltd.)

1/2020

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

4.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (M/s Pankaj Upadhyay and Ors.)

6/2020

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

5.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (M/s Devender Singh and Ors.)

5/2020

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

6.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (M/s Vinod Kumar Pandey and

Ors.)

04/2020

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

7.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (CBI Vs Chander Prakash Dimri

and Ors.)

12/2020

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

8.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (CBI vs Neeraj Agarwal and

Ors.)

11/2020

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

9.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (CBI vs Ankur Bhasin and Ors.)

10/2020

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

10.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (Harpreet Singh Saigal and Ors.)

06/2021

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

11.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (Satya Deo Singh and Ors.)

03/2021

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

12.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (CBI v/s B. L. Meena and

Others.)

06/2021

Special Judge, Ghaziabad

13.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (CBI v/s Nikun Dudeja)

78/2023

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

14.

RC 219 2017 E0017 (CBI v/s Jai Shankar Sahi and

Ors. )

13/2023

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

15.

RC 3(E) 2006 EOW-I (CBI V/s Salil Bargoti and

others)

05/2021

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

16.

RC 3(E) 2006 EOW-I (CBI V/s Mazhar Ali and

others)

04/2021

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad

17.

RC 3(E) 2006 EOW-I (CBI V/s Rajinder Gupta, Prop.

of M/s R. K. Traders and Ors.)

38/2021

Special Judge, Rouse Avenue

District Court, New Delhi

18.

RC 3(E) 2006 EOW-I (CBI V/s Mohd. Jameel Prop.

M/s Collection Brass Impex. and Ors.)

9/2021

Special Judge Ghaziabad

19.

RC 3(E) 2006 EOW-I (CBI V/s Dhanjan Pathak, Prop.

Saroj Enterprises)

8/2021

Special Judge Ghaziabad

20.

RC 3(E) 2006 EOW-I (CBI V/s Vagish Kumar

Sharma, Prop. M/s Sadashiv Exports and Ors.)

10/2021

Special Judge Ghaziabad

21.

RC 2019 2016 E0008-M/s CVS Steels Pvt. Ltd.

6/2018

Special Judicial Magistrate,

Ghaziabad.

22.

RC 219 2019 E0004 (M/s H. K.)

4/2022

Special Judge Ghaziabad

[F. No. 225/33/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

1638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 15 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 747.—केन्री सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, नीचे सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (1) में वर्णात अजिवक्ताओं क को, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

(केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त उक्त सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2), स्ट्तंभ (4) और स्ट्तंभ (5) में वर्णात मामलों को उक्त सारणी

के स्ट्तंभ (6) में वर्णात न् ा ाल ों के सामने और तत्सम प्रवषत्त दकसी जवजि के अिीन स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण

न् ालाल में इन मामलों से उद्भूत िोने वाली दकसी अृील ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों के अजभ ोिन के संचालन के जलए

प्रभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषा की अवजि की अवजि के जलए ा मामलों के जनृटान तक, इन में से िो भी ृूवातर

िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के रुृ में जन ुक्त करती िै ।

सारणी

ि.

सं.

अजिवक्ता का

नाम (सवा/

श्री/श्रीमजत)

आर सी सं.

िाखा का

नाम

िीषाक

सीसी. सं.

न् ा ाल का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1

अनु तुली

आरसी0962011ए0002

केन्री

अन्वेषण

ब् ूरो,

भ्रष्टाचार

जवरोिी

ब् ूरो,

जिमला

सीबीआई बनाम

रािेि ाकुर एवं

अन्

2013 का

2-2

जवि्

सीिेएम-सि-

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट, (सीबीआई)

आरसी0962012ए0002

सीबीआई बनाम

अजभषेक गो ल

एवं अन्

2014 का

97-2

जवि्

सीिेएम-सि-

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट, (सीबीआई)

आरसी0962012ए0010

सीबीआई बनाम

िे. के. नांरग एवं

अन्

2015 का

4-एस/7

जविेष

न् ा ािीि

(ृीएमएलए)-सि-

जिला

एवं

सत्र

न् ा ािीि, जिमला

आरसी0962016ए0004

सीबीआई बनाम

रािेि

मु्‍ ान

एवं अन्

2017 का

1- एस/7

जविेष

न् ा ािीि

(ृीएमएलए)-सि-

जिला

एवं

सत्र

न् ा ािीि, जिमला

आरसी0962016ए0005

सीबीआई बनाम

सुरिीत एवं अन्

2020 का

104-40

जवि्

सीिेएम-सि-

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट, (सीबीआई)

आरसी0962016ए0008

सीबीआई बनाम

मैससा जिलिेस्ट्ट

फूड प्रा. जल. एवं

अन्

2022 का

7- एस/7

जवि् जविेष न् ा ािीि

सीबीआई, जिमला

आरसी0962016ए0008

सीबीआई बनाम

मैससा

ररसोसा

फूड प्रा. जल. एवं

अन्

2022 का

8- एस/7

जवि् जविेष न् ा ािीि

सीबीआई, जिमला

2

सुमन ाकुर

आरसी0962017ए0004

केन्री

अन्वेषण

ब् ूरो,

भ्रष्टाचार

जवरोिी

ब् ूरो,

सीबीआई बनाम

तेि राम वमाा

एवं अन्

2019 का

111-2

जवि् जविेष न् ा ािीि

सीबीआई, जिमला

आरसी0962012ए0011

सीबीआई बनाम

बाम िेव िमाा

एवं अन्

2014 का

18-

एस/7

जवि् जविेष न् ा ािीि

सीबीआई, जिमला

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1639

आरसी0962013ए0001

जिमला

सीबीआई बनाम

दिनेि कुमार एवं

अन्

2015 का

46-2

जवि् सीिेएम-सि-जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

(सीबीआई)

आरसी0962013ए0001

सीबीआई बनाम

मेिर चंि एवं

अन्

2015 का

39-2

जवि् सीिेएम-सि-जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

(सीबीआई)

आरसी0962013ए0001

सीबीआई बनाम

ृरमिीत

2016 का

35-2

जवि्

सीिेएम-सि-

जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट, (सीबीआई)

आरसी0962014ए0006

सीबीआई बनाम

अजनल िमाा एवं

अन्

2016 का

12-

एस/7

जवि् जविेष न् ा ािीि

सीबीआई, जिमला

आरसी0962016ए0006

सीबीआई बनाम

डेजवस वैल् ू काडा

एवं अन्

2018 का

23-2

जवि् सीिेएम-सि-जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

(सीबीआई)

3

संिीृ िमाा आरसी0962017एस0005

केन्री

अन्वेषण

ब् ूरो,

भ्रष्टाचार

जवरोिी

ब् ूरो

जिमला

सीबीआई बनाम

प् ारे लाल एवं

अन्

2019 का

141-2

जवि् सीिेएम-सि-जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

(सीबीआई)

आरसी0962017एस0006

सीबीआई बनाम

िेमराि एवं अन्

2019 का

200-2

जवि् सीिेएम-सि-जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

(सीबीआई)

आरसी0962017एस0006

सीबीआई बनाम

प् ारेलाल

एवं

अन्

2019 का

199-2

जवि् सीिेएम-सि-जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

(सीबीआई)

आरसी0962018ए0001

सीबीआई बनाम

िरभगवान प्रताृ

सक्सेना एवं अन्

2022 का

2- एस/7

जवि् जविेष न् ा ािीि

सीबीआई, जिमला

आरसी0962018एस0002

सीबीआई बनाम

लालरोलीन

सुन्गते एवं अन्

2021 का

169-2

जवि् सीिेएम-सि-जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

(सीबीआई)

आरसी0962020ए0001

सीबीआई बनाम

सैनसंस ृल्ृ और

ृेृर एवं अन्

2021 का

15-2

जवि् सीिेएम-सि-जविेष

न् ाज क

मजिस्ट्रेट,

(सीबीआई)

[फा. सं. 225/03/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2024

S.O. 747.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates mentioned in column

(1) in the Table below as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of the cases mentioned in column (2),

(4) and (5) of the said Table, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation)

before the Courts mentioned in column (6) of the said Table and any appeal, revision or other matter arising out of

these cases in any appellate or revisional court established under any law for the time being in force, for a period of

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

1640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

TABLE

Sl.

No.

Name of the

Advocate

(S/Shri/Smt)

RC Nos.

Name of the

Branch

Title

CC No

Name of Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1

Anu Tuli

RC0962011A0002

Central Bureau

of Investigation,

Anti-Corruption

Bureau, Shimla

CBI

Vs

Rajesh

Thakur

& Ors.

2-2 of

2013

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

RC0962012A0002

CBI

Vs

Abhishek

Goyal & Ors.

97-2 of

2014

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

RC0962012A0010

CBI Vs J. K.

Narang

& Ors.

4-S/7 of

2015

Spl. Judge (PMLA)

Cum-District

&

Sessions

Judge,

Shimla

RC0962016A0004

CBI

Vs

Rajesh

Mukhyan

&

Ors.

1-S/7 of

2017

Spl. Judge (PMLA)

Cum-District

&

Sessions

Judge,

Shimla

RC0962016A0005

CBI

Vs

Surjeet & Ors.

104-40 of

2020

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

RC0962016A0008

CBI Vs M/s

Hillcrest Food

Pvt. Ltd. &

Ors.

7-S/7 of

2022

Ld. Special Judge

CBI, Shimla

RC0962016A0008

CBI Vs M/s

Resource

Food Pvt. Ltd.

& Ors.

8-S/7 of

2022

Ld. Special Judge

CBI, Shimla

2

Suman

Thakur

RC0962017A0004

Central Bureau

of Investigation,

Anti-Corruption

Bureau, Shimla

CBI Vs Tej

Ram

Verma

& Ors.

111-2 of

2019

Ld. Special Judge

CBI, Shimla

RC0962012A0011

CBI Vs Bam

Dev

Sharma

& Ors.

18-S/7 of

2014

Ld. Special Judge

CBI, Shimla

RC0962013A0001

CBI

Vs

Dinesh

Kumar & Ors.

46-2 of

2015

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

RC0962013A0001

CBI

Vs

Mehar Chand

& Ors.

39-2 of

2015

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

RC0962013A0001

CBI

Vs

Paramjit

35-2 of

2016

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

RC0962014A0006

CBI Vs Anil

Sharma

&

Ors.

12-S/7 of

2016

Ld. Special Judge

CBI, Shimla

RC0962016A0006

CBI Vs Davis

Value Card &

Ors.

23-2 of

2018

Ld. CJM-cum-Spe-

cial Judicial Magis-

trate, (CBI)

3

Sandeep

Sharma

RC0962017S0005

Central Bureau

of Investigation,

Anti-Corruption

CBI Vs Pyare

Lal & Ors.

141-2 of

2019

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1641

RC0962017S0006

Bureau, Shimla

CBI Vs Hem

Raj & Ors.

200-2 of

2019

Ld. CJM-cum-Spe-

cial

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

RC0962017S0006

CBI Vs Pyare

Lal & Ors.

199-2 of

2019

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

RC0962018A0001

CBI

Vs

Harbhagwan

Pratap Saxena

& Ors.

2-S/7 of

2022

Ld. Special Judge

CBI, Shimla

RC0962018S0002

CBI

Vs

Lalrolien

Sungte & Ors.

169-2 of

2021

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

RC0962020A0001

CBI

Vs

Sainsons Pulp

and Paper &

Ors.

15-2 of

2021

Ld.

CJM-cum-

Special

Judicial

Magistrate, (CBI)

[F. No. 225/03/2024–AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 748.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री अि कुमार गुप्ता, अजिवक्ता को दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण

ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी 2192017ई0010-ईओ-I, नई दिल्ली (जमिोरम डा रेक्ट माकेटटंग

जलजमटेड) का जविेष न् ा ािीि, सीबीआई, (सांसि/जविा क मामला) राउि ऐवेन् ू जिला न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली के समक्ष

जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल में दकसी मामले से उद्भूत दकन्िीं अृीलों, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन्

मामलों में ृिभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से, मामले के जनृटान तक ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूवात्तर िो,

अजभ ोिन संचाजलत करने के जलए जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/11/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 748.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of CBI Case RC 2192017E0010-EO-I (Mizoram Direct Marketing

Ltd. case) instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Court of Special

Judge, CBI, (MPs/MLAs cases), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi and appeals, revisions or other matters

arising out of the case in any appellate or revisional court established by law, till disposal of the case or further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/11/2024-AVD.II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 749.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री एआर एल. सुन्रेसन, भारत के अृर साजलजसटर िनरल को ररट ाजचका

1642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सं. 2018 की 143 (ृी. दकिोर बनाम सजचव, भारत सरकार, गषि मंत्राल और अन् ) िो आर.सी. सं. 33(ए)/2011,

सीबीआई, एसीबी, चेन्नई से संबंजित िै, का माननी उच्च न् ा ाल , मरास के समक्ष संचालन करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष

ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) का प्रजतजनजित्व करने के जलए 5 अप्रैल, 2023 से मामले का जनृटान िोने तक ा

अगला आिेि िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूवात्तर िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/12/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 749.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri AR. L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor

General of India, as Special Public Prosecutor to represent Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of

Investigation) for conducting Writ Petition No. 143 of 2018 (P. Kishore Vs. The Secretary to the Government of

India, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others) pertaining to RC No. 33(A)/2011, CBI, ACB, Chennai, before the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras, with effect from the 5th April, 2023 till disposal of the case or further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/12/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 750.—केंरी सरकार, िंड प्रदि ा संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजक् त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री िेजवन्र ृाल लसंि, अजिवक्ता को दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण

ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी2202022ई0007, सीबीआई, ईओ-II, नई दिल्ली (श्री लालू प्रसाि

ािव और अन् के जवरुद्ध नौकरी घोटाले के जलए हुए) का राउि ऐवेन् ू जिला न् ा ाल , नई दिल्ली, माननी दिल्ली

उच्च न् ा ाल और भारत के माननी उच्चतम न् ा ाल के समक्ष जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील ा ृुनरीक्षण

न् ा ाल में दकसी मामले से उद्भूत दकन्िीं अृीलों, ृुनरीक्षण ा अन् मामलों में ृिभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से,

मामले के जनृटान तक ा अगला आिेि िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूवात्तर िो, अजभ ोिन संचाजलत करने के जलए जविेष

लोक अजभ ोिक जन ुक्त करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/13/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुन्िन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 750.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of CBI Case RC 2202022E0007, CBI, EO-II New Delhi (Land for

Job Scam case against Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav and others) instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central

Bureau of Investigation), before the Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and any appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the case in any appellate or

revisional Court established by law, from the date of assumption of charge till disposal of the case or till further order,

whichever is earliest.

[F. No. 225/13/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1643

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 751.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

जनिेिक, केंरी रेिम बोडा, सीएसआर और टीआई, ृंृोर, कश्मीर ; सिस्ट् सजचव, केंरी रेिम बोडा, सीएसआर और

टीआई, बैंगलोर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अब्िुल िाजमि खान, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़,ृंचाट(संिभा सं्‍ ा 161/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखा ा ग ा िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 10.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42012/188/2018-आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2024

S.O. 751.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 161/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court -1, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Director , Central Silk Board , CSR & TI, Pampore, Kashmir ; The Member Secretary, Central

Silk Board, CSR & TI, Bangalore, and Shri Abdul Hamid Khan, Worker, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.04.2024.

[No. L-42012/188/2018-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 161/2018

Registered On: 25.02.2019

Sh.Abdul Hamid Khan S/o Mohd Rajab Khan Pampore , Jammu & Kashmir - 192121

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Director, Central Silk Board , CSR & TI, Govt.Of India, Ministry of Textile Galander, NH44A, Pampore,

Kashmir-192121

2. The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board, CSR & TI, Govt.Of India, Ministry of Textile Bangalore - 560068

........Managements

AWARD

Passed On: 28.03.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/188/2018-IR(DU) dated 30.01.2019, under clause (d) of

Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the The Director , Central Silk Board , CSR & TI, Govt. of India, Ministry of

Textile Galander, NH44A, Pampore, Kashmir-192121 in terminating the services of Sh. Abdul Hamid

Khan S/o Mohd Rajab Khan w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and not regularizing him thereafter is just, fair and

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

1. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing claim statement by

workman but none is responding on behalf of workman.

2. Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file the

claim statement but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on

merits 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 case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

1644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

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

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 752.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार

क्षेत्री जनिेिक, भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, टीटी नगर,भोृाल (म.प्र.),के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध् क्ष,

भारती ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण श्रजमक संघ, जवदििा (म.प्र.), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-

सि-श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट(संिभा सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/29/2018.) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै,

प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 16.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42011/33/2018 -आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2024

S.O. 752.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/29/2018.) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to The Regional Director, Archaeological Survey of India,TT Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.), and The

President, Archaeological Survey of India Workers Union, Vidisha (M.P.), which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 16.04.2024.

[No. L-42011/33/2018 -IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The President,

Archaeological Survey of India Workers Union,

R/o Kila Andar Near Water Tank,

Bais Darwaja Marg,

Vidisha (M.P.) – 464001

Workman

Versus

The Regional Director,

Archaeological Survey of India,

1st Floor, Office Hall, Inner Court Building,

GTB Complex, TT Nagar,

Bhopal (M.P.) – 462003

Management

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1645

AWARD

(Passed on this 02nd day of April-2024.)

As per letter dated 14/05/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference

number L-42011/33/2018 (IR(DU)) dt. 14/05/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the demand of Archaeological Survey of India Employees Union (ASIEU) of regularization

or granting 1/30 status at par with MTS in respect of the workmen Shri Vasanta Bodade & 36 others

(annexed in A), is fair, just & legal? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled to and what

directions are necessary in the case? ”

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of allotment of time and service of

notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written

statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did

he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of workman not proved the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 02/04/2024

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 753.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार

प्रबंिक, लासान एंड टुब्रो फाइनेंस जलजमटेड (फैजमली िेजडट जलजमटेड), इंदिरा नगर, लखनऊ, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और श्री अजमत कुमार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम

न् ा ाल , लखनऊ ृंचाट(संिभा सं्‍ ा 35/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 10.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-41012/27/2018 -आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2024

S.O. 753.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The Manager, Larsen & Toubro Finance Ltd. (Family Credit Ltd.), Indira Nagar, Lucknow, and Shri Amit

Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.04.2024.

[No. L-41012/27/2018 -IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

1646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 35/2019

Ref. No. L-41012/27/2018-IR (D-U) dt. 28.09.2018

Amit Kumar Vs. Larsen & Toubro

BETWEEN

Sri Amit Kumar S/o Sri S.K. Shrivastava

C- 2970, S-6, Rajajipuram Lucknow- 226017

AND

The Manager

Larsen & Toubro Finance Ltd. (Family Credit Ltd.)

A-16, First Floor, Indira Nagar

Lucknow-226016

AWARD

By an order dated 28.09.2018 appropriate authority referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of management of Larsen & Toubro Finance Limited in terminating the services of

Sri Amit Kumar, who was employed as Sales Officer on 25.10.2013 & Terminated on 30.06.2016 by the said

management is fair, just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

Accordingly ID case No. 35/2019 registered before this Tribunal.

Claim statement Supported by an affidavit filed on behalf of appellant/workman, relevant portion of the same reads as

under:-

1.

That the workman namely Amit Kumar Srivastava was employed as Sales Officer in your company who

comes under the category of worker. He was neither employed as managerial or administrative capacity

therefore as per section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute is well covered under the definition of workman, hence the

order of reference is maintainable so far as relate to concerning workman.

That applicant was appointed as Sales Officer in L & T Finance Limited (Family Credit Ltd.) A 16 First

Floor, Indira Nagar Near Stallion Honda Showroom, Faizabad Road Lucknow 226016 w.e.f. 25.10.2023.

2.

That the applicant continuously work in the aforesaid establishment on the same post till 30.06.2016.

3.

That the workman was paid salary by the opposite party through State Bank of India.

4.

That the monthly salary of the applicant was Rs. 9437/- per month which was paid to him till 30.06.2016

5.

That after the above termination the workman continuously about a week personally met with the employer

of the opposite party and requested to take him back in employment all went in vain.

6.

That the workman as per facts stated above has worked in the establishment continuously more than 3 years

and also worked more than 240 days in every calendar year as well as in 12 month as Annexure

No. 1 and 2.

7.

That the work and conduct of the applicant during his whole tenure of working period was unblemished and

satisfactory, nothing adverse was ever communicated to him.

8.

That the service of the applicant have verbally been terminated w.e.f. 30.06.2016 due to persistent demand of

his unpaid salary.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1647

9.

That the above said verbal termination has been done by the opposite party without the compliance of

mandatory provision of section 25(F) of Industrial Dispute Act as the workman before terminated neither

has been given one month notice nor one month salary in lieu thereof nor any compensation.

10.

That the opposite party have also not adopted the principle of first come last go which is also against the

Provision of section 25 G Industrial Dispute Act.

11.

That the opposite party has also contravened the provision of section 25H of Industrial Dispute Act as new

person after termination of workman has been appointed. Without calling back the retrenched workman for

appointment.

13.

That the aforesaid termination order as per above facts in without compliance of labour laws, and illegal

therefore, is liable to be set aside.

14.

That the above workman under the above circumstances is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages.

15.

That the opposite party therefore, be directed to take the workman back in employment with full back wages

along with continuity of service and all other service benefits.

16.

That the workman after termination has regularly trying for other job but in spite of his best efforts he could

not get the same till date.

17.

That still he is unemployed and missing to join the opposite party.

18.

That the applicant is still out of employment without any other source of income.

19.

That the applicant under the above facts and circumstances is legally entitled for reinstatement with full

back wages and other consequential benefits with continuity of service.

Accordingly it is prayed

On the basis of facts and circumstances, stated it is most respectfully prayed the reference order so received

from the government kindly be decided in favour of the workman reinstating him back in service from the

date of above illegal termination with full back wages continuity of service and all other consequential

benefits along with the cost of case.

On 07.09.2022 an order was passed held as under:-

Case called out.

Parties absent.

Office is directed to issue notice to OP to file written statement on or before the next date of hearing.

List on 18.11.2022 for WS.

On 27.12.2022 an order was passed held as under:

Case called out.

Parties absent.

Last opportunity is granted for written statement.

List on 23.03.2023.

On 23.03.2023 an order was passed held as under:

Matter taken up in revised list.

Parties absent.

In spite of last opportunity written statement is filed, accordingly opportunity to file WS is closed.

List on 09.06.2023 for WEE (affidavit) along with relevant documents.

On 09.06.2023 an order was passed held as under:

Matter taken up in revised list.

Parties absent.

Another opportunity is granted file WE (affi.) along with documents.

List on 31.08.2023.

1648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

31.08.2023 an order was passed held as under:-

As Bar is on strike.

Matter is adjourned today.

List on 26.09.2023 for WWE (affidavit) along with documents.

26.09.2023 an order was passed held as under:.

Matter taken up in revised list.

Parties absent.

Last opportunity is granted for WE (affi.)

List on 25.01.2024. none to parties.

On 25.01.2024 an order was passed held as under:

None claim, when the case is taken in the revised list.

So opportunity to file workman evidence on affidavit is closed.

List for ex-parte hearing on 13.03.2024

Office is directed to issue notice to claimant.

Taking into consideration the above said facts as well as law no affidavit has been filed in support of claim petition.

Accordingly workman’s claim rejected.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

20.03.2024

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 754.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, जिसार जडवीिन, जिसार, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती बेिो

िेवी@वेिो िेवी, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -2,

चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (संिभा सं्‍ ा 64/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2024 -63-आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2024

S.O. 754.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court -2, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Ganeral Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hisar Division, Hisar, and Smt Bedo

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

10.04.2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-63-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1649

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 64/2020

Registered on:-16.11.2020

Bedo Devi@Vedo Devi W/o Inder Singh, R/o H.No.98, Navdeep Colony, Azad Nagar, Hisar(Haryana).

........Workman

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hisar Division Hisar through General Manager.

…...Respondent/Management

AWARD

Passed On:-12.03.2024

1. The workman Bedo Devi @ Vedo Devi has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947(hereinafter called the Act) for reinstatement with full back wages.

2. Today i.e. 12.03.2024 the case was fixed for filing evidence of workman but none is responding on behalf of

workman. On scrutiny of the order sheets, it is revealed that the workman is not appearing/representing on

24.11.2022, 25.01.2023, 17.07.2023, 03.10.2023, 24.11.2023 and today also i.e. 12.03.2024, whereas several dates

have been fixed by the Tribunal, which denotes that workman is neither serious nor interested in disposal of the case

on merit.

3. Since the workman has neither put her appearance for long nor she has led any evidence to prove her cause

against the management, 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 for the non-prosecution of workman.

4. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17(1) of the Act for

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 755.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एस.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;] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/38/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@04@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/179/2018 -आईआर (सीएम -II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2024

S.O. 755.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/38/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/04/2024.

[No. L-22012/179/2018-IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N. , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/38/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Lingraj Nayak

Area Secretary,

Sanyukt Kolya Majdoor Sangh (AITUC)

G.M. Complex, Chirmiri, Korea (C.G.)

Workman

1650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

General Manager

SECL, Chirmiri Area

Distt.- Korea (C.G.)

Management

(JUDGEMENT)

(Passed on this 3rd day of April 2024)

As per letter dated 13/02/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-22012/179/2018 IR(CM-II) dt. 13/02/2019. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action on the part of the management of NCPH, Sub-Area of SECL, Chirmiri Area on

dismissing Shri Anam S/o. Deena, Ex- Pump Operator, Category-II, on the same day of retirement from

service i.e. on 30.04.2018 vide office order no.- SECL/NCPH/821, Dt. 30.04.2018 without conducting full

fledged departmental enquiry and without following the principles of natural justice in the particular case on

impersonation ground espoused by Shri Lingraj Nayak, Area Secretary of Sanyukt Koyla Mazdoor Sangh

(AITUC) of Chirmiri Area is appropriate and justified ? if not, what relief Shri Anam S/o. Deena is

entitled to ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. The

workman side never appeared and did not file any Statement of Claim.

The management of SECL filed their written statement of defense, wherein they stated that while in service,

a complaint was received from Satya Poojan Mishra that the workman Anam had availed the services by providing

false documents. This complaint was forwarded Area General Manager vide Headquarter letter dated 10.04.2016. The

Sub-Area Manager sent a letter dated 12.06.2017 to the District Magistrate Ganjam, Odisha to confirm the identity of

photograph of the workman affixed on the said letter. The Superintendent, vide his letter dated 28.07.2017 inform that

the photograph affixed is of Anam Panigrahi S/o. Narayan Panigrahi, R/o. Village Nandika, P.S. Purushottampur,

Distt.- Ganjam and not of Anam S/o. Deena. Management issued a charge sheet dated 10.04.2018 to the workman he

submitted his reply on 12.04.2018 denying the charges. Management decided to conduct a departmental enquiry into

the charges and vide order dated 14.04.2018 Enquiry Officer and management representative were appointed. The

enquiry was conducted in three sitting. The workman was defended by Co-worker, he participated in the enquiry and

cross examined management witnesses. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 23.04.2018 holding

the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the representation of the workman on the enquiry

report passed the punishment of his dismissal from 30.04.2018, which was the date of the retirement of the workman.

According to management, the workman completed his service till the date of his retirement, there was no illegality

during the enquiry and the charges were proved from evidence, also that the punishment is also not disproportionate

to the charges. Accordingly, management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.

The workman did not file any evidence oral or documentary or affidavit.

Management filed photocopy enquiry papers and affidavit of its witness as his examination in chief.

Workman did not appear to cross examine this witness.

None appeared for workman at the stage of argument, hence argument of learned Counsel for management

were heard by me. I have gone through the records as well.

The initial burden to prove his case is on workman. Since he never appeared and did not file any statement of

claim or documentary as well other evidence, he is held to have failed in discharging his this burden.

On the other hand, from the uncross examined affidavit of management witness and the enquiry papers, it

comes out that the workman has participated in the enquiry and punishment order has been passed after considering

his representation on the enquiry report, hence there is nothing on record to hold the departmental enquiry against

law. From perusal of the evidence collected during the enquiry the finding of the Enquiry Officer also cannot be

faulted in law or fact, hence the finding of the Enquiry Officer are affirmed. As regards the proportionality of

punishment, since the proved charge is of impersonation, the punishment of dismissal is also held not excessive.

In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and

is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.

DATE:- 03/04/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1651

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 756.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एस.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;] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/75/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@04@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/4/2013 -आईआर (सीएम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2024

S.O. 756.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/75/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/04/2024.

[No. L-22012/4/2013-IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N. , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/75/2013

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

Hasdec region,

Annuppur (MP)

Workman

Versus

The Sub Regional Manager,

Behrabandh sub area,

South Eastern Coalfields Limited,

Annuppur (MP)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 19Th day of February-2024.)

As per letter dated 23/05/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference

number L-22012/4/2013 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 23/05/2013 . The dispute under reference related to :-

“क्‍या‍उप क्षेत्रीय‍प्रबंधक‍बहेराबांध‍उपक्षेत्रीय‍साउथ‍ईस्‍टर्न‍कोल‍फील्‍डस‍द्वारा‍कर्नकार‍श्री‍शिव‍कुर्ार‍केवट‍

इलेक्‍टरीशयायर्‍की‍जन्‍र्‍शिशथ‍का‍सुधार‍र्हीं‍शकया‍जार्ा‍न्‍यायोश ि‍है‍? यशि‍र्हीं‍िो‍कर्नकार‍क्‍या‍अर्ुिोष‍

पार्े‍का‍अशधकारी‍है‍?”

1652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After registering a case on the basis of reference received, notices were issued to the parties. They appeared

and filed their respective statements of claim and defence.

Case of the Workman in brief, as put up in his statement of claim, is mainly that he was initially

appointed on 27/04/1984 on the post of technician. In his service record ,his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as

07/01/1960, whereas his correct date of birth, as shown in his class VIII Mark sheet issued by the Government

Intermediate School District Shahdol was January 7, 1964. He had cleared his class Xth examination from

Government Higher Secondary School Bijuri District Shahdol, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as January 7,

1964. This date of birth(7/01/1964) was also mentioned in his service book, filled on September 3rd , 1984. It was due

to mistake on the management that his incorrect the date of birth that is January 7th , 1960 was recorded in form B.

The Workman requested the management to correct his date of birth and record his correct date of birth. The

management did not grant this relief to the workmen hence he raised a dispute. After failure of conciliation, the

reference was made to this tribunal for adjudication. The Workman has accordingly prayed that his date of birth be

corrected in his service records and he be granted all the benefits during service and post retirral, treating his date of

birth as January 7th , 1964.

The case of management, as taken in their written statement of defence is that his date of birth

January 7th , 1960 was recorded by management in his form B and other service records on the basis of information

provided by the Workman himself. The management also stated that the Workman did not file any document

regarding date of his birth and also that on medical examination also his date of birth was ascertained as

January 7th , 1960.

In evidence, the workman filed and proved documents Ex W1 photocopy of class 8th Mark sheet, ExW2, I

School Mark sheet ExW3 form B, ExW4 medical examination form of the workmen dated December 21,

1983,ExW5 letter of management sent to the assistant Labour Commissioner during conciliation proceedings stating

that the Workman had not produced any document relating to his date of birth at the time of his joining and at the

time of his medical examination. The management has filed documents Ex M1, medical examination form dated

December 21, 1983, ExM2form B,ExM3 form PS-3,ExM4 service record extract. Workman has filed his affidavit as

his examination in Chief. He has been cross-examined by management. Management has also examined his witnesses

by way of filing his affidavit as his examination in Chief. This witness has not been cross-examined by Workman.

At the time of argument, none appeared from the side of Workman. Hence I have heard the argument of

Mr Anup Nayar. Learned counsel for management and have gone through the record. No written arguments has been

filed by any of the parties.

Learned counsel for management has relied on following decisions-

1-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and others Vs Shyam Kishore Singh (2020)3SCC411.

2-Judgement of Hon.ble High Court of MP dated 13/04/2018, passed by Single Bench in WP No.

19334/2013 in Prabahat Kumar Dwiwedi vs Union of India and others

The main crux of argument of Learned Counsel for management is that the workman never filed his

documents regarding his date of birth at any point of time and secondly, he raising this dispute at the fag end of his

career hence his claim is barred by delay and latches

The reference itself the issue for determination in this case.

It is not disputed between the parties that the Workman, first joined as an electrician on April 27th , 1984.

Ex W1 & W2 are the Mark sheet of class 8th and 10th which have been proved show that he cleared these

examinations in the year 1978 and 1980 that is to say, before he joined with the management. The workmen has filed

photocopy of his service extract , admitted by management marked Ex W6. This document has been maintained by

the management. In this document, his date of birth is mentioned as January 7th , 1964. His qualification matriculation

has also been mentioned in this document. This document has been prepared on August 16th , 1987. That is to say,

after three years of his joining the service. In his form B, claimed to be prepared by management on the basis of

information furnished by the Workman, his date of birth is mentioned as January 7th , 1960. There is an endorsement

dated February 2nd , 2016 signed by the Assistant Manager( PR )Baherabund Sub Area, which is as follows-

“As per letter number 970 dated 28/30.03.15 & 1067 dated 21/29.09.2015 DoB of Sri Shiv kumar s/o

Jamuna has been finalised by competent authority a s21.12.1960.(as per IME report).”

The medical examination form of the workma Ex W shows that as a stated by him, and as per appearance,

his age was 23 years. This medical examination form has been signed and prepared by the doctor examining the

Workman on December 21st , 1983. After his examination, the doctor has remarked that the Workman is fit for duty.

This is the medical examination conducted on the workmn before his joining with the management on April 27th,

1984. Judicial notice of the fact can be taken that the form B is prepared by the management on the basis of

information provided by the Workman. As has been mentioned earlier, in this form, his date of birth is mentioned as

January 7th, 1960 with the endorsement as has been mentioned earlier in this judgement. The service records, extract

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1653

of which has been filed by the Workman and has been admitted by management, and referred to earlier, is also

prepared by management. Thus, it comes out that there are two dates of birth of the applicant Workman recorded in

the records of the management. In other words, it could be said that there was a discrepancy in the records maintained

by management with respect to the date of birth of the workmen.

The Implementation Instructions 76(in shortI.I.76), prepared under National Coal Wage Agreement

(NCWA) provide a procedure to deal with discrepancies with regard to age or date of birth of the workmen. The

relevant paragraph is mentioned as follows –

IMPLEMENTATION INSTRUCTION NO. 76

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION/ VERIFICATION OF AGE OF EMPLOYEES

(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment

i) Matriculates.

In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of

birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be

altered under any circumstances.

ii) Non-matriculates but educated

In the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognised educational institution, the date

of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the

same will not be altered under any circumstances.

(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.

i) a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certi- ficate or Higher Secondary

Certificate issued by the recognised Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certi- ficate issued by the

Board of Education and/or Depart- ment of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the

aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said

Universities/Boards/Institu- tions prior to the date of employment.

It has also been mentioned that in the extract of service records of the workman, referred to above, his

qualification matriculation has been recorded. As has been referred in the I.I. 76, in case of any discrepancy regarding

the age or date of birth of Workman, who is matriculate, his date of birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate

shall be final. The management has taken another route of going through medical examination in determining the age

or date of birth of the workman by ignoring his date of birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate cannot be held

to be justified in law in doing so. The main contention of the management has been that the Workman never produced

his any certificate, including his matriculation certificate with respect to his date of birth is not worth reliance because

if it was so, how come his date of birth as mentioned in his meticulous and certificate was mentioned in his service

extract prepared by management itself and secondly, his case on this point is corroborated by his this statement on

oath.

Hence, in the light of above discussion, the action of management in not correct in the date of birth of

the workman Shivkumar as shown in his matriculation certificate is against the Implementation Instructions

76 and is held against law.

As regards to the second leg of argument from the side of management regarding delay and latches on

the part of the applicant Workman in getting corrected his date of birth, facts in the case of Bhatart Coking Coal

(Supra) are indistinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. In the referred case, the workman raised dispute

regarding his date of birth in the year 2009 when he was about to retire in March 2010. His representation was

rejected and he filed a writ against the rejection order after four years of his retirement. In the case in hand, some

documents maintained by management itself contained the date of birth of the workmen, which was correct.

according to and in some documents, maintained by management itself, his date of birth was incorrect. according to

him. Hence, he did not have a case on to raise the dispute at an earlier stage.

With regard to the second case of Prabhat Chandra (Supra), referred to by the learned counsel for

management. The writ petition filed by the Workman for correction of his date of birth was found barred by delay and

latches on the basis of facts peculiar to the case.

Hence, in the light of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the referred cases, being

distinguishable on facts, do not help the learned counsel for management.

On the basis of above discussion and findings, the action of management in not correcting the date of worth

of the workman Shivkumar electrician according to his matriculation certificate is held against law. Consequently,

1654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman is a held entitled to continue in service, treating his date of birth January 7th 1964 and is also held

entitled to in service and post retirement benefits accordingly. The reference deserves to be answered accordingly.

AWARD

The action of management in not correcting the date of birth of the workman Shiv Kumar Kewat electrician

according to his Matriculation Certificate is held against law. Consequently, the workman is a held entitled to

continue in service, treating his date of birth January 7th, 1964 till date of his superannuation to be decided as per

rules, treating his date of birth January 7th, 1964 and is also held entitled to in service and post retirement benefits

accordingly. The workman is further held entitled to litigation cost contributed at Rs. 10,000/-payable to the

Workman within 30 days from the date of publication of award in official Gazette, failing which interest at the rate of

6% per annum from the date of award till payment.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 19/02/2024

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 757.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्ल् ू.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;]

िबलृुर

ds

iapkV

¼lanHkZ la- एलसी/आर/52/2014) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@04@2024 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y&22012@36@2014&vkbZ-vkj- ¼सीएम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2024

S.O. 757.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC/R/52/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of W.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/04/2024.

[No. L-22012/36/2014 – IR (CM-II)

MANIKANDAN N. , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/2014

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Ramdas

S/o Sh. Jettoo,

Ex-Chowkidar, Type-A, Gude,

PO : Paulachouri,

Tehsil- Junardev, Chhindwara . Workman

Versus

The Manager,

Mohan Colliery,

M/s. Western Coalfields Limited,

Kanhan Area, PO: Ambara,

Chhindwara, …Management

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1655

AWARD

(Passed on this 29th day of February 2024.)

As per letter dated 19/06/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-22012/36/2014-IR(CM-II) dt. 19/06/2014. The dispute under reference relates to:

“क् ा प्रबंिक, मोिन कॉलनी वेस्ट् टना कालफील् डस जलजमटेड कान् िान क्षेत्र जिला लछंिवाडा द्वारा आवेिक

श्री रामिास जृता िे ू, ृूव् ा चौकीिार, को उनकी सेवामें भती के सम प्रा जमक ररकाडा फामा बी में अिा िन् म जतज

13.06.1954 को रा्‍ री कोल वेतन समझौता के प्राविानों के अनुसार आ ु जनिाारण सजमजत द्वारा संिोजित कर

17.01.1952 करना व संिांजित िन् म जतज 17.01.1952 के आिार ृर सेवाजनवषत् त दक ा िाना न् ा संगत िै? दि निी

तो कमाकार क् ा अनुतोष ृाने का अजिकारी िै?”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to the parties and were duly served

on them.

The case of the workman in brief is that his real date of birth is 13/06/1954 which was wrongly recorded in

his service records by management as 17/01/1954 and he was wrongly superannuated on 31/01/2012 on the basis of

his wrong date of birth. The workman did file many representations before the management with copy of his

educational qualification in which his correct date of birth was mentioned but the management did not grant him any

relief regarding correction of his date of birth. The workman has therefore prayed that holding his retirement on

31/01/2012 bad in law he deemed to be in service till 13/06/2014 on the basis of his correct date of birth and also they

held entitled to all service benefits accordingly.

The case of management is mainly that in all his service records the date of birth of the workman was

recorded as 17/01/1952 on information given by him during his service tenure, a general notice was displayed and

was communicated to all the workman including the applicant workman in the year 1981 in which the date of birth

recorded in the service record of all the workman and they were asked to raise objection within 90 days if they felt

that their date of birth was wrongly recorded in the year 1987 also the same exercise was done the workman raised

dispute regarding his date of birth at latter stage his case was referred to age determination community constituted

under II 76 he did not produce any satisfactory evidence hence his date of birth was not changed. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

In evidence, the workman did not appear he only filed photocopy of his service extract admitted by

management he did not lead any other evidence.

Management filed affidavit of his witnesses who corroborated the case of management and proved his

service records form V service extract, form PS-3 and PS-4 and two general notices. This witness is on cross

examined by workman.

The workman was not present at the time of argument hence argument for Learned Counsel for management

have been heard by me, I have also gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

The initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman in absence of any evidence on his behalf, he is held

having not proved his claim on the other hand, management has proved its case by uncrossed examined affidavit of its

witnesses and document as mentioned.

On the basis of above discussion holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be

answered against him and is answered as follows: -

The action of management superannuating the workman Ramdas on the basis of his date of birth 17/11/1952

is held justified in law the workman is held entitled to no relief.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, The action of management superannuating the workman Ramdas

on the basis of his date of birth 17/11/1952 is held justified in law the workman is held entitled to no relief.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

1656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 758.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार ए रृोटा अ ॉररटी

ऑफ़ इंजड ा; िजक्त आनंि जसक् ोररटी एिेंसी; 4926, संिीृ जमत्तल जसक् ोररटी एिेंसी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और ररफरेन्स

न.-164/2021 श्री रोजित नेगी; ररफरेन्स न.- 212/2021 श्री सरोि कुमार जतवारी द्वारा-इंजड न नेिनल माइग्रेंट वकार'स ूजन न के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 164, 212/2021) को िैसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं.िेड-16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-31]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 758.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 164, 212/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Airport Authority of India; Shakti Anand Security Agency; 4926, Sandeep Mittal Security Agency and Reference

No. 164/2021 Shri Rohit Negi and Reference No. 212/2021 Shri Saroj Kumar Tiwari through-Indian National

Migrant Workers Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

22.04.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-31]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM –

LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI

ID.No. 164/2021

Sh. Rohit Negi, S/o Sh. Madan Singh Negi,

R/o R.G-46, Pocket-A, Raghuvir Nagar, Tagore Garden,

S.O. West Delhi-110027.

Through-Indian National Migrant Worker’s Union,

1170/8, 3rd Floor Govind Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019

ID.No. 212/2021

Sh. Saroj Kumar Tiwari, S/o Sh. Kedar Tiwari,

R/o 125-C, Colony Gali No. 04, Sangam Vihar,

Pushpa Bhawan, Delhi-110062.

Through-Indian National Migrant Worker’s Union,

1170/8, 3rd Floor Govind Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019

VERSUS

1.

Airport Authority of India,

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdargunj Airport, New Delhi-110003.

2.

Shakti Anand Security Agency,

S-II, 2nd Floor, Chamber-04, Plot No. 07,

LSC Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

3.

4926, Sandeep Mittal Security Agency,

01,281/1, Main Palam Vihar Road, Brijwasan,

New Delhi-110061.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1657

AWARD

These are the two cases filed by the workmen U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as

an Act). Workmen in their claim statement have stated that on 01.07.2017 as well as on 01.04.2017 they were posted

as Security Guard with the management at the last drawn salary of Rs. 24,152/- per month. Management i.e. Airport

Authority of India has no license for keeping the contract labour. Management- 1, 2 & 3 have not been providing any

legal facilities. When they demanded the same, management got annoyed and had terminated their services in

violation of labour law on 01.10.2019. Before terminating their services management had obtained their signatures on

blank papers. Both the workmen had sent the demand letter, but management has not given reply to take them on

duty. They have approached to the conciliation officer but no result have been yielded. Hence they filed the claim.

Management-1 had appeared and denied relationship of employer and employee between workmen and him.

Hence, he submitted the claim against him is liable to be dismissed. Management- 2 & 3 have not filed authority letter

and they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.05.2022. Rejoinder have been filed. Issues have been framed

vide order dated 06.12.2022.

Thereafter, claimants were asked to examine the witnesses to substantiate their claims, however, proxy for

claimants who have appeared on 24.01.2024 had stated before this tribunal that they have no contact with the

workmen. In these circumstances, when the workmen are not interested in pursuing their claims, their claims stand

dismissed. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as

required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.

Date: 24.01.2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 759.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार बडा

वल्डावाइड फ्लाइट सर्वासेि इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री संतोष कुमार के बीच अनुबंि

में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 207/2021) को

िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को

प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-39]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 759.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 207/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to Bird Worldwide Flight Services India Private Limited and Shri Santosh Kumar which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-39]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOV. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL

CUM – LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 207/2021

Sh. Santosh Kumar , S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand,

R/o ––Nangla Khuba, Post- Mehagora, District- Aligarh,

Uttar Pradesh-202155.

1658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

VERSUS

The Managing Director,

Bird Worldwide Flight Services India Pvt. Ltd.

E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

Also At:- Bird Worldwide Flight Services India Pvt. Ltd.

IGI Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi- 110037.

AWARD

This is an application under section 2A of Industrial dispute act filed by the claimant with the prayer that his

termination from the service by the management is declared unjust and he be reinstated in service with full back

wages.

Notice of this petition was issued to the management. Management had appeared and filed the written

statement denying the claim of the workman. Issues were framed vide order dated 12-10-2022. During the course of

proceeding, workmen wishes to withdraw the claim of jurisdiction. His statement is recorded separately.

In view of the above statement of record, His claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Award is passed

accordingly. A copy the award is hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the

I.D. Act 1947.

Date:11/01/2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 760.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

अम्पबुिा सीमेंट जलजमटेड (प ड़की ूजनट) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अम्पबुिा सीमेंट एम्पप्लाइि ूजन न के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.- 139/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा

22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. Z -16025/04/2024- IR(M)-42]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 760.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 139/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Ambuja

Cement Limited (Roorkee Unit) and Ambuja Cement Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-42]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL

CUM – LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI

ID.No. 139/2020

The President,

Ambuja Cement Employees Union,

Village – Lakeshwari, Post- Sikanderpur,

Tehsil – Bhagwanpur, District – Haridwar,

Uttarakhand- 247661.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1659

VERSUS

The Unit Head

Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Roorkee Unit),

Village – Lakeshwari, Post- Sikanderpur Bahiswal,

Tehsil- Roorkee, District- Haridwar,

Uttarakhand- 247661.

ORDER

The appropriate Government Sh. A.K. Singh, Government of India, Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralya

has sent the reference refer dated 02.09.2020 to this tribunal for adjudication in the following words:

“Whether the action of management in suspending as well as terminating the workman the President,

Ambuja Cement Employees Union, Haridwar is taken in undue haste, without application of mind and

without affording natural justice? If so, what remedy should be provided to the workman now?

After receiving the said reference, The appropriate Government Sh. Navin Vaidya, Deputy Director,

Government of India, Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralya has sent the corrigendum dated 14.12.2020. The

reference be read as:

1. “Whether Sh. Sumit Chakarvarthy and Sh. Dipak Sharma are the workmen as per the provision of I.D

Act, 1947?

2. Whether the action of Management of M/s Ambuja Cement suspending as well as terminating the

Sh. Sumit Chakarvarthy and Dipak Sharma is taken in due haste by the management without conducting

the proper inquiry proceedings?

If, so, what remedy should be provided to the Sh. Sumit Chakarvarty and Sh. Dipak Kumar Sharma

now?”

Notice were issued to both the parties. AR for the management Sh. Kamalkant Tyagi has appeared and filed

the W.S denying the averment made in the claim. The claimants have not been appearing since long before this

tribunal, despite, providing a number of opportunities.

In these circumstances, when the workmen are not interested in pursuing their claim. This tribunal has no

option except to pass the no disputant award. Hence, no disputant award is passed. Award is passed accordingly File

is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification

under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947.

Date: 19.03.2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 761.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मेससा बडा वल्डावाइड फ्लाइट सर्वासेि इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री चंचल कुमार के

बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.- 51/2017) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा

22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-38]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 761.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 51/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s Bird Worldwide Flight Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Chanchal Kumar which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-38]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

1660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL

CUM – LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI

I.D. 51/2017

Sh.Chanchal kumar S/O Shri Bishamber Singh

H.No. B- 117, Street No. 8 Mata Wali Gali,

Johripur Gokul Puri

East Delhi

Delhi-94

VERSUS

The Management of

M/S Bird worldwide Flight

Services India Pvt. Ltd.

E-9, Connaught House

Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001

AWARD

Sh. Niranjan Kumar, Assistant Labour Commissioner has sent the reference Dated 15.09.2017 to this

Tribunal for Adjudication in the following word-

“Whether the action of the management of Bird Worldwide Flight Services Private Limited (BWFS) in

denying the wages for the period of 30/07/2017 to 19/03/2017 when the workman was not taken on duty

though he was available for duty and was willing to do the duty in illegal and/or unjustified. If so, what

benefit is the workman entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

Upon receiving of this reference, Notices were issued, both the workman and management to appear before

this tribunal. Both workman and management filed their claims and reply. Evidence were laid by the workman.

Management was also asked to examine its witness. Management had examined the witness. Matter is listed for

argument. During the course of argument, this tribunal has asked the claimant, how this tribunal has jurisdiction over

the worker of the private ltd. company.

Before proceeding further, It is necessary to cull out the provision regarding the jurisdiction.

Counsel for the claimants has stated that he has appeared before this tribunal because the notices were sent

by this tribunal and upon considering the plea assistant labour commissioner shri Niranjan has sent the reference to

this court for adjudication.

As per section 2(a) Appropriate Government means the Central Government in relation to any industrial

dispute which pertain to any industry carried on by all under the authority of central government.

Section-2(a)(1) of the Act give the detail expression of covering the industry which falls under the definition

of central government controlled industry. It is reproduced as under.

‘in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by

or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company

[or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this

behalf by the Central Government] or in relation to an industrial dispute

concerning [a Dock Labor Board established under Section 5A of the Dock

workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 0f 1948), or [the

Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered

under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 19560] or the Employees State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted

under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the

State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B,

respectively, of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of

India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act,

1956 (31 of 1956), or [the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

registered under the companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Deposit

Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation establish under section 3 of

the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of

1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3

of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust

of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1661

of 1963), or the Food Corporations of India established under section 3, or a

Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under

section 16, of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or [the Airports

Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of

India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a Regional Rural banks Act, 1976 (21 of

1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the

Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited], [the National Housing

Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987

(53 of 1987)], or [[an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance

company,] a mine, an oil field,] [a cantonment Board,] or a [major port, any

company in which not less than fifty-one percent of the paid-up share

capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a

corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made

by parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary

companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies

owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government,

and]

Ld. AR of the workman is unable to tell how this tribunal has the jurisdiction to try their claim particularly

when the appropriate government is not the central government in respect of the respondent herein. Ld. AR has only

stated that the Sh. Niranjan Kumar, Assistant Labour Commissioner had sent the reference to this tribunal for

adjudication.

Here the respondent has not come within the definition of the Central Government. Mere exercising the

unjust power by any Authority entertaining the application which does not pertain in a jurisdiction does not justify the

wrong. Therefore, the argument that Shri Niranjan Kumar, Assistant Labour Commissioner had sent the reference to

this Tribunal is not tenable.

In these circumstances, this tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to try the claim of the workmen.

Hence, the claim of the workmen stand dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of

this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. A copy of this award is

also sent to the Central Labour Commissioner for information and action.

Date: 01.03.2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 762.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

ररफरेन्स न.- 92/2020 श्री तेि लसंि गुिार, ररफरेन्स न.-56/2020 श्री अमन द्वारा-इंजड न स्ट्टील एंड मेटल वकासा ूजन न

के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और कंटेनर कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा जलजमटेड; सैम सवे सा एंड अड्िस्ट्टसा के बीच अनुबंि

में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 56, 92/2020)

को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024

को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-40]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 762.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 56, 92/2020) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to Reference No. 92/2020 Shri Tej Singh Gurjar and Reference No. 56/2020 Shri Aman

through-Indian Stell & Metal Workers Union and Container Corporation of India Limited; Sam Surveyors

and Adjusters which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-40]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

1662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 92/2020

Sh. Tej Singh Gurjar, S/o Sh. Bhola Ram Gurjar,

R/o- Gazipur, Kanjoli, Karauli, Todabhim, Rajasthan.

I.D. No. 56/2020

Sh. Aman, S/o Sh. Sone Lal Shah,

R/o House No-262/19, Shiv Enclave Ismailpur,

Amar Nagar, Faridabad, Haryana-121003.

Through- Indian Stell & Metal Workers Union,

1770/8, 3rd Floor, Govind Puri Exten. Main Road Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

VERSUS

1. The Chief Manager,

Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-110020.

2. Sam Surveyors & Adjusters,

53, Venkatachlam Steert, Royapuram,

Chennai-600013.

AWARD

By this composite order, I shall dispose of these two applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act

(here in after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having the

common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for their illegal termination. Claims of

the workmen are that they have been serving the management-1 through management-2 at the post of surveyors at the

last drawn salary of Rs. 14,676 and Rs. 14,700 per month. Management-2 is the false contractor created by

management-1 in violation of contract labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. Workmen service records are

clean and they have not given any complaint so far. During the services, management had obtained their signature on

blank papers and have not been providing any legal facilities i.e. appointment letter, Leave Book, bonus, overtime,

weekly and events holidays etc. Management got annoyed with the demands raised by the claimants had thrown them

out from the service of the management on 01.06.2018 and 12.09.2019. They had tried to take back their services but

failed. They had sent the complaint to the labour commissioner, but, it has yielded no result. Hence, They have filed

the present claims.

W.S has been filed by the respondent-1, and he denied the relationship of employer and employee between

the claimants and management-1. He has submitted that claims are liable to be dismissed. Respondent-2 has also

denied the averment made in the claims. Workman AR submits that he has no contract with the claimants since long.

Today, the AR of the workman submits that he has no contact with the workmen since long.

In these circumstances, when the claimants have not been appearing since long, it appears that they are not

interested to pursue their cases. Hence, their claims have been resulted into no disputant award. No disputant awards

are accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under

section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room. A copy of this award is placed in each of the file.

Date 14th March, 2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1663

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 763.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

दिल्ली इंटरनेिनल ए रृोटा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; लनंबस िारबर फैजसजलटी मैनेिमेंट प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; टेनों फैजसजलटी

मैनेिमेंट इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; सी.एल.आर. फैजसजलटी सर्वासेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

श्री प्रमोि कुमार एंड 127 अन् के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, नई

दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 52/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/03/2024- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 763.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 52/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Delhi International Airport Private Limited; Nimbus Harbor Facility Management Pvt Ltd; Tenon

Facility Management India Private Limited; C.L.R. Facility Services Private Limited and Shri Pramod Kumar

and 127 others which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. Z-16025/03/2024-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBANAL

-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No.52/2021

Sh. Pramod Kumar & 127 Others,

Through - Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union,

Head Office: D–2/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi–110086.

Branch Office: A–193, Karampura, New Delhi–110015.

VERSUS

1. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,

New UdaanBhawan, Opp. Terminal–3, IGI Airport,

New Delhi–110037.

2. Nimbus Harbour Facility Management Pvt. Ltd.,

E–305, Sushant Shopping Arcade, SushantLok –01,

Gurgaon–122009.

3. Tenon Facility Management India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.13, Sector –18, Electric Gurgaon Haryana,

4. C.L.R.Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.

Ansal Part –01, B–219,2nd Floor, BhikajiCama Place,

BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi–110066.

1664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This is an application of 33A of the I.D Act filed by one hundred twenty-eight workmen stating that their

services have been terminated by management-1 & 2, while their case for regularization has been pending before this

tribunal. It is further their case that management-1 & 2 had stated after calling them on duty on 01.03.2021 their

services would be terminated with affect of 31.03.2021 because both management had decided that they will take the

worker through contractor. As such they had made prayer that their termination of services as declared illegal and

they will be reinstated with job till the pendency of their dispute.

Respondent-1 denied each and every fact mentioned in the claim statement. He submitted that management

is not necessary party to the alleged dispute filed by the claimant. There is no privity of contract between the

management/respondent and the workman. Government of India introduced the policy for privatization of the airports

operated and running by AAI consequent upon the same, respondent/management also participated in the process and

on the basis of which its bid was sold. Pursuing to the above mentioned facts, an agreement known as operation

management and development agreement was entered between the AAI and the respondent on 04.04.2006.

Respondent has assigned the contract work to the respondent 2, 3 & 4 respectively. Respondent-2, 3 & 4 have not

appeared and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.10.2022. On the day issues have been framed.

Claimants were asked to examine the witness. However, inspite of providing three opportunities nobody appeared on

behalf of claimant to substantiate their claim. It means that claimant are not interested to pursuing their claim. Hence,

their claim is resulted into failure.

In these circumstances, claims of the claimants stand dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. File is

consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification under

section 17 of the I.D Act 1947.

Dated: 04.12.2023

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 764.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार ररफरेन्स

न.- 73/2020 श्री ओमृाल लसंि, ररफरेन्स न.-74/2020 श्री कन्िै ा लाल, ररफरेन्स न.- 75/2020 श्री अजमत श्रीवास्ट्तव,

ररफरेन्स न.-76/2020 श्री ोगेि कुमार, ररफरेन्स न.-77/2020 श्री जखलानी लसंि, ररफरेन्स न.-256/2021 नवलेि

कुमार द्वारा-इंजड न स्ट्टील एंड मेटल वकासा ूजन न के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और कंटेनर कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजड ा

जलजमटेड; मेटकॉफे एंड िोडजककनसों प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; सैम सवे सा एंड अड्िस्ट्टसा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 73, 74, 75, 76, 77/2020 and

256/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा

22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-41]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 73, 74, 75, 76, 77/2020 and 256/2021) of the Central

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

between the employers in relation to Reference No. 73/2020 Shri Ompal Singh Gautam, Reference No. 74/2020 Shri

Kanheya Lal Reference No. 75/2020 Shri Amit Srivastava, Reference No. 76/2020 Shri Yoghsh Kumar, Reference

No. 77/2020 Shri Khilani Singh and Reference No. 256/2021 Shri Navlesh Kumar through-Indian Stell & Metal

Workers Union and Container Corporation of India Limited; Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pty Ltd; Sam Surveyors and

Adjusters which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-41]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1665

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 73/2020

Sh. Ompal Singh Gautam, S/o Sh. Bhikkan Singh,

R/o House No-335, Block-D, Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi-110044.

I.D. No. 74/2020

Sh. Kanheya Lal, S/o Sh. Parmanand,

R/o House No. D-447, Pul Pehladpur,

Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.

I.D. No. 75/2020

Sh. Amit Srivastava, S/o Sh. Nand Kumar Srivastava,

R/o House No. B-95, Jaitpur Extn. New Delhi-110044.

I.D. No. 76/2020

Sh. Yogesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Puran Chand,

R/o House No. HR-228 B/6, Pul Pehladpur,

Jaitpur, New Delhi-110044.

I.D. No. 77/2020

Sh. Khilani Singh, S/o Sh. Rohtash Singh,

R/o House No-865, Gali No.-39-B, Molar Band Extn.

South Delhi-110019.

I.D. No. 256/2021

Sh. Navlesh Kumar, S/o Sh .Basant Prasad Singh,

R/o House No.-D-447, Left Said Block-D, Pul Pahladpur,

Badarpur, South Delhi-110044.

Through- Indian Stell & Metal Workers Union,

1770/8, 3rd Floor, Govind Puri Exten. Main Road Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

Versus

1. The Chief Manager,

Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-110020.

2. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd.

Flat No-412-A, Mansarovar,90, Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019.

3. Sam Surveyors & Adjusters,

219-A, Inland Content Depot, Tughlakabad,

New Delhi-110020.

AWARD

By this composite order, I shall dispose of these six applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act

(here in after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having the

1666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for their illegal termination. Name and

particular of their employment are given below-

List of Workmen

Sl.

No.

Name

Father’s

Name

Post

Dates of

Joining

Dates of

Termination

Last

Drawn

Salary

1

Khilani

Singh

Rohtash Singh

Data Entry

Operator/Tally

Clerk

06.09.2005

01.06.2018

Rs. 17,498/-

2

Navlesh

Kumar

Basant

Prasad

Singh

Data Entry

Operator/Tally

Clerk

08.08.2006

01.06.2018

Rs. 17,498/-

3

Amit

Srivastava

Nand Kr.

Shrivastava

Data Entry

Operator/Tally

Clerk

09.09.2009

01.06.2018

Rs. 17,498/-

4

Yogesh

Kumar

Puran Chand

Data Entry

Operator/Tally

Clerk

23.11.2005

01.06.2018

Rs. 17,498/-

5

Ompal Singh

Gautam

Bhikkan Singh

Data Entry

Operator/Tally

Clerk

20.01.2003

01.06.2018

Rs. 17,498/-

6

Kanheya Lal

Parmanand

Data Entry

Operator/Tally

Clerk

04.06.2004

01.06.2018

Rs. 17,498/-

Claims of the workmen are that they have been serving the management-1 through management-2 & 3.

Management-2 & 3 are the false contractor created by management-1 in violation of contract labour ( Regulation and

Abolition) Act 1970. Workmen service records are clean and they have not given any complaint so far. During the

services, management had obtained their signature on blank papers and have not been providing any legal facilities

i.e. appointment letter, Leave Book, bonus, overtime, weekly and events holidays etc. Management got annoyed with

the demands raised by the claimants had thrown them out from the service of the management. They had tried to take

back their services but failed. They had sent the complaint to the labour commissioner, but, it has yielded no result.

Hence, they have filed the present claims.

W.S has already been filed by the respondent-1, and he denied the relationship of employer and employee

between the claimants and management-1. He has submitted that claims are liable to be dismissed. Respondent-2 & 3

have also filed the WS denying the averment made in the claim.

Today, Workman AR submits that he has no contact with the claimants since long.

In these circumstances, when the claimants have not been appearing since long, it appears that they are not

interested to pursue their cases. Hence, their claims have been resulted into no disputant award. No disputant awards

are accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under

section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room. A copy of this award is placed in each of the file.

Dated: 14th March, 2024

ATUL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 765.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मेससा सतलुि जवद्युत जनगम जलजमटेड; मेससा ि प्रकाि एसोजसए्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों

और श्री मिेंर िखमोला, िनरल मैनेिर, संजविा श्रजमक संघ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 29/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै,

प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-29011/17/2021- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1667

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

M/s Sutlej Vidyut Nigam Limited; M/s Jai Prakash Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mahendra Jakhmola, General

Manager, Contract Labor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

22.04.2024.

[No. L-29011/17/2021-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer.

ID No.29/2021

Registered on:-21.1.2022

Sh. Mahendra Jakhmola, General Secretary, Samvida Shramik Sangh, 81, New Park Road, Gandhi Gram

Dehradun, Dehradun-248001.

….…..Workman

Versus

1. The General Manager, M/s Satluj Vidhyut Nigam Ltd., Naitwar Mori Hydro Electric Project, Mori, Distt,

Distt. Uttarkashi(Uttarakhand)-249128.

2. The General Manager, M/s Jai Prakash Associates Pvt. Ltd. Naitwar Mori Hydro Electric Project, Mori, Distt.

Uttarkashi(Uttarakhand)-249128.

..…Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:-27.03.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-29011/17/2021-IR(M) Dated 13.12.2021, 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 the claim of Samvida Shramik Sangh, Uttarakhand, that the managements of M/s

Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Naitwar Mori Hydro Electric Project, Uttarkashi and M/s Satluj

Vidhyut Nigam Ltd. Naitwar Mori Hydro Electric Project, Utarkashi did not provided

Central Minimum wages, adopted unfair labour practice and demand for reinstatement of

workmen Shri Baburam Dimiri, Shri Achpal Singh Rawat and Shri Parmendra Singh to

service is legal, fair and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?

1.

On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workmen as well as to the

respondent/management. The postal article sent to the workmen, referred above, is duly delivered to

the workmen. The workmen is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up

in spite of the opportunity afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workmen is not

interested in adjudication of the matter on merit. The workmen has not appeared on 18.2.2022,

3.6.2022, 16.9.2022, 3.11.2022, 5.1.2023, 1.3.2023, 6.6.2023, 20.9.2023, 30.11.2023 and today also

i.e. 27.3.2024 none turned up on behalf of workmen.

2.

Since the workmen has neither put his appearance nor he has filed any statement of claim to prove his

cause against the respondent/management, 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 for the non-

prosecution of workmen.

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

for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer

1668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 766.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार मेससा

चरणिीत लसंि मन्िास जसक् ोररटी एिेंसी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती िीतो िेवी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 07/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-30012/12/2019- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 766.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 07/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Charanjit Singh

Manhas Security Agency and Smt. Jeeto Devi which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. L-30012/12/2019-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

PRESENT: SH. KAMAL KANT, PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-LINK OFFICER.

ID No. 7/2019

Registered on:-23.04.2019

Smt. Jeeto Devi, Ladies Security Guard, C/o IOC Bottling Plant, Kartholi, Bari Brahmana, District-Samba(J&K).

….…..Workman

Versus

M/s Charanjeet Singh Manhas Security Agency, Post Office-Paloura, Near Raina Higher Secondary School,

Jammu(J&K).

..…Management

AWARD

Passed on:-27.03.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-30012/12/2019-IR(M) Dated 3.4.2019, 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 the claim of Smt. Jeeto Devi, the Ex-Ladies Security Guard vide letter dated 9.7.2018 that her

services were terminated w.e.f. 1.7.2018 by M/s Charanjeet Singh Manhas Security Agency, Post Office-

Paloura, Near Raina Higher Secondary School, Jammu(J&K) a contractor of M/s India Oil LPG Bottling

Plant, Kartholi, Bari Brahmana, District Samba(J&K) is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the

disputant is entitled to and from which date?

1.

On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the

respondent/management. The postal article sent to the workman, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman.

The workman is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity

afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on

merit. The workman has not appeared on 15.7.2019, 23.09.2019, 2.12.2019, 19.2.2020, 8.5.2020, 30.07.2020,

11.11.2020, 17.2.2021, 28.5.2021, 9.9.2021, 24.12.2021, 12.04.2022, 28.7.2022, 14.11.2022, 11.1.2023, 22.3.2023,

6.6.2023, 20.9.2023, 30.11.2023 and today also i.e. 27.3.2024 none turned up on behalf of workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1669

2.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance nor she has filed any statement of claim to prove his

cause against the respondent/management, 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 for the non-prosecution of workman.

3.

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

for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer-Cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 767.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

ए.वी. िोिी एंड कंृनी; फ्रेंड एंड फ्रेंड जिलृंग प्रा. जलजमटेड; गौतम फ्रेट प्रा. जलजमटेड; ताराृं फूड प्रा. जलजमटेड; फ्रेंड्स

साल्ट एंड अलाइड इंडस्ट्रीि और फ्रेंड्स ऑ ल एंड केजमकल्स टर्मानल्स के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री प्रिाृजत

कांजतभाई मूलिीभाई के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , अिमिाबाि,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 06/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-43]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 767.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 06/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to A.V. Joshi & Company; Friend & Friend Shipping Pvt. Ltd.; Gautam Freight Pvt. Ltd.; Tarapanth

Food Pvt. Ltd.; Friends Salt & Allied Industries and Friends Oil & Chemicals Terminals and Shri Prajapati

Kantibhai Muljibhai which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

22.04.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-43]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 13th March, 2024.

Industrial Dispute (CGITA) No. - 06/2018

Prajapati Kantibhai Muljibhai,

Plot No.106, Sector No.4,

Oslo Society, Gandhidham,

Kachchh-370201. ….……. Applicant

1670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

1. A.V. Joshi & Company

2. Friend & Friend Shipping Pvt. Ltd.

3. Gautam Freight Pvt. Ltd.

4. Tarapanth Food Pvt. Ltd.

5. Friends Salt & Allied Industries

6. Friends Oil & Chemicals Terminals,

A Group of Friends Company,

Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.18,

Sector-9, Gandhidham,

Kachchh-370201.

..….…. Opponent

For the Applicant

: Shri Gordhan Prajapati

For the Opponent

: Shri Prabhatsinh J. Parmar

AWARD

The

Assistant

Labour

Commissioner

(Central),

Ahmedabad

had

issued

the

certificate

vide

No. ALC/ADP/08(12)2018 dated 20.06.2018 to the applicant for filing claim in this Tribunal.

1. The applicant filed his statement of claim Ex.1 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment)

Act, 2010 on 31.08.2018 consequent upon the demand of alleged termination from service w.e.f. April, 2016.

2. Case called out. Parties represented through Ld. Counsels. Ex.23 moved on behalf of the Second

Party/workman to withdraw this reference on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute out of

court and does not wish to proceed further in the matter and prayed to withdraw the same. Not opposed by

First Party/employer. Ex.23 is thus allowed. The reference stands withdrawn as prayed. Let the records be

consigned after due formalities.

3. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 768.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मैससा अंबुिा सीमेंट जलजमटेड; मैससा एन.के. िमाा एंड कंृनी (प्रोजप्रएटर) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ए.के.

लसंि, वाईस प्रेजिडेंट/श्री एस.एन. आदिश्वर, िॉइंट सेिेटरी, श्री गुिरात अंबुिा सीमेंट कमाचारी संघ के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 23/2023) को िैसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त

हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-29011/03/2023- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 23/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to M/s Ambuja Cement Limited; M/s N.K. Sharma & Company (Proprietor) and Shri A.K. Singh, Vice

President/Shri S. N. Adishwar, Jt. Secretary, The Shree Gujarat Ambuja Cement Karmachari Sangh which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. L-29011/03/2023-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1671

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 14th March, 2024.

Reference: (CGITA) No- 23/2023

1. M/s Ambuja Cement Limited,

Ambujanagar, Tal. Kodinar, Dist.-Gir Somnath,

Gir Somnath-362720.

2. M/s N.K. Sharma & Company (Proprietor),

F- -New North Colony, Ambujanagar,

Tal-Kodinar, Dist.-Gir Somnath Cement Limited,

Ambujanagar, Gir Somnath-362720.

…...…….First Party

V

Shri A.K. Singh, Vice President/Shri S. N. Adishwar, Jt. Secretary,

The Shree Gujarat Ambuja Cement Karmachari Sangh,

Ambujanagar, Tal. Kodinar, Dist.-Gir Somnath,

Gir Somnath-362720.

………….Second Party

Adv. for the FP/employer No.1

: Shri Anil Parikh

Adv. for the FP/employer No.2

: None

Union’s representative for the SP/workmen/union

: Shri S. N. Adishwar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-29011/03/2023-

IR(M) dated 13.07.2023 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of Shree Gujarat Ambuja Cement Karmachari Sangh, Ambujanagar to the management of

M/s N. K. Sharma & Co., Contractor under M/s Ambuja Cement Limited, Ambujanagar, Gir Somnath that the

management abruptly changed the target from 574 Tons per day to 750 Tons per day(i.e. changing of higher per day

output by 30%) without consulting the Union / worker and over looking the local factor and thus have lowered the

workers wages which is not just and fair, is proper, legal and justified ? If yes, to what reliefs are the disputant union

entitled and what directions, if any, is necessary in the matter?”

1. Case called out. Second Party is represented through Shri S. N. Adishwar representative of workmen/union.

FP/employer No.1 Ambuja Cement Limited is represented through Adv. Shri Anil Parikh. None responds for

FP/employer No.2 (Contractor). Perusal of the record shows that the FP/employer No.2 has not yet made his

appearance in the proceedings. Withdrawal application Ex.6 moved on behalf of the SP workmen/union to withdraw

the case on the ground that the concerned workmen have settled their dispute with the employers in respect of their

legal dues. Hence they do not want to proceed further in the matter Withdrawal application has not been opposed by

the FP employer No.1 in attendance. In the circumstances no service needs to effected upon the absentee FP/employer

No.2. The case stands withdrawn as prayed.

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication U/s 17(1) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

1672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 769.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मेससा जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और जभलाई इस्ट्ृात कमाचारी संघ के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 13/2018) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल-26011/31/2017- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 13/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL and Bhilai ispat Karmachari Union which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. L-26011/31/2017-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/13/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The Dy. General Secretary,

Bhilai Ispat Karmachari Union,

2/C, Street-13, Sector-04, Bhilai Nagar,

Dist.– Durg (C.G.) – 490001

Workman

Versus

The Chief Executive Officer,

M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL,

PO-Bhilai, Distt. Durg(C.G.)

Pin Code – 490001

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 03rd day of April-2024.)

As per letter dated 09/03/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference

number L-26011/31/2017-IR(M) dt. 09/03/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-

“ Whether the discriminatory action of management of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai in arranging excess

recovery of HBA i.r.o. Shri Annulal Yadav, Sr. Operative (P.No. 138891) as alleged ignoring the provision of law

and without following the established norms is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman represented

through Bhilai Ispat Karmachari Union is entitled to? ”

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1673

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service

of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management filed its written statement

of claim/ defence along with documents. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

Due to the absence of the workman reference proceeded ex-parte by order dated 13/09/2022. I have heard

ex-parte argument, perused the records submitted by management. The reference is itself the issue. No evidence was

ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did

he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 03/04/2024

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 770.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

ूनाइटेड इंजड ा इंश् ोरेंस कंृनी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री उमेि केवट के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 35/2013) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-17012/36/2012- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to United India Insurace Company and Shri Umesh Kewat which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. L-17012/36/2012-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/35/2013

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Umesh Kewat,

S/o Sh. Moledas Kewat,

Behind Charoula Post Office,

W.No. 13, Shahdol, Distt Shahdol (M.P.)

Workman

1674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

VERSUS

The Branch Manager,

United India Insurace Company,

MainRoad Shahdol

Distt. Shahdol (M.P.)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 09th day of April-2024.)

As per letter dated 07/02/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference

number L-17012/36/2012 - (IR(M)) dt. 07/02/2013. The dispute under reference related to :-

“ Whether the action of the management of the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company,

Branch Shahdol, in terminating the services of Shri Umesh Kewat workman is legal and justified ? What relief

the workman is entitled to ? ”

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Both the sides appeared and filed their respective Statements of Claim and Defense.

According to the workman, he was engaged as a daily casual worker by management and worked from

January 2008 till 2010 continuously. He was terminated by management without any notice or compensation which is

against law. He has sort the relief of his reinstatement with all back wages and benefits.

Case of management is that he was a daily waiger engaged as and when required and not a regular worker,

never completed 240 days in any year.

No evidence was produced by workman. Management filed affidavit of its witness which is not cross-

examined.

No counsel present for any of the parties at argument stage, perused record, reference is the issue for

determination.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did

he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 09/04/2024

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 771.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मेससा जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल; मेससा नंदिनी माइंस ऑफ़ जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और मेटल

माइंस वकासा ूजन न(इंटक) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 44/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-26011/2/2019- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1675

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 44/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL; M/s. Nandini Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant and Metal Mines Workers Union

(INTUC) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. L-26011/2/2019-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The President

Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC)

Branch – Nandini Mines, Qtr. No.- 2/B,

Street No.-27, Nandini Township,

District – Durg (C.G.)

Workman

Versus

1. The Executive Director (Mines)

M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL, Ispat Bhawan

Bhilai, Durg (C.G.)

2. Dy. General Manager

M/s. Nandini Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant

Bhilai, Durg (C.G.)

Management

(JUDGEMENT)

(Passed on this 1st day of April 2024)

Vide letter no.-L/26011/2/2019/IR(M), dated 12.04.2019, the Government of India, through Ministry of

Labour and Employment, has sent following reference for adjudication.

SCHEDULE

“Whether there is employer-employee relationship between Smt. Jamuna Sunani and the Management of

Bhilai Steel Plant SAIL, within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act 1947 ? If so whether Smt. Jamuna

Sunani is entitled for regularization of service on the rolls of Bhilai Steel Plant and for wages as claimed by Metal

Mines Worker Union latter dated 16.06.2018 or to any other better scheme of relief ? What directions, if any, are

necessary in this matter ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties. They appeared and file

their respective Statements of Claim and Defense.

According to the Union, the management runs a crutch/ day care and a school for the welfare of children of

its workers and their education. The management provides the required infrastructure of it. The workman Mrs.

Jamuna Sunani was appointed as a Teacher by management vide order dated 02.11.1987 and since then she had been

running this day care till 2008 when the management stopped paying salary to her without issuing any order in

writing though the centre has been in operation even after 2008. The workman was also engaged in the work of

cleaning, feeding the infants and other related jobs like maintaining the records of the day care centre. She has putting

more than 22 years in service and was never subjected to any disciplinary action. She has worked continuously for

1676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

more than 240 days in every year till date of her disengagement. According to the workman union the establishment is

and Industry and the workman is a workman as defined U/S. 2(j) and 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947,

hereinafter referred by to the word ‘Act’. Thus the action of management amounts to retrenchment as define U/S.

2(oo) of the Act and is in violation of Section 25F, 25H, 25G and 25N of the Act. Accordingly it has been prayed that

the reference be answered in favour of the Union and Management be directed to absorb the workman by regularizing

her in appropriate category or reinstate her in the same capacity alongwith full back wages and consequential benefits.

According to management, as claimed by workman union, the applicant was working as a Teacher providing

education and training to the children of the workers working in Nandini Mines, hence she is not a workman as

defined U/S. 2(s) of the Act. It is further the case of management that the applicant was never appointed by Bhilai

Steel Plant as they never run any day care centre. The applicant was never paid any wages by management. The

Centre was run by a group of employee themselves. The management only provided free accommodation on their

request. This Centre was closed in the year 2008. Accordingly the management has prayed that the reference be

answered against the workman union.

In evidence, the workman side filed a certificate dated 12.02.1999 admitted by management, marked

Ex. W/1. They further filed RTI documents which are marked Ex. W/2 to Ex. W/11, to be referred to as and when

required.

Workman Smt. Jamuna Sunani filed her affidavit as her examination in chief. She has been cross examined

by management.

Management has not filed any documentary or oral evidence.

I have heard argument of Mr. K.B. Singh learned Counsel for the workman union and Mr. Ashish

Shrivastava learned Counsel for management. I have also gone through the record.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues come up for determination –

1. Whether Smt. Jamuna Sunani is a workman under the Act ?

2. Whether termination of services of Smt. Jamuna Sunani can be faulted in law ?

3. Relief if any.

Issue No.-1 –

Pleadings of the parties on this issue have already been detailed earlier. Before proceedings into the merits of

claim and counter claim, Section 2(j) & 2(s) of the Act are being reproduced as follows –

2(j)

“industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any

calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;

2(s)

“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an

industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with,

or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but

does not include any such person—

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy

Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii)

who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii)

who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv)

who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem

or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in

him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

As it is the case of the workman, she was employed by management of Bhilai Steel Plant as a Teacher and

was required to do all other works like cleaning of the campus, maintaining accounts and different registers as well as

a maid for the kids. She has stated so in her statement, in her affidavit as her examination in chief. In her cross

examination, she could not produce her appointment letter she states that vacancy was notified on the notice board

and she had applied for it and also that she appeared in an interview for this post an d then she was selected. She

further states that she was paid her salary by the Personnel Officer/ Labour Officer of the management. She

specifically denied that she was paid from the fund collected by the parents of the children.

She has filed interview intimation issued by the Mines Manager which is Ex. W/1 & W/3 which shows that

she was called for interview with reference to her application for the post of Teacher. There appears some overwriting

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1677

over her name which indicates that the word Janki has been made Jamuna by overwriting. Case of management is that

it is not a genuine document because its original has been withheld by the workman. Even if this document is

believed, it only shows that she was called for interview. In absence of any appointment order in her favour, only this

interview letter cannot lead to an inference that she was appointed also. Ex. W/4 is a certificate which goes to show

that she is voluntarily running a nursery school at recreation club Nandini. Ex. W/5 to W/8 are RTI documents

regarding furniture and receipt/expenses statement as well her salary slips for some months but it is not clear as to

who paid this salary. Ex. W/8 are photographs of children with her. Ex. W/9 are some marksheets which bear her

name as Class Teacher.

From perusal of these documents also her relationship as an employee with the management of Bhilai Steel

Plant is not established.

From the above discussion, it is established that the applicant could not prove herself to be an employee of

management of Bhilai Steel Plant and thus her claim that she is a workman with respect to the management of Bhilai

Steel Plant is held not proved. Issue No.-1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.-2 & 3 –

In the light of findings recorded on issue no.-1, issue no.-2 & 3 are answered against the workman union.

Accordingly, following award is passed.

AWARD

Holding no employer-employee relationship between Smt. Jamuna Sunani and management of Bhilai

Steel Plant within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, she is held to entitled to no relief. No order as to cost.

DATE:- 01/04/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 772.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

एम.ृी. स्ट्टेट माइलनंग कॉृोरेिन के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्रीमती वंिना िीजक्षत के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 49/2016) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 22.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल-29012/20/2015- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2024

S.O. 772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 49/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to M.P. State Mining Corporation and Smt. Vandana Dixit which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 22.04.2024.

[No. L-29012/20/2015-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/49/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd.)

1678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Smt. Vandana Dixit W/o. Sh. Balram Dixit

C/o. Pandit Deendayal Nagar, LIG-1171

Makroniya, Sagar (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The Managing Director

M.P. State Mining Corporation

Paryavas Bhawan, Block-A, 2nd Floor

Jail Road, Arera Hills, Bhopal (M.P.)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 15st day of March 2024)

As per letter dated 02/06/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-29012/20/2015-IR(M) dt. 02/06/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:

1. Whether Smt. Vandana Dixit who was appointed by M.P. Mining Corporation Ltd. At Heerapur

Office, District Sagar vide order dated 19.06.1996 on contingency basis/ daily wage basis as LDC had

completed 240 days prior to her termination on 13.06.1997 ?

2. Whether the appointment of Smt. Vandana Dixit as daily wage LDC vide order dated 19.06.1996 of

M.P. Mining Corporation Ltd. On compassionate ground is valid legal and proper under the

provisions of Companies Rules or not ?

3. Whether the reason given by the M.P. Mining Corporation that due to closure of their office at Bara

Hadwar one of the regular LDC was posted to Heerapur Office, and due to availability of surplus

staff on regular basis, the service of Smt. Vandana Dixit was discontinued from Daily Wage basis

w.e.f. 13.06.1997 is justified or not ?

4. Whether the termination of Smt. Vandana Dixit, vide order dated 10.06.1997 by the M.P. Mining

Corporation is legal, justified and proper ?

5. Whether Smt. Vandana Dixit is entitled to be reinstated to the service of M.P. Mining Corporation

Ltd. or not ? if not, what relief she is entitled to ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference notices were sent to the parties. They appeared and filed

their respective statement of claim and defense.

According to the workman she was appointed vide order of management dated 19.06.1996 and worked

continuously for more than 240 days till the date of termination of her services by management on 13.06.1996 vide order

of management no. 97-98/658. She had submitted an application alongwith her testimonials to the management and her

case was considered by management. She was offered appointment on compassionate ground as LDC on Daily Wage

basis. She joined her services at Heerapur from where she was transferred on 08.08.1996 to Sagar Office till her

termination. According to the workman by continuously working for 240 days, she had right to be protected under

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as to word “Act”). She raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner who first refused to refer the dispute to Central Government. She challenged this order before Hon’ble

High Court of M.P. by filing W.P. No.- 20863/2015 and it was under the direction of Hon’ble High Court, the dispute

was referred to this Tribunal. Before this, she had raised a dispute in this respect before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner State of M.P. who referred the dispute to the State Labor Court at Sagar which was registered as Case

No. 4/2010 and was decided on 30.08.2014 holding that the dispute was cognizable not by the State Labour Court.

According to the workman she was terminated from service without notice or compensation which is in violation of the

Act. She has sought the relief of her reinstatement with all back wages and benefits.

The case of management is mainly that she was appointed as compassionate ground. It was later found that her

husband was working with Education Department and this fact was not disclosed by her. More ever her services were

terminated because the Bara Hadwar office was closed and there was already surplus staff in the regular cadre. According

to the management her termination is not retrenchment hence no notice or compensation was required. Management has

prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1679

The workman filed her rejoinder wherein she mainly reiterated her case.

In evidence, the workman filed her affidavit she filed and proved document which are Ex.- W/1 her application

for appointment, Ex.- W/2 Office Note recommending her appointment and termination, Ex.- W/3 application, Ex.-

W/4 appointment order, Ex.- W/5 joining report, Ex.- W/6 transfer order, Ex.- W/7 joining report at place of transfer,

Ex.- W/7/2 cancellation of appointment, Ex.- W/8 experience certificate, Ex.- W/9 second application, Ex.- W/10

third application for appointment, Ex.- W/11 application for bonus, Ex.- W/12 to W/15 are documents regarding

raising dispute and case before State Labour Court as well award of State Labour Court, to be referred to as and when

required. The workman has examined herself on oath. She has been cross examined.

No evidence, documentary or oral has been adduced by management.

I have heard argument of Shri Uttam Maheshwari learned Counsel for workman. None appeared for management

at the stage of argument, no written argument has been filed by any of the parties. I have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

Point No.-1:-

This point is whether the workman has completed 240 days in continuous service prior to her termination on

13.06.1997.

Section 25-B of the Act which defines continuous service is being reproduced as follows:-

25B. Definition of continuous service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,— (1) a workman shall be said to be in

continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be

interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a

cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer—

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—

(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.

Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked

under an employer shall include the days on which—

(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the

industrial establishment;

(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years;

(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his

employment; and

(iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity

leave does not exceed twelve weeks.

According to the workman, she was appointed on 19.06.1996 and continuously worked for more than 240 days

till her termination from service by management on 13.06.1997. The workman has corroborated her this case in her

statement on oath and has been cross examined by management on this point there is nothing in her statement to

discredit her on this point. Management has nowhere specifically denied this allegation of the workman in their

written statement of defense and have not filed any oral or documentary evidence to controvert this allegation from

the workman side. The documents Ex.-W/1 to W/14 further corroborate this case of the workman. These documents

have been detailed earlier in this judgment.

Hence, on the light of above discussion, the case of the workman that she has completed 240 days prior to her

termination on 13.06.1997 by management and this point is answered accordingly.

1680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Point No.-2:-

As regards point no.-2 of the reference, admitted between the parties is the fact that the workman was appointed

as a daily wager. No rule regarding the procedure of appointment of daily wage employees has been cited from the

side of management. Both the parties have stated that she was appointed on humanitarian grounds/ compassionate

grounds. The workman side has not referred to any provision empowering the management/ to recruit on

humanitarian grounds. A compassionate appointment is offered when the earning member is no more and the

dependant who is seeking such appointment satisfies the management that he fulfills all the other conditions and is

otherwise eligible. Admittedly the husband of the workman is working with the Government. Hence, she could not

have been appointed on compassionate ground also but she could well be appointed as a daily wage employee by

management. It is proved that she was appointed as daily wage employee hence, her appointment as daily wage

employee cannot be held bad in law and this point is answered accordingly.

Point No.-3 & 4 :-

Since these two points of the reference are interconnected, they are being taken together. Section 25-F and 25-G

of the Act are being referred to as follows before entering into any discussion :-

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has

been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the

period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen

days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

25G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of

India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of

any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the

workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer

retrenches any other workman.

The ground taken by management for termination of the services of the workman is that due to closure of one

office of management, there was surplus of regular employees hence naturally, the daily wage employee will be

shown the door in such a situation.

There is nothing to record to show that the workman was issued any prior notice or compensation before her

disengagement by management. Hence, termination of services is held in violation of the above referred provisions of

the Act. Point No.-3 & 4 of the reference are answered accordingly.

Point No.-5 :-

In the light of finding on point no.-3 & 4, the question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled.

The learned Counsel for workman has submitted that in such a situation, the workman requires in law to be

reinstated with back wages and benefits. Learned Counsel for management has opposed this argument.

It comes out from record that there is nothing on record that the workman was appointed against a sanctioned and

regular vacancy. This also established that no recruitment procedure was followed in her appointment. Also it is

established that she was given appointment as a daily wage employee. There is nothing on record that there are

sanctioned posts available and vacant at present. Hence, in these circumstances, her reinstatement will not be proper

in law. In the considered view of this Tribunal after considering all the facts the interest of justice will be served if she

is awarded lump sum compensation in lieu of all her claims which is quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- only payable to her

within 30 days from the date of publication of award in official Gazette failing which interest of the rate of 6% p.a.

from the date of award till payment.

Point No.-5 is answered accordingly.

In the light of above discussion, following award is passed.

AWARD

Holding the termination of services of the workman against the Act, she is held entitled to compensation in

lieu of all her claims which is quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- only payable to her within 30 days from the date of

publication of award in official Gazette failing which interest of the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of award till

payment.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 15/03/2024

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1681

नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 773.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार बाटा

इंजड ा जलजमटेड, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके संघ/कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल ,कोलकाता,ृंचाट(संिभा सं्‍ ा NT-02 OF 2007) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखा ा ग ा िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 23.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42025/07-2024-66- आईआर(डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2024

S.O. 773—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. NT-02 OF 2007) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to The Bata India Ltd., and Their Union /, Workmen, which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 23.04.2024.

[No. L-42025/07-2024-66-IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

Ref. NT- 02 OF 2007

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Bata India Ltd.

AND

Their Union/Workmen

Appearance :

On behalf of the Management:

Mr. Ranjay De, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Union/Workmen : Mr.ParthaBhanjaChowdhury, Ld.

Advocate.

Dated: 21st February, 2024

AWARD

By order dated 5th September, 2007, the Central Govt., Ministry of Labour has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of M/s. Bata India Ltd. in terminating the service of 220 (later corrected as 236 by virtue

of Ministry’s letter dated 20-07-2016) Shop Managers of retail shop stores, as per Annexure-I without holding any

domestic enquiry is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

The facts giving rise to the present reference in gist are that Bata India Ltd. has obtained necessary orders

from respective State Governments for keeping the company’s retail outlets open for 365 days up to 9-30 p.m. But

concerned Union expressed its inability before the management to keep the store open for 365 days up to 9-30 p.m.

due to shortage in staff strength in different outlets. Further, the union has alleged in view of terms and conditions

contained in bipartite settlement 1952, the working hours of the stores was from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. and which was

modified from time to time every three years till 2004. The management failed to provide sufficient staff to keep the

stores running for 365 days from 10 a.m. to 9-30 p.m. as agreed and which resulted in extra work pressure upon the

employees of the retail stores due to additional working hours. When the management failed to redress such problem

faced by the stores, then the concerned union decided to call for a strike on 16-09-2006 and 28-09-2006 by issuing a

joint notice on 01-09-2006. On issuance of such notice the management called union for a discussion on 26-09-2006

and the union decided to withdraw the strike called on 28-09-2006.

1682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thereafter, all on a sudden the company terminated and dismissed the services of 236 Shop Managers of

different stores located in different parts of the country or States on different dates from 18-02-2007 to 08-05-2007.

Those Retail Store Managers were terminated from the service for calling All India Strike on 24-02-2007 and that too

without any service of show cause notice, charge sheet or without holding domestic enquiry or giving opportunity of

being heard.

The union have alleged the ground of termination of those 236 shop Managers was for not operating shops

for 365 days till 9-00/9-30 p.m. and for participating in the strike held on 16-09-2006 and 24-02-2007 and for

instigating the other members to observe strikes on 16-09-2006 and 24-02-2007.

That the union being aggrieved by such illegal/irrational termination of service of those Store Managers

ventilated its grievances before the Management but the Management did not pay any heed. Finding no other

alternative union has to raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner against illegal termination of 236

Store Managers. Unfortunately, Labour Commissioner has failed to settle such dispute and as such the matter was

referred to the Ministry of Labour and who in turn referred the dispute regarding alleged illegal termination of 236

Shop/Store Managers to this Tribunal for adjudication. Thus, they have prayed for quashing the order of termination,

reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

The management contested the case of the union by filing written statement, where it has alleged that the

Shop/Store Managers of M/s. Bata India Ltd. are not workmen, but persons holding Managerial posts. That there

exists no industrial dispute between the management of Bata India Ltd. and its Store/Shop Managers of retail outlets.

Thus, they have prayed for dismissal of the reference.

The union in order to prove its case and claim has examined Sri Jayanta Kumar Ghosh, one of the terminated

Store Managers as W.W. No.1 and an another terminated Store Manager Sri Sandip Kumar Ghosh as W.W. No.2.

That as per order dated 13-08-2015, 17 documents that have been produced by the union have been marked

as Exhibit-W-1 to Exhibit-W-17 on formal proof being dispensed with.

On the other hand the management has examined Sri Asutosh Ghosh, the General Manager of M/s. Bata

India Ltd. as M.W. No.1 and through him Annual Performance Report of Salesmen has been marked as Exhibit-M-1

on 22-04-2014. But the order sheet dated 06-08-2014 reflects the remaining 132 documents filed by the management

have been marked as Exhibit-M-2 to Exhibit-M-133 on formal proof being dispensed with.

That Ld. Counsel for the management in support of his submission referred to the following decisions:-

1. Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. –vs – Ajit Singh (2005) 3 SCC 232.

2. Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. –vs- Electronics Corpn. of India Service Engineers Union, (2006) 7 SCC

330.

3. Bata India Ltd. & Ors. –vs- S. K. Chawla, 2005 III CLR 727.

4. Order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 26424/2005

dated 17-04-2006.

5. K. Hanumantharayappa –vs- Management of Indian Express (P) Ltd, Chennai LAWS (KAR) 2012 6 242.

6. Delhi Transport Corporation –vs- Shyam Lal (2004) 8 SCC 88.

7. S. K.Maini –vs- M/s. Carona Saha Company Ltd. & Ors. (1994) 3 SCC 510 and

8. Sarat Kumar Basu –vs- NCT of Delhi LAWS (SC) 2002 – 4 – 86.

While Ld. Counsel for the Union has referred to the following decisions in support of his contention:-

1. Ananda Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. –vs Workmen 1970 (3) SCC 248.

2. Chandulal –vs- Management M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc. (1985) 2 SCC 727.

3. Lloyds Bank Ltd., vs- Pannalal Gupta & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 428 and

4. Agricultural Produce Market Committee –vs- Parasram Daga Patil, (2017) 6 AIR Bom R 735.

It is undisputed fact that 236 persons whose cause have been raised by the union were working as Shop/Store

Managers of retail shops of Bata India Ltd. situated in different parts of India at the time of their termination

in between 18-02-2007 to 08-05-2007.

The main allegation of the union is that those Shop Managers were not served with any show cause notice or

they have not been served with any charge sheet and no domestic enquiry was held against them. They have been

terminated from their services by the management in violation of principle of natural justice. Further, it is the

contention of the Union, those shop Managers were governed by Standing Orders and Rules for Shop Managers, 1979

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1683

and as such they are workmen as defined in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. That this Tribunal has jurisdiction to

adjudicate the dispute under reference.

On the other hand, the management has alleged those Shop Managers are not workmen but persons holding

managerial and administrative posts and as such there exists no industrial dispute in between the management of M/s.

Bata India Ltd. and its terminated Store Managers.

Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, in McLeod and Co. –vs- Sixth Industrial Tribunal, W.B. AIR, 1958 CAL 273,

has been pleased to observe whether a person is a workman within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act,

would be the very foundation of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.

Thus, having regards to the submission made by the Ld. Counsels for both parties and the above observation of

the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta the first question that needs to be determined is whether those 236 Shop Managers

of retail shoe shops of Bata India Ltd. falls within the definition of workman or not. If the answer is affirmative then

this Tribunal will have jurisdiction to decide the issue under reference and if the answer is negative, then those Shop

Managers not being workman, then this Tribunal will lack jurisdiction to decide the dispute under reference.

The term ‘workman’ has been defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as follows:-

“Workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,

skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be

express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes

any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that

dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the

Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii)

who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii)

who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv)

who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 3[ten thousand rupees] per

mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the

powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.] (That rupees ten thousand has

substituted Rs.1,600/- w.e.f. 15-09-2010).

From the above definition it becomes clear that all workmen are employees but all employees may not be

workmen. Only a workman/workmen can raise an industrial dispute with the employer regarding his/their dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment or termination of his/their service and not by all the employees. As per the definition of

workman as provided in section 2 (s) in order to become a workman, an employee must be engaged in merely seven

types of work i.e. manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operation, clerical and supervisory works. However, large

number of employees are often required to do more than one work than it becomes necessary to determine under

which all the seven classification the employees will fall in order to determine whether he qualifies as a workman.

The definition of workman specifically excludes a persona working in a managerial or administrative capacity.

The mere designation of a person as manager or administrator of an industry is not sufficient to conclude that he is not

workman. To ascertain his status as workman the nature of duties assigned to him are relevant and such question is

determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record and the real nature of

duties and functions performed by an employee.

More so, while interpreting the term ‘workman’ by different Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court in

several decisions, it was held nature of work assigned and performed by an employee need to be considered. If a

workman is mainly engaged in work which is of manual, clerical or technical nature, the mere fact that some

supervisory or other work is also done by him incidentally or as a small fraction of his work, will take him out of the

purview of the definition of a workman. The dominant purpose of employment must be first taken into consideration

and the gloss of some additional duties must be rejected while determining the status and character of a person. The

definition of workman specifically excludes a person working in a managerial or administrative capacity. The mere

designation of a person as a manager or an administrator of an industry is not sufficient to conclude that he is not a

workman. For instance where an employee is mainly engaged in supervisory work and if he ask incidentally to do

some clerical work, thus additional duties cannot change the character and status of the person and he will be

considered as a workman doing supervisor works. If a workman is mainly engaged to work just of manual, clerical or

technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisor and other works is also done incidentally or as a small fraction of

his work will not take him out of the purview of the definition of a workman. In other words, the domain purpose of

employment must be first taken into consideration and the gloss of some additional duties may be rejected while

determining the status and character of a person.

1684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

A person to be a workman under I.D. Act must be employed to do work of any of the categories as mentioned u/s

2(s). The same must be established even if he does not perform manager or supervisory duties. It must be established

that he performs skilled, unskilled, supervisory, technical or clerical for higher or reward. Therefore, it is to be

considered while determining whether an employee is a workman or not is (1) employer’s employee relationship, (2)

power to take disciplinary action, (3) dominant nature of work, (4) authority to sanction leave, (5) assigning duties

and distribution of works, (6) power to take decision, (7) power to assign subordinates, (8) supervision and control

over the works done.

In Arun Kumar Ramkrishna Datta vs. Gujarat Co-operative Oilseeds Growers Federation Ltd., 2004 (100) FLR 7

(IT Ahmedabad) (Sum) the following test have been laid down :

1. It is the dominant purpose of the employment that is relevant and not some additional duties which may be

performed by the employee.

2. It is not the designation of the post held by the employee which is relevant, but what is relevant is the nature

of duties performed by the employee.

3. The Court has to find out whether the employee can bind the company in the matter of some decision taken

on behalf of the company.

4. What is the nature of the supervisory duties performed by the employee? Do they include directing the

subordinates to do their work and/or to oversee their performance?

5. Does the employee have power either to recommend or sanction leave of the workman working under him?

6. Does he have the power to take any disciplinary action against the workmen working under him?

7. Does he have the power to assign duties and distribute the work?

8. Does the employee have the authority to indent material and to distribute the same amongst the workmen?

9. Does the employee have power to supervise the work of men or does he supervise only machines and not the

work of men?

10. Does the employee have any workmen working under him and does he write their confidential report?

In view of the above, let me decide whether the Managers of Retail Shops of M/s. Bata India Ltd. falls

within the definition of workmen?

First, let me discuss the oral evidence that have come on record. Sri Jayanta Kumar Ghosh, one of the

terminated Shop Managers who has been examined as W.W. No.1 in his evidence in chief on affidavit has stated that

he joined M/s. Bata India Ltd. as a probationer Salesman on 27-04-1970. That he was confirmed as a Salesman on 27-

07-1970. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Shop Manager in the year 1976. Since 1976 he has been

discharging the function of a Shop Manager in different stores of Bata Shoes situated in West Bengal.

He in his evidence in chief has stated that he used to discharge all the duties and function as stipulated in

Standing Orders and Rules for Shop Managers 1979. He has further stated that service conditions of Shop Managers

is determined by Memorandum of Settlement. That Shop Managers are workmen. Exhibit-W-18 is the copy of work

manual of Shop Managers. During cross examination he has admitted that Exhibit-W-18 does not bear any stamp and

signature of the authority who issued the same and that the claim statement is silent that the management issued the

work manual Exhibit-W-18 in his favour.

Perused the Exhibit-W-18 which appears to be nature of work manual/skilled/ technical/ operational/ clerical

of a Shop Manager during any working day. Surprisingly, the Exhibit-W-18 does not appear to be an official

document issued by M/s. Bata India Ltd. to its Store Managers. It simply appears to be a typed document in a

computer on a plain paper and not in official letter pad or official correspondence containing memo no. with date and

seal and signature of the authority who issued the same on behalf of the Bata India Ltd., the employer. Therefore, this

Tribunal is unable to take into consideration such document. In fact it appears to this Tribunal that the union has

prepared Exhibit-W-18 just to prove that the Shop Managers were discharging the duties as that of a workman. More

so, it is settled principle of law that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit court cannot held to be a

due proof of its contents.

During cross examination W.W. No.1 has stated that some of the Shop Managers had raised an industrial

dispute challenging their termination before the State Industrial Tribunal. The said Reference case was disposed of

with a finding that the Shop Managers of M/s. Bata India Ltd. are not workmen. Challenging the award of State

Tribunal, they have moved Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and where the matter is still pending.

Further, he has admitted that Exhibit-M-2, Annual Performance Rating of Shop Managers for 2002 relating

to Sri Soumen Mallick of Bagbazar Branch bears his signature. Exhibit-M-4 and M-15, Temporary Hand Pay Sheet,

Exhibit-M-6 to M-9 and M-17, Daily Shop Mirror/ Turnover of Bagbazar Branch bears his signature. Exhibit –M-11

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1685

to M-13, M-18 and M-24, provision of staff, check list and salary statement of Bagbazar Branch of M/s. Bata India

Ltd. bears his signature. Exhibit-M-23, Stock Accounting of Bagbazar Branch of M/s. Bata India Ltd. bears his

signature as Shop Manager. Further, he has admitted that he has not mentioned that he has the authority to sanction

leave to his subordinate staff in his chief on affidavit. That he is not in a position to produce any document or record

to show that it was his duty that he had to personally open and close the shop or he had to check the frontage and

arrange the signboard or that he had to attend customers personally and settle claims or he had to personally take

delivery of goods from the transporter or had to unpack the goods, check invoices and despatched the goods to retail

store or any shops under the instructions of the management or he had to personally count the money and remit the

same.

He has further admitted that Sri Sankar Ghosh, another terminaed Shop Manager, had issued charge sheet

against Sri Arun Brahma and Exhibit-M-5 is the suspension order of Sri Arun Brahma issued by Sri Sankar Ghosh.

Perused Exhiit-M-5 from where it appears that Sri Sankar Ghosh, Shop Manager of Bata Shoe Store,

S.N. Banerjee Road, had placed Sri Arun Brahma, Cashier of the same store under suspension for violating clause

iv,xi and xiv u/s 22 of the Standing Order and Rules of Shop Employees and not giving reply to the letter dated

06-04-2004 which was duly received by Sri Arun Brahma. Exhibit-M-5 reveals that instruction was given to Sri

Brahma to make future correspondence with the Personnel Department of the company as final decision on his

suspension is pending before the Personnel Department. Thus from Exhibit-M-5 it appears that Sri Sankar Ghosh, one

of the terminated Managers, had power or authority to place a Cashier of the store in which he was Manager under

suspension.

W.W. No. 1 has further stated in his cross that he nowhere in his evidence or in their claim statement have

alleged that the nature of duty that of a salesman and Shop Manager is similar. In a retail shop of M/s. Bata India Ltd.

as per hierarchy the position of the Shop Manager is on the top, then comes the other staff of the Store namely

Salesmen, Shop Assistant and Cashier.

Sri Sandip Kumar Ghosh, W.W. No. 2, another terminated Shop Manager in his evidence in chief on

affidavit has admitted, he joined M/s. Bata India Ltd. as a Salesman on 16-07-1974 and he was promoted as a Shop

Manager on 21-01-1988. That he worked as Shop Managers in different stores or shops or Branches of M/s. Bata

India Ltd. situated within Calcutta and its suburb.

He has stated as per the Standing Order, the duties of a Shop Manager is that of a Supervisor. That he has no

administrative duty. That it is the duty of the Shop Managers to keep the sales proceed in the vault, look after the

complaints of the customers with regard to the products. That Shop Manager had to disburse the salary of the

employees like a Cashier. Shop Manager had to go to bank personally to deposit the sales proceed every day. The

Shop Manager had to physically count the stock and make record of the stock. It is the duty of the Shop Manager to

maintain the Cash Book, prepare a fortnight statement called ‘Cash Accounting Statement’ and discharge the work

that of a Cashier, Accountant and do manual works. The Shop Manager had to open and close the shop personally and

keep the keys of the shop. Shop Manager had to physically verify each and every product of the shop. The Shop

Manager had to perform the work of a salesman along with other salesmen of the shop throughout day and night. That

Shop Manager had no independent power to take decision in the matter of running the shop. That the Shop Manager

had to regulate the expenses of the store from the sales proceeds. Shop Manager has no disciplinary power as the

same is exercised by the Area Manager and the District Managers. That standing order for the Shop Manager provides

a clause for strike which amply proves that Shop Manager is a workman. That his last drawn salary was Rs.15,000/-

per month.

During cross examination he has stated that he was deposing on behalf of the terminated Shop Managers.

That job responsibilities of Shop Managers of Bata Retail Stores throughout India is same. That he has gone through

Exhibit-M-3 the job responsibilities of Shop Managers. The nature of job responsibilities described by the

management in Exhibit-M-3 is correct. He has further admitted that there is no specific mention in their claim

statement what type of manual and clerical job the Shop Managers used to discharge or the claim statement is silent

that the Shop Managers were required to sale shoes throughout the day. He has also admitted that he joined the

company as a Salesman and later he was promoted as a Shop Manager. That he never complaint before the

management of the company that despite being a Shop Manager he was made to discharge the function of a Salesman

or that job of a Shop Assistant or Cashier. He has stated that it was his duty to show the products to the customers

coming to the store but he has stated that he has no document to prove that such duty was assigned to a Manager or

that he was authorised to disburse the salary of the employees of the store or produce any document to prove that

without his signature on the salary sheet management approve the salary of workmen working under him. He has

stated, appointment and dismissal are dealt with by the Human Resource Department. Expenses were incurred as per

policy of the company. He has admitted that Shop Manager is authorised to sign salary statement, daily mirror and

salary data sheet of a shop for the workmen working under him.

That Management has examined Sri Asutosh Ghosh, General Manager as M.W. No. 1. He has stated that

there are 6 Nos. of factories of M /s. Bata India Ltd. situated in India and more than 1200 shops/ stores throughout

1686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

India. There are about 1250 Nos. of Shop Managers, who manage and administer the shops/Shoe Stores of the

company for and on behalf of the company throughout India. He has also stated that Managers are not the workmen

and as such the present dispute raised by the Union cannot assume the character of an industrial dispute.

He has further stated that all the Shop Managers enjoy the authority to take decision in respect of the shops

under his control including the control over the other workmen working in the shop. He has stated that Shop

Managers are either appointed directly or promoted by virtue of an agreement describing thereunder their total

responsibilities. As per the agreement the Shop Manager is to look after all the expenses incurred for maintaining the

shop as he was to take decision relating to lightening, heating and cleaning the establishment, small repairs which are

not of permanent nature, telephone, office necessities, supplies, postages, bank charges, maintenance of satisfactory

quality and proper inventory of the stock, furniture, fixtures etc. The Shop Manager is required to look after the work

of window trimmings, seasonal decorations and local advertisement and incur expenses for doing the same under the

instructions of the company. It is the responsibility of the Shop Manager to look after the stock of shoes and other

goods including furniture, fittings and customer’s articles as well as the advertisement accessories. He is to look after

the stock and dead stock and clear all the dead stocks under the instructions at the cost of the company. He is to take

charge of the shop. He as a Manager is required to approve and forward bills for payment. The bills are sanctioned

and paid only on his approval. That it is his duty to look after day to day management of the shop under his control,

appoint temporary hands and make payment to them. He has further stated, it is the duty and function of a Shop

Manager to recommend employees working under him for training for development needs of employees and

recommend employees for promotion. It is the duty of Shop Manager to submit Annual Assessment (Performance

Appraisal) of other employees working under him in the shop. He was authorised to select salesman to work as

relieving hand manager to manage a shop in his absence, to approve travelling expenses of other shop employees,

take disciplinary action against the shop employees, approve salary of the shop employees, determine number of staff

in the stores to carry out business effectively, recommend a person for employment, authorise to make audit report,

authorise to represent company in legal matters, control the expenses of the store, preserve and look after the stock of

shoes and other furniture, fittings and responsible to make cash book and other necessary accounting statements and

to place orders and to achieve 100% sales as fixed by the company and to develop the business of the company,

allocate daily target to the salesman and resolve the customer’s complaint.

The administrative duty of the Shop Manager is to control the attendance of the shop employees, allocate

category of stock to the shop employees, recovery any loss from the staff on account of loss and damages, remit the

sales proceed to the company, responsible to keep the shops open for development and promotion of business, keep

the keys of the shop in his custody, responsible to maintain proper order and discipline in the shop and among the

staff, to manage the inventory of the stores, responsible for safe custody of the sales proceeds and to see all the

relevant files and papers are maintained properly, authorise to renew the registration of the Store under Shop and

Establishment Act, responsible for safe custody of the goods and he is responsible for general control of the retail

shop stores, repair and pedicure organisation and responsible for enforcing punctuality among the staff.

The Supervisory duties and functions of a Shop Manager is to carry instructions issued from time to time. He

is to keep in touch with the Controlling Officer and seek advice, he is responsible to see proper arrangement of

showcase, windows, racks etc. It is the duty of Shop Manager to supervise the works done by salesman, cashier and

shop assistant and casual hands, address grievances of the other subordinate staff and to see the vouchers and entries

are properly maintained.

During cross examination he has categorically stated that Shop Manager enjoys the authority to take decision

in respect of a shop under him including the controlling workmen employed in the shop. Shop Manager is vested with

independent authority to make seasonal decoration of their respective shop and empowered to approve the bills and

forward the same for payment to the company. Shop Manager was given power to induct and impart training the

employees of the shop, Shop Manager is vested with power to appoint temporary hand in the shop and sign the pay

sheet of those temporary hands. That under the supervision of Shop Manager, payment of salary to the temporary

hands is made by the company. Shop Managers are authorised to make audit of the account of the shop and appoint

Advocate. It is the duty of the Shop Manager to make payment to the staff working under him and to see the correct

payment is made. Shop Manager is responsible for making payment to outside suppliers supplying the necessary

materials like wall papers, strings etc.

From the oral evidence which have come on record and discussed above it is seen the Shop Manager is the

sole authority and in-charge of the shop and he is the one who has to take decision with regard how and in what

manner the shop has to be run as per company’s policy. He was given authority to appoint temporary hands and make

payment to them and sign on the salary sheet of the other regular employees and as well that of those temporary hands

engaged by him. He was given authority to incur incidental expenses and pay those expenses and also the salary of

the employees working in the store from the sales proceeds. He had authority to place any employee working under

him under suspension. He was the sole authority to appraise the performance of the employees working under him in

the store and send their annual performance report to the company for the purpose of their promotion etc. He was to

sign the daily mirror or daily sale statement of the shop. He was leave sanctioning authority of the employees working

under him. It is also seen that under him Cashier, Salesman, Shop Assistant and Cobbler used to work. He was to take

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1687

decision in respect of any untoward incidents that take place in the store and to take immediate necessary step by

informing or lodging police compliant and had also authority to engage a legal expert in connection of legal matters.

It was the duty of Shop Manager to maintain stock and prepare list of dead stocks for disposal as per direction of the

company.

However, let me discuss the documents that have been filed by the parties in support of their respective

contentions. The termination letters which have been filed by the union and has been marked as Exhibit-W-5 shows

that

Mr. J. K. Ghosh (W.W. No. 1) was promoted as a Shop Manager of Bagbazar Shoe Store on 27-04-1970 and

he signed on a fresh agreement dated 14-06-1999 and which sets out the terms and conditions under which he was to

work as a Manager of the shop and also the conditions under which the management would be entitled to terminate

his service.

Surprisingly, the union has failed to produce the agreement dated 14-06-1999 before the Tribunal, to show

the nature of the duties to be discharged by a Shop Manager of Bata Shoe Store. However, W.W.No.2 during cross

examination has admitted that job responsibility of Shop Managers of Bata Retail Shoe Stores throughout India is

same. The job responsibility of a Manager described in writing by the management is correct. It is true such evidence

of W.W No. 2 is vague regarding exactly which document he had referred to be correct. But it appears to the

Tribunal, the witness is referring to those agreements which an employee is required to execute on his appointment as

a Shop Manager or on promotion as a Shop Manager.

The termination letters of Sri Pitambar Ghosh, Manager, Bata Shoe Stores, Vivekananda Road dated

21-03-2007 and termination of Sri K.M. Putcha, Manager, Bata Shoe Stores, Hyderabad, Kharkana dated 28-02-2007

show that at the time of their promotion or appointment as Shop Managers of Bata Shoe Stores, an agreement was

executed between the employer and the employees and such agreement contains terms and conditions under which the

Store Manager, Bata Shoe Stores is to work and the conditions under which the management is entitled to terminate

their services.

However, Exhibit-W-12, Exhibit-M-3 and M-14 appear to be the same document that is an agreement

executed between Bata India Ltd. and one Sri Pitambar Ghosh on 10th September, 1999 on the latter being appointed

as a Manager of Retail Shoe Store situated at Strand Road, Kolkata, Exhibit-M-28 an agreement executed between

M/s. Bata India Ltd. and Sri D.K. Raha on 23-09-2006 on the latter being appointed as a Manager of Retail Shoe

Store situated at H.B. Road, Ranchi, Exhibit-M-53 an agreement executed between M/s. Bata India Ltd. and Mr. B.C.

Palai dated 25th June, 2005 on the latter being appointed as a Manager of Retail Shoe Store situated at Bhubaneswar,

A. Nagar, Exhibit-M-64 an agreement executed between M/s. Bata India Ltd. and Sri Trideab Changkakoti on 3rd

November, on the latter being appointed as a Manager of Retail Shoe Store situated at Bhangabarh, Assam, Exhibit-

M-76 an agreement executed between M/s. Bata India Ltd. and Sri K. M. Putcha on 23rd January, 2006, on the latter

being appointed as a Manager of Retail Shoe Store situated at Secunderabad, Kharkana, Exhibit-M-84 an agreement

executed between M/s. Bata India Ltd. and Sri K. S. V. Kumar on 30th June, 2004, on the latter being appointed as a

Manager of Retail Shoe Store situated at Royapettah, Chennai and Exhibit-M-99 an agreement executed between

M/s. Bata India Ltd. and Sri K. G. Ashok Kumar on 9th January, 2003, on the latter being appointed as a Manager of

Retail Shoe Store situated at Vijaynagar, Bangalore show those agreements contain terms and conditions under which

those Store Managers agreed to join as a Managers of Retail Shoe Store of Bata India Ltd.

Such agreements speak about the salary, annual increment and percentage of commission which a Store

Manager is entitled to get on turnover of the store. Further, it contains job responsibility of a Store Manager.

Clause -3 of such agreement shows that Shop Manager was given the authority or power to make payment of

recurring charges and expenses necessary for carrying on the business of sale of shoes and other goods as well as for

repair work of footwear and for all pedicure treatments carry out in the store and which includes all expenses for

lightening, heating, cleaning the establishment, small repairs not of a permanent nature, telephone, office necessities,

supplies, postage, bank charges, maintenance of satisfactory quality and proper inventory of the stock, furniture,

fixture etc. He was given authority to incur expenses for carriage of goods from railway or other stations or Ghats at

destination of the place where the Shoe Store is situated and local travelling. He was authorised to make expenses

from sales proceed for wrapping (papers and strings), for seasonal decorations and local advertisement. He is

authorised to spend money for purchase of materials and payment of wages for the shoe repair and medicaments,

laundry and all expenses for pedicure treatment.

He was further given power to pay salary of the staff approved by the company from the sale proceeds and

he is required to maintain the special salary statement paid to the employees bearing the signature of the respective

staff. It further provide that any expenses incurred by him not approved by the company or beyond the approval limit

will be borne by him.

Clause-6 provides that Manager will be responsible for proper preservation and taking care of the stock of

shoes and other goods including furniture, fittings and customer’s articles as well as advertisement accessories.

Clause-7 further provides that it is the duty of the Shop Manager to inform the company from time to time

regarding any local notice, rules or law in force in connection with the trade in the locality, or transport or any taxes,

1688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

or duty and also for performing or observing them correctly and properly according to the intents and purpose of the

rules and laws, so far as they relate to the said Shoe Store.

As per clause-8 he was entrusted with the full responsibility for the safe custody and good condition of all

stocks of shoes and other goods and their sales proceeds and other assets and properties of the company in the said

shoe store entrusted to him or of which he is in charge and he will be liable to pay to the company the amount

incurred for any damage and shortage and losses arising by any reason whatsoever in respect of any such stock or

property and recover the same from him by the company if the loss is due to his negligence.

Clause-9 shows that Store Manager is entrusted to keep proper accounts and shall every week or fortnight

deliver to the company full and correct accounts on the forms supplied by the company of all stocks, receipts, number

of pairs sold and other details specified in the forms payments, transactions and dealing of all in relation to the

business of the said Shoe Stores including the turnover or repair and pedicure. He will be responsible for such

statement of accounts and if any error is detected he is required to rectify the same immediately. It is his duty to remit

the sales proceeds to the company after deducting the expenses incurred or after keeping certain amount for meeting

incidental expenses. That he is to fully cooperate with the District Manager and Retail Managers during the periodical

inspection of the Store.

Clause -14 speaks that Shop Manager shall have the general control of the said Shop and Repair and

Pedicure organisations but he is not authorised to pledge in any way the credit of the company.

Clause-15 of the agreement further provides, all the staff employed in the said Shoe Store and Repair and

Pedicure Sections except Cobblers which the employee may engage from time to time as independent contractors in

the attached Repair Shop, if any, will be the direct employees of the company. The service conditions of all the said

Shoe Stores and Pedicure Organisation will be governed by the rules laid down and will be strictly followed by the

Manager.

Clause 16, 17 and 18 provides that if there is any incident of theft, fire, burglary or damage to the Shoe Store

it is the duty of the Shop Manager to inform the company about the incident and to cause enquiry into the incident

and submit report or file an FIR before the police authority.

As per Clause-19 he is to personally arrange proper safety of the sale proceeds and other money belonging to

the company that may be with him and he shall remain wholly liable and responsible to the company for any loss of

the sale proceeds or other money.

As per Clause-20 he shall remit of the shop under him and which is in his custody and remit once a week/on

every third working day/ every alternate working day to the company through the collection account of the State Bank

of India in places where there are branches of the State Bank of India. In other places it should be sent in the form of a

cross demand draft in favour of the company through one of the schedule bank or crossed Indian Postal Order or

crossed drafts of the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta. The liability of the Manager will be discharged by actual receipt

of the money by the company.

From the above agreements, it is seen that Shop Manager has authority to appoint Cobblers from time to

time to carry out repair works and who will be considered to be employee of the company. That he was given the

power to incur incidental expenses towards of lightening, heating, cleaning the establishment, small repairs not of a

permanent nature, telephone, office necessities, supplies, postage, bank charges, for maintenance of satisfactory

quality and proper inventory of the stock, furniture, fixture, carriage of goods from railway or other stations or Ghats

to the store, for wrapping (papers and strings), seasonal decorations and local advertisement. He was authorised to

spend money for purchase of materials and payment of wages for the shoe repair and medicaments, laundry and all

expenses for pedicure treatment from the sales proceeds of the store. He was also authorised to pay the approved

salary to the staff of the store from the sales proceeds. That he was even given authority to cause an enquiry if there is

any incident of fire, theft, burglary and to take necessary steps with the authorities concerned. He was also liable to

pay the damages or loss suffered by the company due to his negligence and carelessness.

So, it is seen Shop Managers were the sole in charge of the retail shoe store. He was liable for any loss to the

company due to his acts or negligence and omission. He was required to report properly to the company about any

fire, theft, burglary, loot in the shop, to investigate into the matter and take necessary steps with the local authorities.

He was given a power to incur incidental expenses for development of the business of the store from the sales

proceeds. He was empowered to make temporary appointment, pay salary to the employees from the sales proceeds.

From the above fact it is seen, Shop Managers was placed in charge of an independent store or outlet of Bata Shoe

Stores and was given independent power in running the store for development of the store and he was the

administrative head of the store.

That apart Exhibit-M-31, M-43, M-49, M-67, M-98 and M-109, the attendance registers maintained in

different stores of Bata Retail Shoe Stores show that attendance register is maintained by the Shop Manager and he

signed on the same and which show control over subordinate staff working under him.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1689

Exhibit-M-19, M-30, M-32, M-44, M-57, M-90, M-97, M-114, M-119 and M/124 prima facie show that it is

the duty of the Store Managers to sign on the daily mirror/ daily sales report of the shops and which shows his

supervision on the work done by the salesmen.

Exhibit-M-4, M-15, M-29, M-41, M-65, M-79, M-92, M-103 and M-122 the attendance and pay sheets of

temporary hands are signed by Shop Managers and he is the authority over the temporary hands engaged by him.

Exhibit- M-9, M-20, M-33, M-58, M-45, M-69, M-89, M-95, M-110, M-115, M-120, M-122 and M-125

prove that it is the manager of the store who has the sole authority to grant or not to grant any leave applied by the

other employees of the store.

Exhibit-M-56, M-62, M-91, M-118 and M-123 salary data slip of the employees of the store including that of

Manager is signed by the store managers and salary was paid under his supervision.

Exhibit- M-24, M-36, M-48, M-61, M-72, M-80, M-93, M-104, M-126 and M-126, the salary statement of

shop is signed by the Manager of the shop and salary was paid under his supervision.

.

Exhibit-M-60, M-81, M-87, M-102, M-108, M-111 and M-116 cash accounting statement prove the

Managers were fully responsible for the business and sales proceeds of the shop.

Exhibit-M-26, M-37, M-50 and M-73 prove that Shop Managers were only authorised to certify the

authenticity of customer satisfaction with regard to the customers’ claim settlement.

Exhibit-M-23, M-35, M-47, M-71, M-78, M-86 and M-106 stock accounting bears the signature of the

Manager and which proves none but the Shop Manager is fully responsible regarding the entire stock of the store

under his control.

Exhiit-M-1, M-27, M-52, M-39, M-63 and M-83 Annual Performance Report signed by shop managers and

as well District Manager and it is the Store Manager was the performance evaluator of the staff working under him.

That he used to recommend the subordinate staff of the store for training and promotion before the company.

Exhibit-M-126, M-132 and M-133 show that Manager enjoyed the authority to take decision in recruitment

process of the shop employees on probation.

Exhibit-M-127 to 131 show that the Manger of Bata Shoe Stores has been authorised to discontinue the

service of temporary staff in case of staff exceeding the prescribed number of employees by the company.

Exhibit-M-5 shows that Shop Manager has been authorised to take disciplinary action against its subordinate

staff like a Cashier and place the staff under suspension.

Exhibit-M-10 shows Shop Manager was authorised to lodge police complaint in case there is any incident of

fire in the store and damages of stock, cash, furniture etc.

All the above documents prima facie show that the Shop Manager is an independent authority to take

decision in respect of the store to which he was sole in-charge. From the exhibited documents it is seen that Cobblers

for repair, shop assistant for running the shop, salesman for promoting sales and cashier for receiving cash in a retail

shop of Bata Shoe Stores used to work under him. Those documents leave no room for doubt that Shop Managers

used to discharge supervisory cum administrative functions cum managerial functions in running the shop for the

purpose of development of the business, for achievement of targeted sale and authority to maintain discipline in the

store. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to accept the argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the Union, that those

terminated employees were Managers only for the name sake and in reality they used to discharge the functions of a

Shop Assistant, Cashier, Salesman. In fact the exhibited documents which have come on record show that those Shop

Managers were sole independent in charge of the stores where they were posted as Managers and the decision making

authority of the store on the matter to which they were given power as per the agreement executed between them and

the company at the time of their appointment or promotion as a Shop Managers.

Ld. Counsel for the Union further submitted that duties and functions of the Shop Managers are stipulated in

the Standing Orders and Rules of the Shop Managers, 1979 and there is no clause which stipulates and/or entrusted

the Shop Managers to have any independent thinking and skilful application of mind to perform the duties. Shop

Managers did not have any authoritative duty apart from their own duties to look after the proper placement of

products in the shop, safe custody of sales proceed. Managers had to look after the complaints of the customers with

regard to the products. Shop Manager had to disburse the salary of the employees like a cashier. He had to go to bank

personally to deposit the sales proceeds every day like a Peon. He had to physically count the stock and record the

quantum of stock in the printed form. Shop Manager had to discharge job of an Accountant for keeping the statement

of income and expenditure. Manager had to do the manual job of opening and closing of the shop and keep the keys

of the store as a security guard. Shop Manager had to count and verify the total supply of the products for sale. He had

to perform the work of a salesman along with other salesman throughout the day and night. Shop Manager had no

1690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

independent power to dismiss or terminate the services of an employee of a store. That there is clause regarding strike

and which prima facie prove that Shop Managers are workman.

It is true that there exists Standing Orders and Rules for Shop Manager, 1979. That standing orders contains

conditions of service of an employee in the establishment. Therefore, this Tribunal is of view just because that there

exists Standing Orders and Rules in respect of Shop Managers of Bata Shoe Stores will not make them a workman as

contended by the Ld. Counsel for the union, when exhibited documents show when a person or an employee of Bata

Shoe Stores is promoted as a Manager, a new agreement is executed between the Management and the Shop Manager

and such agreement contains the duty and liabilities of the Shop Manager. The agreement Exhibit-W12, M-3, M-14,

M-28, M-53, M-64, M-76, M-84 and M-99 already discussed above prima facie prove the Shop Manager was

empowered to incur expenses towards maintenance of the shop relating to lightening, heating, cleaning of the

establishment, small repairs not of a permanent nature, telephone, office necessities, supplies, postage, bank charges,

maintenance of satisfactory quality and proper inventory of the stock, furniture, fixture etc. He was authorised to

make expenses from sales proceed for wrapping (papers and strings), seasonal decorations and local advertisement.

He was responsible for the proper observation, to look after the stock of shoes and other goods including furniture,

fixture and customer’s articles. He was to look after the stock and dead stock and clear the dead stock under the

instructions and at the cost of the company. He was given authority to take independent decision in a particular

matter. From the exhibited documents it is also seen under the supervision and control of the Shop Manager, Cashier,

Salesman, Shop Assistant and Cobblers used to work. That he was authorised to recruit temporary employees and

make payment to those employees from the sales proceeds. That he was the authority to grant or not to grant leave to

the staff working in the store under him. That he was performance evaluator of the staff working under him in the

store. That he used to recommend the staff for promotion and training. That he used to supervise and control the work

done by the salesman, cashier and shop assistant including the cobblers, the temporary hands by signing on the daily

shop mirror, attendance register, stock register, salary sheet and keeping the daily sales proceeds in his custody, verify

the vouchers prepared by the cashier and also the key of the store in his custody. He was the leave sanctioning

authority of his subordinates and had power to assign duties and distribute works. He had authority to indent

materials, clear dead stocks and assess the performance of his subordinate employees.

Thus, it appears, shop manager was discharging the functions of a Manager and in-charge of the shop with

the responsibility to open and close the store to conduct business of the retail store. He was the administrative head of

the store as required to manage the overall functioning of the shop with the aid of his subordinates. Other employees

working in the shop had no power or authority to do any work independently without the sanction and approval of the

Manager. He used to supervise the work done by his subordinates. Being in-charge of one of the retail stores of Bata

Shoes some time the Manager might had to do some clerical nature of job, such job cannot be said to be his main

function.

That apart, the issue whether a Shop Manager of Bata Retail Store is workman or not has already been

decided by the Hon’ble High Court, Gujarat in Bata India Ltd. & Ors. –vs- S. K. Chawla (supra) and such decision

has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No. 26424 of 2005 on 17-04-

2006. Therefore, there remain nothing afresh to be decided by this Tribunal whether the Shop Manager of Retail Shoe

Store of Bata India Ltd. is a workman or not.

In McLeod & Co. –vs- Sixth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal it was held whether a person was a workman

within the definition of Industrial Disputes Act would be the very foundation of the jurisdiction of the Industrial

Tribunal. Since all those 236 terminated employees of Bata India Ltd. are found not to be workmen within the

meaning of section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947, but persons holding independent charge of Manager of retail Shoe Shop

and holding managerial and administrative post and as such this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide whether the

termination of the 236 Shop Managers of M/s. Bata India Ltd. without holding any domestic enquiry is legal or

illegal. However, it has come on record those 236 Shop Managers were terminated from the service by the

management of M/s. Bata India Ltd. without adhering to the principle of natural justice i.e. without serving any show

cause notice, without any charge sheet and without holding any domestic enquiry.

In view of the above the Reference is not maintainable in this Industrial Tribunal as there exists no industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Bata India Ltd. and its 236 Retail Shoe Store Managers. Accordingly,

Reference No. NT-2 of 2007 is disposed of.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 774.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

इंजड न ओवरसीि 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;] चंडीगढ़-II ds iapkV (13/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01-2024-आईआर(बी-II)-01)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1691

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2024

S.O. 774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas

Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01-2024-IR(B-II)-01]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 13/2017

Registered on:-05.03.2018

Sh. Hemant Singh S/o Sh. Kalyan Singh, R/o Village Meerapur, PO Baghola, Tehsil and District Palwal.

….…..Workman

Versus

1.

Indian Overseas Bank, SCF No. 114-115, HUDA Market, Sector 28, Faridabad through its Chief Manager.

2.

The Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, SCF No. 114-115, HUDA Market, Sector 28, Faridabad.

…….Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-12.01.2024

1.

The workman Hemant Singh has filed the present claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 with the averment that he had been employed by the respondent no.1 on the post of Record

Keeper w.e.f. 14.03.2014. The workman had worked with the management of respondent no.2 till 05.09.2017 when

his services had been illegally terminated by the management of Indian Overseas Bank. The services of the workman

had been terminated by the management wrongfully, illegally, malafidely, arbitrarily and unjustly on 06.09.2017. On

02.08.2017 the workman met with an accident on the way he was coming for duty. The workman had suffered

multiple injuries on his face and was remained on medical leave upto 04.09.2017. The workman came on duty after

medical fitness on 05.09.2017. On 06.09.2017 the respondent-bank had stopped the entry of the workman into the

premises of the respondent-bank and terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 06.09.2017. The workman had

been drawing a salary of Rs.5,700/- per month at the time of his illegal termination from service. The workman falls

within the definition of workman under Section 2(S) of the ID Act. Therefore, the termination of the services of the

workman is a clear case of retrenchment as per the Industrial Disputes Act and further the management did not

comply with the mandatory provision of ID Act, which sets the condition precedent to be fulfilled prior to

retrenchment of workman. The respondent-bank neither complied with the aforesaid mandatory provisions nor paid

the retrenchment compensation or notice pay in lieu of the same. The workman is unemployed since the date of his

illegal termination. The principles of natural justice have been violated in the present case. After the termination of

the services of the workman, the respondent-bank had appointed one other person namely Munish against the post

held by the workman. The post against which the workman had been employed is perennial in nature and still exists.

The workman had completed more than 240 days of service during the preceding 12 months of the date of his illegal

termination. In view of the submissions made above, it is therefore prayed that the workman may kindly be reinstated

in service with continuity of service along with back wages and other consequential benefits.

2.

The respondent-management has filed its written statement, alleging therein that the workman was never

appointed by the respondent-bank on any post. The services of the workman were used as casual labour as and when

need arose and he was paid for the same on daily basis. As the workman had never been recruited on bank rolls, the

question of termination of his services does not arise in any manner. The workman is not a workman under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as there was no employer and employee relationship between the workman and

respondent-bank. In respect of permanent employees, who are on the roll of the bank draw salary and allowances once

in a month, which is credited to their salary accounts. However, in this case, the workman was engaged as a casual

labour and paid on daily basis through vouchers. No such termination as alleged was issued to the workman since he

was not on the rolls of the bank. It is denied that the service of the workman has been illegally terminated without

following the principle of natural justice. No recruitment/appointment has been made for the said post since long in

1692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the respondent-bank. No such post lying vacant/exists with the respondent-bank. The workman has not completed 240

days in any manner continuously. In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the claim statement filed by the

workman may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.

The workman filed replication to the written statement filed by the management. The facts alleged in the

replication are same as alleged in the claim petition hence, need not to be repeated again.

4.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

5.

In support of his case, the workman has filed its affidavit in evidence but was not cross-examined by the

management as the management was proceeded ex parte on 07.01.2020.

6.

I have heard Sh. Raj Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for the workman in the absence of management and perused the

file and record carefully.

7.

Undisputedly, to claim the benefit and protection under Section 25-F of the Act, a workman has to establish

on the record that he had completed the continuous service of 240 days under his employer in the preceding 12

calendar months from the date of termination of his services as envisaged under Section 25-B of the Act meaning

thereby that in the present case, the workman has to establish that he had completed the continuous service of 240

days with the respondent-management in the last calendar year.

8.

In his affidavit Ex.WW1/A the claimant/workman has stated that he had been employed by the respondent-

bank on the post of Record Keeper w.e.f. 14.03.2014 and he had joined as such he worked there from 4.3.2014 to

6.9.2017 and his services were terminated wrongfully and illegally w.e.f. 6.9.2017. He had been drawing Rs.5700/-

per month on the date of illegal termination of his services. He is workman within the definition of Section 2(S) of the

Act. He was paid through voucher for the entire period of service rendered with the respondent-bank. He has placed

on record copy of payment voucher Ex.W-4 to W-369. The evidence and documents brought on record has proved

that the workman was appointed by the respondent-bank. In the face of documents Ex.W1 to Ex.W367 as discussed

above, it stands proved on record that the workman/claimant has been working under the management-bank from

14.03.2014 to till 06.09.2017 when his services were terminated. The evidence brought on record by the workman has

gone unrebutted and unchallenged and there is reason why the same should not be believed.

9.

It is clear from the perusal of the aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part

time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality

such a person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

10.

The version of the claimant/workman that his services were illegally terminated by the management

w.e.f. 06.09.2017 without any notice or compensation pay has gone unchallenged and urebutted inasmuch as the

management has neither pleaded nor led any evidence contrary thereto. Since the management has neither issued any

notice, nor has paid any compensation in lieu of notice period to the workman/claimant prior to termination of his

services w.e.f. 18.06.2015, this amounts to violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

11.

The respondent-bank has taken a plea in his written statement that the workman was never appointed by the

respondent-bank on any post. The services of the workman were used as casual labour as and when need arose for and

he was paid for the same on daily basis. As the workman had never been recruited on bank rolls, the question of

termination of his services does not arise in any manner. The workman was engaged as a casual labour and paid on

daily basis through vouchers. No recruitment/appointment has been made for the said post since long in the

respondent-bank. No such post lying vacant/exists with the respondent-bank. The workman has not completed 240

days in any manner continuously. It is settled law that pleadings cannot take place of proof. Mere pleading in a

written statement is not sufficient and to prove the said plea, the management was required to lead cogent and

consistent evidence. Here in this case, the management proceeded against ex parte and failed to lead any ioto of oral

or documentary evidence to prove the said plea. The conduct of the management in not leading evidence and further

giving vague pleas in the written statement, needs to be depreciated with strongest possible words. The management

even did not dispute the crucial factum of the workman having completed his continuous service of more than 240

days. Therefore, the management cannot get away from the findings that the services of the workman were illegally

and wrongfully terminated without following due procedure or law under Section 25-F of the Act.

12.

Since there is no submission by the respondent-bank who was proceeded against ex-parte hence, while

believing the statement of workman, the Court comes to the conclusion that termination of services of workman is

illegal and invalid. The respondent-bank has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

13.

Now having held so in the preceding paragraphs that the workman has been victimized by the management,

the next important question though very short, which arises for the consideration of this Court is that what relief the

workman is entitled to?

14.

Learned counsel for workman has argued that respondent-bank has violated the provision of Section 25-F of

the Act without offering retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25-F will make termination as illegal

and in support relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive

Engineer, Public Health, Division No.1, Panipat reported in 2010(3) SCT 318 holding that “provisions of Section

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1693

25-F are mandatory and non-compliance thereof rendered the retrenchment of an employee as nullity.” Similar

view were taken by the Hon’ble High Court in 2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 592 in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State

of Haryana, in which it is held that “workman worked for 3 years and termination of his services in violation of

compliance of provisions of Section 25-F so workman was held entitled to claim relief.” In a judgment of Haryana

Agricultural University Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another 2011 LLR 1218,

wherein it has been held that “termination of service of an employee who has completed 240 days continuous

service, without payment of retrenchment compensation simultaneously at the time of termination by complying

with the provisions of Section 25-F, may attract reinstatement that too with full back wages, continuity of service

and consequential benefits.” I find force in the arguments of workman.

15.

In the light of foregoing discussions, it is held that the workman has been able to lead any cogent and

sufficient evidence on the file to prove that he had completed the continuous service of 240 days with the respondent-

bank as its employee during the preceding 12 calendar months from the date of alleged termination of his services and

that his services were allegedly terminated by the respondent-bank and that the alleged termination of his services is

illegal and invalid.

16.

In view of my findings on the above discussed issues, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this

reference is decided in favour of the workman to the effect that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of

service along with 30% back wages from the date of his illegal termination.

17.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required u/S 17 of ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 775.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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;] चंडीगढ़-II ds iapkV (50/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01-2024-आईआर(बी-I)-150]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2024

S.O. 775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 50/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of SBI and their

workmen.

[No. L-39025/01-2024-IR(B-I)-150]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 50/2021

Registered on:-07.01.2019

Sh. Dharamjeet S/o Sh. Barkha Ram, R/o Village Boh, District Ambala, Haryana.

…….Workman

Versus

1. Deputy General Manager, SBI, Sector 5, Panchkula.

2. A.G.M.(RM), RBO-1, SBI, Sector-5, Panchkula.

….…Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-11.12.2023

1.

The workman Dharamjeet has filed the present claim petition on 26.10.2018 under Section 33-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for alteration/change of service condition of workman during the course/pendency of

proceedings before this Tribunal.

1694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal, learned AR of the workman Sh. O.P. Indal has

made a statement that he does not want to press his application dated 26.10.2018 and withdrawn the same and it may

be dismissed as withdrawn, which is recorded separately.

3.

In view of the statement made by the learned AR of the workman, the present reference deserves to be

dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the instant reference filed under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 stands dismissed as withdrawn. File after completion be consigned in the record room.

4.

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

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 776.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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; िैिराबाि ds iapkV (34/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01-2024-आईआर(बी-I)-151]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2024

S.O. 776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 34/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01-2024-IR(B-I)-151]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 18th day of January, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 34/2018

Between:

Sri Janagama Raju,

S/o Late Odelu,

R/o H.No. 21-6-121/11/1

Pragathi Nagar, Food Corporation of India,

NTPC of Ramagundam (M),

Peddapalli Dist.

..….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Manager,

State Bank of India Vittal Nagar,

Godavarikhani Branch (Erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad)

Peddapalli District –Code No. 20956.

2.

The Zonal Manager,

State Bank of India (Erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad)

JPN Road, Warangal.

3.

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India (Erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad)

Godavarikhani.

4.

The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India (Erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad)

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अप्रैल 27, 2024/वैिाख 7, 1946

1695

Administrative Local Head Office, Koti,

Hyderabad.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

:

Sri S. Bhagawanth Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Janagama Raju who worked as Scavenger cum Peon (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed

this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents State Bank of India

(Erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad) seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential

benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this

court may deems fit.

2.

Respondent filed counter. Case is posted for Petitioner’s evidence.

3.

During the pendency of the proceeding, Counsel for Petitioner has filed memo submitting that Petitioner

was provided with employment and requested to close the ID as withdrawn. Memo served on Respondent who

reported/endorsed no objection. Hence, requested to close the ID as withdrawn. In view of the above, I dispose of

the dispute in terms of the prayer as made in the memo filed by the Petitioner dated 18.1.2024. Hence, the case is

disposed of accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 18th day

of January, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 777.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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; cSaxyksj ds iapkV (47/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01-2024-आईआर(बी- II)-11]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2024

S.O. 777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 47/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-39025/01-2024-IR(B-II)-11]

SALONI, Dy. Director

1696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 27, 2024/VAISAKHA 7, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BENGALURU CAMP At HYDERABAD

DATED

: 19th FEBRUARY 2024

PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

I D No. 47/2018

APPLICANT

RESPONDENTS

Sh. B Hanumantappa,

S/o Nanjundappa,

25, 6th Cross, 1st Main,

Nandini Layout,

BANGALORE – 560 096.

1. Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private

Limited, No. 332, 13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II

Stage, Indiranagar, BANGALORE – 560 038.

2. The General Manager, Canara Bank, Head

Office, J C Road, BANGALORE.

Appearances

I Party :

Sh. R Nagendra Naik

Advocate

II Party :

1. Sh. G L Vishwanath

Advocate

2. Sh. T R K Prasad

Advocate

1.

The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity

‘the Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private

Limited/Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.

2.

After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of

Industrial Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court

settlement has been arrived with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the

Respondents. Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.

3.

Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 25.01.2024 in the present matter

voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above

Memo for Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is

dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is

passed. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on

19th February 2024)

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

MANOJ KUMAR

VERMA

Digitally signed by MANOJ

KUMAR VERMA

Date: 2024.05.01 19:08:29

+05'30'