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'