2789 GI/2024

(1765)

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. 18]

नई दिल् ली, मई 5—मई 11, 2024, िजनवार/ वैिाख 15 —वैिाख 21, 1946

No. 18]

NEW DELHI, MAY 5—MAY 11, 2024, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 15– VAISAKHA 21, 1946

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय 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)

जविेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2024

का.आ. 809.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।

एति् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार, मई 01, 2024 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवविन करने के जलए जविेि में भारतीय

जमिनों/पोस्ट्टों में सिायक कांसुलर अजिकाररयों के रूप में इस मंत्रालय के नीचे उजल्लजखत अजिकाररयों की जनयुजि करता

िै:

क्रम

सं.

अजिकारी का नाम और पि

)

सवव

श्री

(

जमिन / पोस्ट्ट जिसमें सिायक कांसुलर

अजिकारी के रूप में जनयुि दकया गया िै

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-16052024-254202

CG-DL-W-16052024-254202

1766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िजतन, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारतीय उच्चायोग, जनकोजसया

मिेि कुमार, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

मनीष नेगी, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारतीय उच्चायोग, नैरोबी

मोिम्मि जबलाल, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारतीय िूतावास, वाशिंगटन डी सी

जितेंिर कुमार, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारतीय िूतावास,रबात

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2024(12)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2024

S.O. 809.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints the below mentioned

officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad to perform Consular services

with effect from May 01, 2024:

Sl.

No.

Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant

Consular Officer

Mr. Jatin, Assistant Section Officer

High Commission of India, Nicosia

Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Assistant Section Officer

Mr. Manish Negi, Assistant Section Officer

High Commission of India, Nairobi

Mr. Mohd. Bilal, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Washington DC

Mr. Jitender Kumar, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Rabat

[F. No.T.4330/01/2024(12)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2024

का.आ. 810.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारत के राििूतवास अबु िाबी में श्री अपराजित कुमार, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को

मई 06, 2024 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िै।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2024(13)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2024

S.O. 810.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Aparajit Kumar,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi to perform the consular

services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from May 06, 2024.

[F. No. T.4330/01/2024(13)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2024

का.आ. 811.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारतीय उच्चायोग, लंिन में श्री सूरि कुमार जनषाि, कजनष्ठ सजचवालय सिायक, को

मई 07, 2024 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िै।

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1767

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2024(14)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2024

S.O. 811.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Suraj Kumar Nishad,

Junior Secretariat Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, London to perform the

consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from May 07, 2024.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2024(14)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

कृजष एवं दकसान कल् याण मंत्रालय

(कृजष अनुसंिान एवं जिक्षा जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 812.—सावविजनक पररसर (अप्राजिकृत अजिभोजगयों की बेिखली) अजिजनयम, 1971 (1971 का 40)

की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन् द्र सरकार एति् द्वारा ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में उजल्लजखत

जनम् नांदकत अजिकाररयों को िो सरकार के रािपजत्रत अजिकारी के पि के समकक्ष िैं, उक् त अजिजनयम के अंतगवत इस

प्रयोिन के जलए सम् पिा अजिकारी जनयुक् त करती िै। ये अजिकारी उक् त अजिजनयम के अंतगवत अथवा उसके द्वारा सम् पिा

अजिकाररयों को प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग और दिए गए कतव् यों का पालन उनके संबंजित अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट् थानीय

सीमाओं के अंतगवत नीचे िी गई ताजलका के कॉलम (4) में संबंजित प्रजवजि में जनर्िवष् ट सावविजनक पररसर के संबंि में करेंगे :

ताजलका

क्र.सं.

अजिकारी का नाम एवं पिनाम

अंचल/िोन

इंजगत दकए गए राज् यों के अनुसार स्ट् थानीय

सीमाएं

श्री अिय कुमार सोनी,

मुख् य

प्रिासजनक अजिकारी, आईएआरआई,

पूसा, नई दिल् ली।

उत्तर

उत्तर प्रिेि, दिल् ली, िररयाणा, पंिाब, िम् मू एवं

कश् मीर,

जिमाचल

प्रिेि,

चंडीगढ़

और

उत्तराखंड।

श्री दिलीप रॉय, मुख् य प्रिासजनक

अजिकारी

(सीजनयर

ग्रेड),

आईएआरआई, ििारीबाग।

पूवव एवं पूवोत्तर ओजड़िा, जबिार, झारखंड, पजिम बंगाल,

जसदिम, मेघालय, असम, अरुणाचल प्रिेि,

नागालैंड, मजणपुर, जमिोरम, जत्रपुरा, अंडमान

एवं जनकोबार द्वीप समूि।

श्री िरीि नायर, मुख् य प्रिासजनक

अजिकारी

(सीजनयर

ग्रेड),

सीएमएफआरआई, कोजच्च।

िजक्षण

तजमलनाडु, केरल, आंध्र प्रिेि, पुडुचेरी, िािर

और नगर िवेली, कनावटक, लक्षद्वीप

श्री अजभषेक यािव, मुख् य प्रिासजनक

अजिकारी, सीआईएई, भोपाल

पजिम

मिाराष् र,

गोवा,

गुिरात,

मध् य

प्रिेि,

रािस्ट् थान, छत्तीसगढ़, िमन और िीव।

[फा. सं. 17/11/1995-ई एंड एम]

के. के. गुइते, जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

1768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.O. 812.—In exercise if powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) the Central Government hereby appoints the following officers mentioned in

column(2) of the Table, being the officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be Estate

Officers for the purpose under the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed,

on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction, in respect of the

public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column(4) of the Table below:

TABLE

Sl. No.

Name & Designation of the

Officer

Zone

Local limits as per States indicated

Sh. Ajay Kumar Soni, Chief

Admn. Officer, IARI, Pusa,

New Delhi.

North

Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Jammu &

Kashmir,

Himachal

Pradesh,

Chandigarh

and

Uttrakhand.

Sh. Dilip Roy, Chief Admn.

Officer (Sr. Grade), IARI,

Hazaribagh.

East & North

East

Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Sikkim,

Meghalaya, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland,

Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, A&N Islands.

Sh.

Hareesh

Nair,

Chief

Admn. Officer (Sr. Grade),

CMFRI, Kochi.

South

Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Pondicherry,

Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Karnataka, Lakshadweep.

Sh. Abhishek Yadav, Chief

Admn.

Officer,

CIAE,

Bhopal.

West

Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan,

Chhattisgarh, Daman & Diu.

[F. No. 17/11/1995- E&M]

K. K. GUITE, Director

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2024

का.आ. 813.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj गोिूर कोजलयरी ऑफ़ बी सी सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

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

सि - Je U;k;ky;] िनबाि-I ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

04@2011) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@02@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012/07/2010 -vkbZ-vkj-lh.एम-I]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, 19th April, 2024

S.O. 813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Godhur Colliery of BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 22/02/2024.

[No. L-20012/07/2010 – IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT (No. 1),

DHANBAD.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer / Link Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C. (No. 1), Dhanbad.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 04 OF 2011

PARTIES: Sheo Charan Bhuia

Vs.

Management of Godhur Colliery of BCCL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1769

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

None.

For the Management of BCCL:

None.

INDUSTRY:

Coal

STATE:

Jharkhand.

Dated:

19.01.2024

AWARD

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

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

OrderNo. L-20012/07/2010-IR(C-I) dated 18.02.2011has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Godhur Colliery of Kusunda Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Godhur Colliery of Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL in alleged illegal

incompatible and unjustified dismissal of Sri Sheo Charan Bhuia, M/Loader is fair and justified? To what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

On receiving Order No. L-20012/07/2010-IR(C-I) dated 18.02.2011 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 04 of 2011was registered on

08.03.2011.As none appeared Notice was issued to both parties directing them to appear and take proper steps in

support of their claims.

The Reference case is fixed up today for appearance of the parties. On repeated calls at 12.50 pm none

appeared for both theparties. The regular Presiding Officer has retired from service. I am incharge as Presiding

Officer / Link Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court (No. 1), Dhanbad.

It appears that the parties are not interested to proceed with the case as they have taken no steps after

issuance Notice. Industrial Dispute is therefore dismissed for default.A No Dispute Award be drawn up.

Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2024

का.आ. 814.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती के. स्ट्वप्ना के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 197/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया

गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-17012/99/2014 -vkbZ-vkj- (एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2024

S.O. 814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 197/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to LIC of India and Smt. K. Swapna which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 01.05.2024.

[No. L-17012/99/2014 – IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

1770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 19^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 197/2014

Between:

Smt. K. Swapna,

C/o Bandi Srinivas,

H.No.11-62, Papannapalli (V),

Bejjanki, 4 Karimnagar Dist..

Karimnagar (A.P.)

..….Petitioner

AND

The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India, Zonal Office,

Opp. Secretariat,

Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divl. Office,

Karimnagar(AP) – 505001.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: Sri M. Madhusudhan, Advocate

For the Responden

: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 99/2014-IR(M) dated 8.8.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of LIC of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Hyderabad /

Divisional Office, Karimnagar in terminating the services after crossing 240 days continuous service of Smt.

K. Swapna, Ex-Temp. Substaff LIC of India, Divisional Office, Karimnagar Br. w.e.f 1.2.2013 is justified

not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 197/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner remained absent. Petitioner did not adduce any

evidence in support of her claim statement despite sufficient opportunity provided to her. The claim statement filed

by the Petitioner has not been substantiated by any evidence. Further, from the perusal of the claim statement, it is

found that it has not been signed or verified by the Petitioner applicant. In view of the above, the claim petition

being defective and even not substantiated by any evidence is liable to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed, a ‘No claim’

award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the

19^th day of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1771

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2024

का.आ. 815.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री जपत्तला रमेि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 196/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया

[la- ,y-17012/112/2014 -vkbZ-vkj- (एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2024

S.O. 815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 196/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to LIC of India and Shri Pittala Ramesh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 01.05.2024.

[No. L-17012/112/2014 – IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 19^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 196/2014

Between:

Sri Pittala Ramesh,

H. No. 9-16 (V) Raghavapoor,

P.O: Annaram, (M) Manakondur,

Karimnagar Dist..

Karimnagar (A.P.)

..….Petitioner

AND

The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India, Zonal Office,

Opp. Secretariat,

Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divl. Office,

Karimnagar(AP) – 505001.

… Respondents

Appearances:

1772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Petitioner

: Sri M. Madhusudhan, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 112/2014-IR(M) dated 11.8.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of LIC of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Hyderabad/

Divisional Office, Karimnagar in terminating the services after crossing 240 days continuous service of

Sri P. Ramesh, Ex-Temp. Substaff LIC of India, Divisional Office, Karimnagar Br. w.e.f 1.2.2013 is

justified not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 196/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner remained absent. Petitioner did not adduce any

evidence in support of his claim statement despite sufficient opportunity provided to him. The claim statement filed

by the Petitioner has not been substantiated by any evidence. Further, from the perusal of the claim statement, it is

found that it has not been signed or verified by the Petitioner applicant. In view of the above, the claim petition

being defective and even not substantiated by any evidence is liable to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed, a ‘No claim’

award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the 19^th

day of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2024

का.आ. 816.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री टी. रजव के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 93/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया

[la- ,y-17012/13/2014 -vkbZ-vkj- (एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2024

S.O. 816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 93/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

LIC of India and Shri T. Ravi which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

01.05.2024.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1773

[No. L-17012/13/2014 – IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23^rd day of February, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 93/2014

Between:

Sri T. Ravi,

S/o Veeraju,

D. No. 85-11-3/1, Srinagar,

Rajahmundry.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Branch Manager,

LIC of India,

Rajahmundry Rural Branch,

E.G. Dist. A.P..

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,

Rajahmundry.

…

Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: Sri V. V. Rama Krishna, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 13/2014-IR(M) dated 12.5.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of LIC of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the removal from service of Sri T. Ravi, Ex-Temp. Class-IV LIC of India, Rajahmundry Rural

Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2023 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 93/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner remained absent. Record reveals that Petitioner is not

attending proceedings since the year 2018. Despite sufficient number of opportunities have been provided to him, he

has not filed any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, for the want of evidence a ‘No claim’ award is

passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the 23^rd day

of February, 2024.

1774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2024

का.आ. 817.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िेख अब्िुल्ला के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 195/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया

[la- ,y-17012/113/2014 -vkbZ-vkj- (एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2024

S.O. 817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 195/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to LIC of India and Shri Shaik Abdullah which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 01.05.2024.

[No. L-17012/113/2014 – IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 19^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 195/2014

Between:

Sri Shaik Abdullah,

H.No. 4-72, Molangoor(V)

Keshavapatnam(M)

Karimnagar Dist..

Karimnagar (A.P.)

..….Petitioner

AND

The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India, Zonal Office,

Opp. Secretariat,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1775

Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divl. Office,

Karimnagar(AP) – 505001.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: Sri M. Madhusudhan, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 113/2014-IR(M) dated 11.8.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of LIC of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Hyderabad /

Divisional Office, Karimnagar in terminating the services after crossing 240 days continuous service of Sri

Shaik Abdullah, Ex-Temp. Substaff LIC of India, Divisional Office, Karimnagar Br. w.e.f 1.2.2013 is

justified not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 195/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner remained absent. Petitioner did not adduce any

evidence in support of his claim statement despite sufficient opportunity provided to him. The claim statement filed

by the Petitioner has not been substantiated by any evidence. Further, from the perusal of the claim statement, it is

found that it has not been signed or verified by the Petitioner applicant. In view of the above, the claim petition

being defective and even not substantiated by any evidence is liable to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed, a ‘No claim’

award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the 19^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2024

का.आ. 818.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री श्री िी. संपत कुमार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 217/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-17012/120/2014 -vkbZ-vkj- (एम)]

1776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2024

S.O. 818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 217/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to LIC of India and Sri G. Sampath Kumar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 01.05.2024.

[No. L-17012/120/2014 – IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 19th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 217/2014

Between:

Sri G. SampathKumar,

H.No.8-7-277, Hanuman Nagar,

Karimnagar Dist..

Karimnagar(AP) – 505001.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India, Zonal Office,

Opp. Secretariat,

Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divl. Office,

Karimnagar(AP) – 505001.

…

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri M. Madhusudhan, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 120/2014-IR(M) dated 9.10.2014 referred the

following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of LIC of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Hyderabad/

Divisional Office, Karimnagar in terminating the services after crossing 240 days continuous service of

Sri G. Sampath Kumar, Ex-Temp. Substaff LIC of India, Divisional Office, Karimnagar Br. w.e.f 1.2.2013

is justified not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 217/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1777

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner remained absent. Record reveals that Petitioner is not

attending proceedings since last number of dates of hearing. It seems he do not want to prosecute his case. Perused

the record. Since the claim of the Petitioner is not substantiated by any evidence of Petitioner, despite a sufficient

number of opportunity already granted to him, therefore, for the want of evidence a ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the 19th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 819.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad 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; tcyiqj ds iapkV (20/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12011/07/2015 -vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 20/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/07/2015 – IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/20/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sanghthan,

F-1, Karambhoomi, Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College, Ujjain (MP)

Workman

VERSUS

The Assistant General Manager,

Region-3, State Bank of India,RBO,

5 Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (MP)

1778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 13^Th day of December-2023.)

As per letter dated 13/02/2015 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-

12011/07/2015(IR(B-I)). The dispute under reference relates to:

"क्या मिासजचव, िैजनक वेतन भोगी कमवचारी संगठन द्वारा श्री रािेि मालवीय के भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक में दिनाक 02.04.2004 से

01.01.2014 तक जनयंत्रणिीन िाखा मगररया जिला िािापुर में कायवरत रिने के िौरान का दिपक्षीय समझौता के अनुसार िेय वेतन

की मांग करना न्यायोजचत िै? यदि िां तो श्री रािेि मालवीय दकस अनुतोष के अजिकारी िै?"

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have

appeared and filed their respect statement of claim/defence.

Admittedly, the workman worked as a daily wager with the Bank and was disengaged later. He was

paid wages as fixed by the state government as minimum wages. His claim is that he should have been paid wages

as per Bipartite settlement whereas according to management this settlement does not cover daily wage casual

workers.

3. I have gone through the ninth Bipartite settlement which is on record. Its perusal shows that it does not

cover daily wagers, hence the workman is held not entitled to the benefits of Bipartite settlement because he was a

daily wager. Hence holding the claim of workman regarding his salary as per term and condition of Bipartite

settlement not tenable, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 13/12/2023

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 820.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad 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; tcyiqj ds iapkV (65/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12012/119/2012 -vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 65/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/119/2012 – IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/65/2013

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Ravindra Kumar Nai,

S/o Shri Ramkishore,

R/o 121, Ward No.1, Vidhyak Colony,

Lavkush Nagar, Laundi, Distt.

Chhatarpur (MP)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1779

Workman

VERSUS

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Laundi Branch,

Distt. Chhatarpur (MP)

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region-III, O/o Regional Business Office,

Peptip Plaza, Sagar Road,

Chhatarpur (MP)-471001

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 12^Th day of February-2024.)

As per letter dated 17/04/2013 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-12012/119/2012 (IR(B-I)) dt. 17/04/2013. The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Laundi Branch Distt. Chhatarpur

(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Ravindra Kumar Nai S/o Ram Kishore, Ex- daily wages

employee w.e.f. 5.10.2010, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

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

duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defence.

Case of the workman, in his statement of claim, is mainly that he was engaged by management as a casual

labour on the post of water man cum messenger, in the year 1995 and worked there. October 5, 2010 , when his

services were dispensed by management without any notice or compensation. It is further , his case that he worked for

more than 240 days in every year, including the year preceding the date of his termination. .The action of

management terminating the services is against section 25F and 2 5G of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, hereinafter

referred to by the word’ ‘the Act.’ The Workman has further stated that after the management terminating the

services, he filed a Writ Petition number 17883/2011, which was decided by High Court of MP at Jabalpur wide order

dated October 19, 2011 directing the management to consider the request of the applicant Workman sympathetically.

The respondent management decided his reputation vide, letter dated December 22, 2011 and refused to reinstate him

disclosing false and fabricated reasons for termination. Accordingly, the workman has prayed, his reinstatement with

back wages and benefits, holding his disengagement against law.

The case of management, as taken in their written statement of defence is mainly that the applicant

Workman was engaged by management as a daily wager casual labour to work to supply water to the management

Bank for its customers. According to management, the applicant was never engaged in any capacity of water man, or

messenger at any time by the management Bank. He was never disengaged by the management Bank from October 5,

2010 as a stated by him. He never completed 240 days in any year, including the year preceding the date of his

terminal alleged termination. He himself left the job and his conduct towards customers was also not good. It is

further, the case of management that the Bank has certain rules regarding recruitment of its employees and the

applicant was never engaged against any regular vacancy following recruitment procedure. According to

management, when ever any work was taken from the applicant Workman, he was paid for it. The management also

states that the workman filed a representation along with the order of Hon’ble High Court dated October 19, 2011, as

mentioned earlier, which was duly considered by management and was rejected keeping in view his earlier. Behavior

with the customers. Accordingly, management has prayed that the reference be answered against the applicant

Workman.

In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by

management. He has also filed photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court, letter of management. Rejecting his

representation which are Ex W1 & W2. He has proved his original Bank passbook as Ex W3.

1780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management has filed the affidavit of its witness Manish Pachori who has been cross-examined from the

side of applicant Workman. Management has proved Ex M1 (149 pages) which are the claims of the applicant

Workman, which he put up for payment. Regarding supply of different cans of water on different dates within the

period 2001, January 1 to March 31^st, 2009.

I have heard argument of learned counsel for the workman, Mr Manoj Chandrarkar and Mr Vijai Kumar

Tripathi, learned counsel for management Bank. I have gone through the record as well.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues come up for determination in the case

in hand. They are as follows –

1- whether the Workman completed 240 days in continuous service of the management in any year,

including the year preceding the date of his termination ?

2- whether the Workman was illegally terminated by management ?

3- whether the Workman is entitled to any relief ?

Issue number one-

Before entering into discussion on this issue. Section 25B of the Act is being reproduced as follows –

Section 25 B:-

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.

In his examination in chief on affidavit on this issue, the workman has stated that he worked as messenger

cum water man from December 23, 1900 95 as a daily wager. He was employed by the then Branch Manager. After

seeking the approval from Headquarter. He worked in different capacities namely properly placing the records of the

Bank on date wise. He was also engaged in the job of attaching slips with the currency note bundles, counting the

notes and preparing the bundles in the Cash room, also acted as messenger for the branch. Taking the different

documents to different Branches of the management Bank and Treasury. He was also engaged in fetching water to the

Bank’s staff and customers. He worked in this capacity for 240 days and more in every year, including the year

preceding the date of his termination. Offices of the branch Next By Have a As a water man cum Messenger to fetch

water and provide drinking water to the customers of the Bank.

He has been cross-examined by management. He has stated in his cross-examination that he was not

sponsored by any Employment Exchange. He was issued an appointment letter which he has missed.He admits that he

did not follow any recruitment procedure. He also admits that there was no vacancy notified for the job. Also, he

admits that the then Branch Manager asked him whether he was willing to work in the Bank and the concerned that

thereafter, he was engaged by the management Bank. Also, he admits that he worked as a daily wager for which he

was paid.

The initial burden to prove the fact that the Workman has worked for a period of 240 days or more is on the

workman who claims it. There is no documentary evidence to support the claim of the workman and his this statement

on oath as referred to above. It comes out from record that the workman filed an application seeking direction to

management to file or regional documents that is the payment vouchers from 1995 to 2010, daily wages. Register

from 2007 to October 5, 2010 and petty cash registers from 1999 to 2006. This application dated July 28, 2014 was

disposed by my Learned Predecessor in the light of objections of management Bank wide his order dated May 14,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1781

2015. The management was directed to produce payment vouchers only keeping in view the case of management that

the other two documents had been weeded out as per rules. The management did file the claims filed by the

Workman, with the management for payment which are 149 in number and are marked Ex M1. They are from 2001

to March 2009. Perusal of these documents reveals that the Workman filed applications for payment of supply of cans

of water different in number on different days. Hence, this document also does not support the case of the applicant

Workman on his regular engagement for 240 days in any year, rather these documents show that the applicant

Workman was supplying water to the management Bank for which he laid claims and was paid. On the other hand,

management witness has supported the claim of management on this issue. He has been cross-examined from the

Workman side. There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit him.

Hence, on the basis of above discussion, the claim of the applicant Workman that he worked with the

management, in any capacity for a period of 240 days and more in any year, including the year preceding the

date of his termination is held not proved and issue number one is answered accordingly.

Issue number two-

Section 25F and 25G of the Act are being reproduced as follows –

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 2[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 3[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.

In the light of findings recorded in issue number one, the disengagement of the applicant Workman is held

not unjustified in law and this issue is answered accordingly.

Issue number three -

On the basis of findings recorded on issue number one and two, the applicant Workman is held entitled to

know relief and this issue is answered accordingly.

In the light of the findings recorded till now, the reference is answered against the Workman.

AWARD

The action of management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Ravindra Kumar Nai

with effect from October 5, 2010 is a held legal and justified and the Workman is held entitled to no relief.

No order as to cost.

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: 12/02/2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 821.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

िॉक कैंटीन सीएसडी िंकरगढ़ 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; tcyiqj ds iapkV (83/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024 -vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)-156]

1782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 83/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Hawk Canteen CSD

Shankargarh and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2024 – IR (B-I)-156]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/83/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Raghuvir Singh S/o. Mulu Dhanak,

Ex-Gardener, Resident C/o. Shri Shyamlal U.K.,

House Number 13, Shivram Complex,

Behind Nobel College, Rajakhedi, Makronia,

Saugor (Madhya Pradesh )

Workman

VERSUS

The J.C.O. (Col.), Office Incharge,

Hawk Canteen, CSD, Shankargarh,

Saugor (Madhya Pradesh)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 18^Thday of January 2024.)

As per letter dated 10/12/2019 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 reference number J-1(2-8)/2019-IR

dt.10/12/2019 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"क्या प्रबंधतंत्र जे.सी.ओ. (कर्नल) आफिसइंचाजन, हाककेन्टीर्, सीएसडी, शंकरगढ, सागर म०प्र० के प्रबंधर् व्दारा

श्री रघुवीर फसंह आत् मज श्री मुलू, धार्क, भूतपूवन माली/हाउसकीपर को वर्न 1990 से कार्न पर रखे जार्े पश्चात् उसकी

सेवाएं फर्र्फमत र् करते हुर्े फदर्ांक 31.03.2019 से सेवाएं समाप्त फकर्े जार्े की कार्नवाही न्यार्ोफचत है? र्फद र्हीं तो,

संबंफधत आवेदक फकत अर्ुतोर् के हकदार है?"

1. After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were issued to the parties and where

duly served on them.

2. The Workman appeared and filed his statement of claim, wherein he stated that he was first engaged with the

management as a gardener in the year 1990 and has been continuously working with management till March

31, 2019, when his services were dispensed with by management without any notice or compensation.

According to the workman he was paid his wages on monthly basis, along with the increased wages and also

bonus during this period, the management started the Civil employee welfare fund account of the workman

in the year 2018 . The management did deposit amount in his this account after deducting from his wages.

He was being paid wages, at the rate of Rs. 9000/- per month when he was disengaged by management on

March 31, 2019. According to the workman. He has worked continuously with management for 27 years and

has been unjustly disengaged, which is in violation of section 25F, 25G 25H and 25N of Industrial Disputes

‘Act’ 1947, hereinafter referred to by the word ‘Act’. He raised a dispute in this respect, in which

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1783

conciliation between the parties failed and hence this reference, the workman has a accordingly sought the

relief of his reinstatement with all back wages and benefits, holding his disengagement against the ‘Act’.

3. The management filed its appearance, but never filed any written statement of defense. Letter on the

management absented itself in the proceedings. Hence, the reference proceeded ex parte against management

wide order dated September 1, 2022.

4. In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit corroborating his case, which is uncontroverted. He further filed

some original and photocopy documents with affidavit. No evidence in form of any affidavit filed by

management.

5. At this stage of argument also, none was present for management. Hence I have heard argument of the

workman in person. I have also gone through the record.

6. The reference itself is the issue in this case, for determination

Before proceeding, following provisions require to be mentioned here which are as follows-

7. 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 year;

(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.]

8. 25F- Conditions precedent for retrenchment- 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

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]

1784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. In his uncontroverted affidavit, the workman has corroborated his case as mentioned above. He has thus

discharged the initial burden to prove his claim. In absence of any evidence from the side of management, there

is no occasion to disbelieve the case of the workman. Accordingly, holding the case of the workman proved his

disengagement is held in violation of the ‘Act’.

10. In the light of findings recorded above, the question arises here as to what relief the Workman is entitled. The

engagement of the workman from 1990 to 2019 as a casual labour has been held proved. He has sought the relief

of his reinstatement.

11. Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak

Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 are being reproduced as follows-

This extract is taken from Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10

SCC 324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 719 at page 354

37. After noticing several precedents to which reference has been made hereinabove, the two-Judge Bench

observed : (J.K. Synthetics case [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651] , SCC pp. 448-50, para’s 17-21)

“17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, ‘continuity of service’ and

‘consequential benefits’ should follow, as a matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting several

promotions as a ‘consequential benefit’ to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not

have the benefit of necessary experience for discharging the higher duties and functions of promotional

posts, is seldom visualised while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever courts or tribunals

direct reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the fact’s and circumstances to decide whether

‘continuity of service’ and/or ‘consequential benefits’ should also be directed.

18. Coming back to back wages, even if the court finds it necessary to award back wages, the question

will be whether back wages should be awarded fully or only partially (and if so the percentage). That

depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Any income received by the employee during the

relevant period on account of alternative employment or business is a relevant factor to be taken note of

while awarding back wages, in addition to the several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh [Haryana

Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 716] and Uday Narain Pandey [U.P. State

Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 250] . Therefore, it is

necessary for the employee to plead that he was not gainfully employed from the date of his termination.

While an employee cannot be asked to prove the negative, he has to at least assert on oath that he was neither

employed nor engaged in any gainful business or venture and that he did not have any income. Then the

burden will shift to the employer. But there is, however, no obligation on the terminated employee to search

for or secure alternative employment. Be that as it may.

19. But

the

cases

referred

above,

where

back

wages

were

awarded,

termination/retrenchment which were held to be illegal and invalid for non-compliance with statutory

requirements or related to cases where the Court found that the termination was motivated or amounted to

victimisation. The decisions relating to back wages payable on illegal retrenchment or termination may have

no application to the case like the present one, where the termination (dismissal or removal or compulsory

retirement) is by way of punishment for misconduct in a departmental enquiry, and the court confirms the

finding regarding misconduct, but only interferes with the punishment being of the view that it is excessive,

and awards a lesser punishment, resulting in the reinstatement of employee. Where the power under Article

226 or Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes ‘Act’ (or any other similar provision) is exercised by any

court to interfere with the punishment on the ground that it is excessive and the employee deserves a lesser

punishment, and a consequential direction is issued for reinstatement, the court is not holding that the

employer was in the wrong or that the dismissal was illegal and invalid. The court is merely exercising its

discretion to award a lesser punishment. Till such power is exercised, the dismissal is valid and in force.

When the punishment is reduced by a court as being excessive, there can be either a direction for

reinstatement or a direction for a nominal lump sum compensation. And if reinstatement is directed, it can be

effective either prospectively from the date of such substitution of punishment (in which event, there is no

continuity of service) or retrospectively, from the date on which the penalty of termination was imposed (in

which event, there can be a consequential direction relating to continuity of service). What requires to be

noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as

contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is no automatic

reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date

of termination. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither

back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary

consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is

itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1785

period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing

the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided.

Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of

pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc.

20. But there are two exceptions. The first is where the court sets aside the termination as a consequence

of employee being exonerated or being found not guilty of the misconduct. Second is where the court

reaches a conclusion that the inquiry was held in respect of a frivolous issue or petty misconduct, as a

camouflage to get rid of the employee or victimise him, and the disproportionately excessive punishment is a

result of such scheme or intention. In such cases, the principles relating to back wages, etc. will be the same

as those applied in the cases of an illegal termination.

21. In this case, the Labour Court found that a charge against the employee in respect of a serious

misconduct was proved. It, however, felt that the punishment of dismissal was not warranted and therefore,

imposed a lesser punishment of withholding the two annual increments. In such circumstances, award of

back wages was neither automatic nor consequential. In fact’, back wages was not warranted at all.”

38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is

the normal rule.

38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating

authority or the court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of

misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and

similar other factors.

38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the

Industrial Disputes ‘Act’, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is

consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment

was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back

wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty

of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award

of full back wages.

38.5. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation

of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising the employee or

workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In

such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and

interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a

different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation

to pay the same. The courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,

the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a

premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his

dues in the form of full back wages.

38.6. In a number of cases, the superior courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory

authority on the premise that finalisation of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the

parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay

in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to

an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the

termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The courts should bear in mind that in

most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can

avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer i.e. the employee or workman, who

can ill-afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it

would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees [Hindustan Tin

Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] .

38.7. The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC

(L&S) 651] that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is

contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three-Judge Benches [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees,

(1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] , [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good

law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Workman is held entitled to be reinstated in the same

capacity in position in which he was working before his disengagement, but without back wages. He is also held

1786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

entitled to Rs 10000/- as litigation cost, to be paid by management to him within 30 days from the date of publication,

failing which interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

The reference is answered accordingly.

AWARD

The Workman is held entitled to be reinstated in the same capacity in position in which he was working before his

disengagement, but without back wages. He is also held entitled to Rs 10000/- as litigation cost, to be paid by

management to him within 30 days from the date of publication, failing which interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 18/01/2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 822.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

डी.एम.आर.सी. सीसी-02 पररयोिना, सेक्टर-18, रोजिणी दिल्ली; िे. कुमार इंफ्राप्रोिेक्ट जलजमटेड, सीवेि पंशपंग स्ट्टेिन,

रोजिणी सेक्टर-19, दिल्ली; िे. कुमार इंफ्राप्रोिेक्ट जलजमटेड.16-ए, अंिेरी इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, वीरा िेसाई रोड, अंिेरी

(डब्ल्यू), मुंबई, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और (आई.डी. नं. 110/2015, श्री आलोक नंिन िमाव),

(आई.डी. नं. 113/2015,श्री िरनेल शसंि), और (आईडी नंबर 114/2015, श्री दिनेि कुमार शसंि), कामगार, द्वारा -

राष्ट्रीय मििूर संघ, िाििरा, दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम

न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभव संख्या 110,113 & 114 OF 2015) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया

िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 28.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-42025-07/2024 -67-vkbZ-vkj- (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 110,113 & 114 OF 2015) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to D.M.R.C. CC-02 project, Sector-18,Rohini Delhi ; J. Kumar Infraproject Ltd., Sewage

pumping station, Rohini Sector-19, Delhi ;J. Kumar Infraproject Ltd.16-A, Andheri Industrial Estate, Veera

Desai

Road,

Andheri

(W),

Mumbai,

and

(I.D.

No.

110/2015,

Shri

Alok

Nandan

Sharma),

(I.D. No. 113/2015, Shri Jarnel Singh), and (I.D. No. 114/2015,Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh), Worker, Through-

Rashtriya Majdoor Shang, Shahdara, Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 28.04.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024 -67– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 110/2015

Sh. Alok Nandan Sharma, S/o Sh. Dev Nandan Sharma,

Through- Rashtriya Majdoor Sangh,

157, Partap Khand Vishwakarma Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi- 110095.

I.D. No. 113/2015

Sh. Jarnel Singh, S/o Sh. Seva Singh,

Through Rashtriya Majdoor Shang,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1787

157, Partap Khand Vishwakarma Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi -110095

I.D. No. 114/2015

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Ishwer Dayal Singh

Through Rashtriya Majdoor Shang,

157, Partap Khand Vishwakarma Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi -110095

VERSUS

1. D.M.R.C. Cc-02 project,

Sector-18,

Rohini Delhi -110042

2. J. Kumar Infraproject Ltd., Sewage

pumping station, Rohini Sector-19,

Delhi-110085

3. J. Kumar Infraproject Ltd.

16-A, Andheri Industrial Estate, Veera

Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-40053,

India

AWARD

These are the three cases filed by the different workmen against the same managements. Having

common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for purpose of recording the

proceedings.

Record perused. On last date of hearing, statement of both AR for the workman as well as for M-2 had

been recorded that the matter has been settled between the parties for Rs. 50,000/- to each of the workmen. As

counsel for management-2 sought time for confirmation of payment, matter was listed for today. AR for the

workman confirmed that payment has been received through cheque in their accounts.

In view of the above said facts, claim of the workmen stands satisfied against M-2 and they have

nothing to do with their claim against M-1 & M-2. Settlement award is passed accordingly. Copies of this

award are sent to the appropriate government for notification as required U/S 17 of the ID act 1947. Files are

consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 16^th April, 2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 823.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

क्वाजलटी असेसमेंट लैबोरेरीि, नरेला, दिल्ली; मैससव एवेंिर जसक्योररटी,न्यू पटेल नगर, मेरो अस्ट्पताल के पास, नई दिल्ली,

के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और (आई.डी. नं. 198/2018, श्री िगबीर शसंि), (आई.डी. नं. 199/2018, श्री संिीप

कुमार), कामगार, द्वारा- ऑल इंजडया िनरल कामगार यूजनयन, िकरपुर, दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभव संख्या 198 & 199 OF 2018) को िैसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 28.04.2024 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[la- ,y-42025-07/2024 -68-vkbZ-vkj- (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

1788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.O. 823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 198 & 199 OF 2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Quality Evaluation Laboratories, Narela, Delhi; M/s. Avenger Security, New Patel

Nagar, Near Metro Hospital, New Delhi, and (I.D. No. 198/2018, Shri Jagbir Singh), (I.D. No. 199/2018, Shri

Sandeep Kumar), Worker, Through- All India General Kamgar Union, Shakarpur, Delhi, which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 28.04.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024 -68– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 198/2018

Sh. Jagbir Singh, S/o Sh. Girwar Singh

Address:- R/o House no.- P-11, Gandhi Ashram Pana Paposian, Narela,

Delhi- 110040.

Through- All India General Kamgar Union,

U-90, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.

I.D. No. 199/2018

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Mange Ram,

R/o- 59, Nai Basti Pana, Mamoor Pur, Delhi- 110040.

Through- All India General Kamgar Union,

U-90, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.

VERSUS

Quality Evaluation Laboratories,

Spice Board, Plot No.- 5, Sector- 7,

Near Ramleela Ground- Narela, Delhi- 110040.

M/s. Avenger Security

2151/3A/2A, Ground Floor, New Patel Nagar,

Near Metro Hospital, New Delhi-110008.

AWARD

These are the two cases U/S 2A of the I.D Act filed by the different workmen against the same management.

Having common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for disposal of these cases.

Claims of the claimants are that they were appointed by the management at the post of Security Guards and

clerk through management-2 at their last drawn salary of Rs. 7000/- and 10920/- respectively. They have honestly

worked with the management and no complaints of any kind were made of them. The management, as established

practice, obtained signatures on several papers as a precondition (eligibility) to get service from the entire working

staff without any exception. If someone ignores to do so the management disallowed and disqualified him as an

aspirant of service. During the services, management was not maintaining the muster roll, service record and not

providing the legal benefits in terms of grant by Delhi Administration like minimum wages, Provident Fund, Bonus

etc. The management also grabs signatures in the name of providing Provident Fund every year. When the workmen

reached at his workplace and requested the management to provide the minimum wages, as they are facing enormous

trouble to face the spirally-price-rise but the management threatened the workmen. When workmen reached the

workplace they were terminated from their services by the management on 28.02.2018 and 01.02.2018 respectively.

They send the demand notice to the management to take them on duty, but the management denied. They had sent the

complaint to the labour commissioner, but, it has yielded no result. Hence, They have filed the present claims.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1789

Management-1 had filed the W.S and it had denied the relationship of an employer and employee. It is his

case that management-1 had entered into agreement with management-2 from 1^st December, 2016 to 30^th November,

2017 for providing one cleaner, two clerks, one electrician and two cleaners at the office of the respondent-1.

Workmen were directed to furnish the correct address of the management-2, but they had not furnished.

Therefore, the proceeding against management-2 is hereby dropped.

Issues have already been framed vide order dated 17.09.2019. After framing the issues, no one appeared on

behalf of both the parties. Even, workmen have not appeared to substantiate their claims.

In these circumstances when the workmen have not led any evidence to substantiate their claims, their claims

are resulted into dismissal. Their claim stand dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. Copies of these awards are sent

to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. Files are consigned to record room. A

copy of this order is placed in each of the file.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

09^th April, 2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 824.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एनटीपीसी जलजमटेड, एनटीपीसी भवन, लोिी रोड, नई दिल्ली; एनटीपीसी जलजमटेड (सीएमडी) गेस्ट्ट िाउस, नीजत बाग,

नई दिल्ली; आर.एस. सुरक्षा एिेंसी, मिावीर जविार, द्वारका, सेक्टर-01, नई दिल्ली; 3061/संिय कुमार सुरक्षा एिेंसी,

कल्याणपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री नंिन शसंि रौतेला, कामगार, द्वारा- समस्ट्त दिल्ली

कमवचारी संघ, दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली

पंचाट (संिभव संख्या 94 OF 2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 28.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-42025-07/2024 -69-vkbZ-vkj- (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 94 OF 2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to NTPC Ltd. NTPC Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi ; NTPC Ltd. (CMD) Guest House, Niti Bagh,

New Delhi; R.S. Security Agency, Mahaveer Vihar, Dwarka, Sector-01,New Delhi ;3061/Sanjay Kumar

Security Agency, Kalyanpuri,New Delhi, and Shri Nandan Singh Routela, Worker, Through- Samast Delhi

Karamchari Union, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 28.04.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024 -69– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 94/2019

Sh. Nandan Singh Routela

Through-Samast Delhi Karamchari Union,

Affiliated to Rashtriya Mazdoor Singh, 52-C, Okhla Estate,

Phase-III, New Delhi-110020.

VERSUS

NTPC Ltd. NTPC Bhawan, Scope Complex, 7 Insitutional Area,

1790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. NTPC Ltd. (CMD) Guest House, House No.- A5 Niti Bagh New Delhi-110049.

1. R.S. Security Agency, RZ-C-76, Mahaveer Vihar, Dwarka Sector-01,

New Delhi-110076.

2. 3061/Sanjay Kumar Security Agency,

B.D. – 40, DSIDC Complex, Kalyanpuri,

New Delhi-110091.

AWARD

This is the case filed by the workman against the management U/S 2A of the I.D Act. This case is taken for

disposal.

Claimant case is that he was appointed as Security Guard with the management at the last drawn salary of

Rs. 21,537/- per month. He did his duty with sincerity and honestly and did not give any chance to complain to

anyone. Management-1 had appointed them through management-4 and this fact has been opposed by the claimant.

Only for this reason management had terminated his service on 11.08.2017, after stopping his wages for two month

i.e. from 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017. He had sent the demand letter to the management by speed post on 24.09.2018

with the request to take them on duty, however,

management did not take him on duty. He had also filed his claim with the Assistant Labour commissioner,

but, there also nothing was yielded. Hence, he filed the claim here with the request that his termination be declared

illegal and he be taken back on duty with full back wages.

Respondents have appeared and filed their respective W.S. Mangement-1 & 2 have denied the relationship of

employer and employee. It is his case that management-1 & 2 had entered into agreement dated 01.04.2017 with

Sanjay Kumar Security Agency i.e. Respondent-4 for providing security/surveillance and allied services to NTPC

during the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2019. The management-1 & 2 never got any papers or vouchers, etc. signed

from the claimants.

Respondents no.-3 is already proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.10.2019.

The establishment of the management-4 is a law abiding and always works within the frameworks and

guidelines as prescribed by Directorate General Resettlement Ministry of Defence (DGR). The leveling allegation

against the Security Agency are baseless as the establishment has always maintained an attendance sheet, leave book

and salary/wages register. Furthermore all the guards are issued identity cards as per guidelines. The

establishment/Agency is registered with DGR and is bound only to deploy Ex-Army personnel. It has been

specifically mentioned in the guidelines by the management-2 that only 10% civilians are allowed to be deployed by

the agencies who secures the contract. It is submitted that NTPC had abolished few post for security deployment

when the notice was served to the petitioners they had denied to accept the same and therefore on their part the

security agency had sent the notice to the registered addresses of the petitioner by post. Petitioners wanted to

voluntarily withdraw the PF and for that purpose he gave their handwritten resignation letter. Since the post of

security guards were decreased by the principal employer. Management-2 has always provided all types of prescribed

benefits like salaries, wages, bonus, HRA etc. every month through cheques to all his employees. Respondent-2

deployed claimants for requisite services. He submits that claims of the claimants qua him be dismissed.

Issues have already been framed vide letter dated 16.03.2020. As per record, for the last four year, workman

has not led any evidence to prove his claim. Hence, his evidence stands closed.

In these circumstances when the workman has not led any evidence to substantiate his claim, his claim is

resulted into dismissal. His claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to record room. A

Copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is

consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

03^rd April, 2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1791

का.आ. 825.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

जनिेिक, भारती एयरटेल जलजमटेड, नई दिल्ली; जनिेिक, भारती एयरटेल सर्ववसेि जलजमटेड, सुल्तानपुर, नई दिल्ली;

ठेकेिार, अल्काटेल ल्यूसेंट नेटवकव सर्ववसेि इंजडया जलजमटेड डीएलएफ साइबर ग्रीन जसटी, चरण 3, गुड़गांव, के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और (आईडी नंबर 15/2014, श्री जवनोि कुमार), (आईडी नंबर 17/2014, श्री िाजिि खान), कामगार,

के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभव

संख्या 15& 17 OF 2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 28.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-42025-07/2024 -70-vkbZ-vkj- (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15 & 17 OF 2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The Director, Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi; The Director, Bharti Airtel Services

Ltd.,Sultanpur, New Delhi ; The Contractor ,Alcatel Lucent Network Services India Ltd., DLF Cyber Green

City, Phase 3, Gurgaon, and (I.D. No. 15/2014, Shri Vinod Kumar), (I.D. No. 17/2014, Shri Shahid Khan),

Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 28.04.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024 -70– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 15/2014

Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh. Ramgopal,

L-179, Camp No.-3,

Nangloi,

New Delhi- 110041

I.D. No. 17/2014

Sh. Shahid Khan,

T-378, Mangolpuri,

New Delhi,

New Delhi-110083

VERSUS

1. The Director

Bharti Airtel Ltd.

Plot no. 224, Okhla Industrial Estate

Phase-3, New Delhi-110020

2. The Director

Bharti Airtel Services Ltd.

Corporate Centre, Neelgagan Mandi,

Sultanpur, New Delhi-110030

1792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The Contractor

Alcatel Lucent Network Services India Ltd.

15^th Floor, Tower-C, DLF Cyber Green City,

Phase 3, Gurgaon-12206

AWARD

Government of India, Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralya has sent the two references in regard to the two

workmen dated 17.02.2014 and 10.02.2014 to this tribunal for adjudication. Both the references have been similarly

worded in the following words:

“Whether the transfer of the workmen from one parent company i.e. Bharti Comtel Ltd. To Telesonic

Network Ltd. Through Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. and Alkatel Lusent Network management Services

India Ltd. within a span of 07 years without explaining any purpose and reasoning to the workman

Sh. Shahid Khan and Vinod Kumar are just Fair and Legal? If not, what relief the workmen concerned

are entitled to ?

After receiving the said reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Both parties had appeared.

Claimants had filed their claim statement before this tribunal.

Respondent had filed the reply and denied the employer and employee relationship between the workman and

him.

Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimants to the W.S of the management wherein, he had denied the

averment made by the management and affirmed the averment made in the claim. Issues have already been framed

vide letter dated 08.11.2016. Since for the last eight year workmen have not led any evidence to prove their claims.

Finally vide order dated 18.04.2023, their right to adduce evidence was closed by this tribunal.

In these circumstances when the workmen have not led any evidence to substantiate their claims, their claims

are resulted into dismissal. Their claim stand dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. Copies of these awards are sent

to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. Files are consigned to record room. A copy

of this order is placed in each of the file.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

02^nd April, 2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 826.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

रजिस्ट्रार, दिल्ली जवश्वजवद्यालय, दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रजव कुमार, कामगार , द्वारा -

मिासजचव, दिल्ली मििूर संघ, तीस ििारी, दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-

सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट (संिभव संख्या 18 OF 2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित

करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 28.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-42025-07/2024 -71-vkbZ-vkj- (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18 OF 2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Registrar, University of Delhi, Delhi, and Shri Ravi Kumar, Worker, Through- The General

Secretary, Delhi Labour Union,Tis Hazari, Delhi,, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 28.04.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024 -71– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 18/2019

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1793

Sh. Ravi Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Mahavir Prasad,

Through- General Secretary, Delhi Labour Union,

Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari,

Delhi- 110006.

VERSUS

The Registrar,

University of Delhi, Delhi- 110007.

AWARD

The Deputy Director, Sh. Rajendra Joshi has sent the reference refer dated 10.01.2019 to this tribunal for

adjudication in the following words:

“Whether the claimant Sh. Ravi Kumar son of Mahavir Prasad is entitled for

employment on compassionate ground with the management of University of

Delhi? If yes, what direction are necessary in this respect?”

After receiving the above said reference notices were sent to both the parties. Both the parties appeared and

claimant had filed his claim statement mentioning the fact that Sh. Mahavir Prasad (now deceased) joined into the

employment of the management as Sanitary Guide and he was regular employee with the management. He was lastly

posted as Sanitary Guide at South Delhi Campus and he expired on 21.03.2007 due to cancer leaving behind the

following heir that is given below:-

Name

Relation

1. Smt. Ram Rati

Wife (expired on 20.08.2011)

2. Smt. Sita, W/o Sri Om

Daughter

3. Rita, W/o Sh. Sant ram

Daughter

4. Smt. Poonam, W/o Sh. Anil

Daughter

5. Ravi Kumar

Son

After the death of Sh. Mahavir Prasad, the workman namely Sh. Ravi Kumar who is son of late Sh. Mahavir Prasad

approached the management regarding his appointment on compassionate ground. After long persuasion, the

management issued a letter dated 15.02.2013 to Sh. Ravi Kumar in which he was informed that his interview will be

taken on 21.02.2013 regarding his appointment on compassionate ground. On 21.02.2013 Sh. Ravi Kumar appeared

and his interview was taken by the management but he had not been informed about the position regarding his

appointment on compassionate ground. That as such till date the management has not done anything on the request of

the workman for his appointment. The said action on the part of the management is totally illegal, bad, unjust,

malafide. The deceased workman was the sole bread earner in the family and after his death, he left behind his family

in total harness. The applicant workman Mr. Ravi Kumar is totally unemployed. The demand notice was also served

upon the management by Regd. AD vide communication dated 16.08.2017 which was duly received in their office,

but no reply has been received and it is presumed that the demand has been rejected. He had gone to the conciliation

officer, but, no result was yielded. Hence he has filed the claim.

W.S has been filed by the management and it had denied the relationship of employer and employee. He

stated that the father of the claimant namely Sh. Mahavir Prasad (now deceased), had joined as a Sanitary guide at

South campus, Delhi University on 08.08.2003 and has unfortunately expired on 21.03.2007 as informed by his wife

namely Smt. Ramrati vide her letter dated 23.04.2007. Though, a letter was received from the claimant in the year

2011, however the same could not be considered as his name was not there in the service records of his father,

however the name of the claimant was added in the service records of the deceased only on 24.02.2012 and the

answering management has never received any request for appointment of the claimant on compassionate ground.

The management has responded vide its reply dated 07.10.2017 to the legal notice dated 16.08.2017 of the workman

in this regard. He says that claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

Issues have already been framed vide order dated 11.02.2020. Workman has filed the affidavit of its

evidence. Thereafter, workman has not been appearing since long to substantiate his claim.

In these circumstances when the workman has not led any evidence to substantiate his claim, his claim is

resulted into dismissal. Claim of the claimant stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A Copy of this award is

1794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 09.04.2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 827.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम (पीई), ओखला चरण-III, नई दिल्ली; अजश्वनी कुमार िुक्ला सुरक्षा एिेंसी (ठेकेिार), सेक्टर -

23, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और (आई.डी. नं. 181/2018, श्री सुनील कुमार), (आई.डी.

नं. 92/2018, श्री कृष्ण शसंि), कामगार, द्वारा - िनरल मििूर रेड यूजनयन, कालकािी, नई दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभव संख्या 181 & 92 OF

2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

28.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-42025-07/2024 -72-vkbZ-vkj- (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 181 & 92 OF 2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to National Small Industries Corporation (PE),Okhla Phase- III, New Delhi; Ashwini

Kumar Shukla Security Agency (Contractor), Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi, and (I.D. No. 181/2018,

Shri Sunil Kumar), (I.D. No. 92/2018, Shri Krishan Singh), Worker, Through- The General Mazdoor Trade

Union, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

28.04.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024 -72– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 181/2018

Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. Shyam Singh

Address:- R/o House no.-D-2, J.J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar,

Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076.

I.D. No. 92/2018

Sh. Krishan Singh, S/o Sh. Roshan Singh,

R/o Village & Post Office- Rajawali,

Thana- Narakhi, District- Firozabad, U.P.

Through- General Mazdoor Trade Union,

Address:- S-195/076, Shiv Mandir, Opp. Old Labour Office,

Balmukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

VERSUS

National Small Industries Corporation (PE),

NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Phase- III, New Delhi-110020.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1795

Ashwini Kumar Shukla Security Agency (Contractor),

House of Rohtas, New Line infront of Holi Chowk,

Village- Puchanpur, Sector-23, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110077.

AWARD

These are the two cases filed by the different workmen against the same management. Having common

respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for disposal of these cases. Claims of the

claimants are that they were appointed by the management at the post of Security Guards at their last drawn salary of

Rs. 21,500/- and 24,900/- respectively. They have honestly worked with the management and no complaints of any

kind were made against them. During the services, management had 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 and had been thrown them out from the services of the management on 10.01.2018

and 30.10.2017 respectively. 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.

Management-1 & 2 had filed their W.S. Management-2 i.e. Ashwini Kumar Shukla Security Agency

(contractor) denied the relationship of employer and employee. Even, Management-1 had submitted that the

applicant/claimant has played a fraud in filing the present false and fabricated documents in order to extort money and

to blackmail the answering parties, hence the claimant is not entitled for any relief and the present claims are liable to

be dismissed.

Rejoinders have been filed by the claimants affirming the facts mentioned in their claim statement and

denied the averments made by the respondents in their respective W.S. After completing the pleadings following

issues have been framed vide order dated 21.12.2018 which are given below:-

If the proceedings is maintainable.

If there exists any employer employee relationship between the workmen and management-1 i.e. NSIC.

If the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with all service benefit and back wages.

To what other relief the parties are entitled to.

In order to substantiate their claims workmen asked to examine themselves at least. Both the workmen had

filed their respective affidavit, however, since for the last four days adjournment had been sought for bringing the

claimants into witness box for the purpose of cross-examination, however AR has failed to bring them before this

tribunal.

In the absence of any cross-examination of the witnesses, it is the legal settled principle that the evidence

should not be read in the cases, because, our country has the adversary system of trial. The cross-examination of the

witness is only the matter available to the respondent or the opposite party to discredit the testimony of the witnesses.

In these circumstances when the workmen have not come forward for cross-examination, their testimony can

not be read in evidence. Their claims are resulted into dismissal. Their claims stand dismissed accordingly. Awards

are passed accordingly. Copies of these awards are sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of

the I.D. Act. Files are consigned to record room. A copy of this order is placed in each of the file.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

08^th April, 2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 828.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

आयुि, उत्तरी दिल्ली नगर जनगम, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री राि कुमार, कामगार, द्वारा -

दिल्ली म्यूजनजसपल मििूर रेड यूजनयन, तीस ििारी, नई दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभव संख्या 161 OF 2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया

[la- ,y-42025-07/2024 -73-vkbZ-vkj- (डीयू)]

1796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 161 OF 2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi, and Shri Raj Kumar, Worker,

Through- Delhi Municipal Mazdoor Trade Union, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 28.04.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024 -73– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 161/2020

Sh. Raj Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Pahal Singh,

Through- Delhi Municipal Mazdoor Trade Union,

B- 40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats Buleward Road

Tis Hazari, Delhi- 110054.

VERSUS

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,

J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi- 110002.

AWARD

The appropriate Government Sh. D. K. Himanshu, Government of India, Ministry of Labour/

ShramMantralya has sent the reference refer dated 15.09.2020 to this tribunal for adjudication in the following words:

“Whether the demand of Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Pahal through Delhi

Municipal Mazdoor Trade Union to the management of North Delhi Municipal

Corporation for regularization in service and salary in the regular pay-scale

from the date of his initial appointment is proper, legal and justified? If yes,

what reliefs the worker are entitled to and what other directions, if any, are

necessary in this regard?”

After receiving the above said reference notices were sent to both the parties. However, neither the claimant

nor the management has appeared. Finally vide order dated 05.08.2022, no disputant award was passed by the

predecessor of this tribunal. Thereafter, on the application of the claimant, no disputant award was set aside vide order

dated 16.01.2023. Only new thing happened is that claim was filed by the claimant. But thereafter, claimant has also

stopped coming to this tribunal. As per record for the last three appearance, nobody has appeared on behalf of any of

the party including the claimant.

In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested to pursue his claim, this tribunal has no option

except to pass the no disputant award. 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.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 04.04.2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 829.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

अध्यक्ष, नई दिल्ली नगर पाजलका पररषि, पार्लवयामेंट स्ट्रीट, नई दिल्ली; मेससव सतकव सुरक्षा सेवाएँ, लािपत नगर -04,

नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री जगरी राि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट (संिभव संख्या 308 OF 2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1797

दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 28.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-42025-07/2024 -74-vkbZ-vkj- (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 308 OF 2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Chairperson, New Delhi Municipal Council, Parliament Street, New Delhi; M.S. Vigilant

Security Services, Lajpat Nagar -04 ,New Delhi, and Shri Giri Raj, Worker,which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 28.04.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024 -74– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 308/2021

Sh. Giri Raj, S/o Sh. Lakhan Singh,

R/o W-102, ChanderShekhar, Gali No. 04,

West Babar Pur, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032. ...Claimant/Workman

VERSUS

1. The Chairperson, New Delhi Municipal Council,

Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001.

2. M.S. Vigilant Security Services,

P-23, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar -04

Opp. ShaniMandir, New Delhi- 110021 …Managements/Respondents

AWARD

This is an application under section 2A of the I.D Act filed by the claimant against his illegal termination.

Claimant case is that he was appointed by the management on 16.03.2015 at the post of Security Guard. He has been

continuously discharging their duty since his appointment with the management-1, however, in a malafide manner his

service was shown as a employee of the contractor. His services was terminated on 18.12.2020 since then he is jobless.

As such he has filed the present claim after exhausting the legal remedy.

Management-1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.04.2023. Management-2 have appeared and W.S

had been filed by the management-2 denying the averment made in the claim. The matter was listed for filing of

rejoinder against M-2 but the claimant has not appeared since long. Notice was issued to the workman but, still he has

not appeared.

In these circumstances, when the workman is not interested in pursuing his claim, this tribunal has no option

except to pass the no disputant award. Hence, no disputant award is passed. 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.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date 26^th March, 2024

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 830.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एन.टी.पी.सी. जलजमटेड, एन.टी.पी.सी. भवन, स्ट्कोप कॉम्प्लेक्स, 7, इंस्ट्टीट्यूिनल एररया, नई दिल्ली; 3061/संिय कुमार

सुरक्षा एिेंसी, कल्याणपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और (आई.डी. नं. 166/2019, श्री ऋजष पाल

शसंि), (आई.डी. नं. 167/2019, श्री मकरध्वि नारायण शसंि), (आई.डी. नं. 168/2019, श्री बख्तावर शसंि), (आई.डी.

नं. 169/ 2019, श्री रािेि कुमार, कामगार , द्वारा-- यूजनवसवल प्राउरटस्ट्ट लेबर फेडरेिन, मंगोलपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िवि केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट (संिभव संख्या

1798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2024/VAISAKHA 21, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

166,167,168 & 169 OF 2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 28.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-42025-07/2024 -75-vkbZ-vkj- (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 166,167,168 & 169 OF 2019) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between

the employers in relation to N.T.P.C. Ltd., N.T.P.C. Bhawan, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, New Delhi ;

3061/Sanjay Kumar Security Agency, Kalyanpuri, New Delhi, and (I.D. No. 166/2019, Shri Rishi Pal Singh),

(I.D. No. 167/2019, Shri Makardhwaj Narayan Singh), (I.D. No. 168/2019, Shri Bakhtawar Singh), (I.D.

No. 169/2019, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Worker, Through- Universal Proutist Labour Federation, Mangolpuri,

New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 28.04.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024-75– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 166/2019

Sh. Rishi Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Lal Singh,

Permanent R/o- 4/7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002,

Through- Universal Proutist Labour Federation,

Branch Office : Q-10-54, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-110083.

I.D. No. 167/2019

Sh. Makardhwaj Narayan Singh, S/o Sh. Ravinder Singh,

Permanent R/o- 4/7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002,

Through- Universal Proutist Labour Federation,

Branch Office : Q-10-54, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-110083.

I.D. No. 168/2019

Sh. Bakhtawar Singh, S/o Sh. Chander Singh,

Permanent R/o- 4/7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002,

Through- Universal Proutist Labour Federation,

Branch Office : Q-10-54, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-110083.

I.D. No. 169/2019

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Shashi Kant Chaudhary,

Permanent R/o- 4/7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002,

Through- Universal Proutist Labour Federation,

Branch Office : Q-10-54, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-110083.

VERSUS

1. N.T.P.C. Ltd.

N.T.P.C. Bhawan, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, New Delhi-110003.

2. 3061/Sanjay Kumar Security Agency,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 11, 2024/वैिाख 21 , 1946

1799

B.D. – 40, DSIDC Complex, Kalyanpuri,

New Delhi-110091.

AWARD

These are the four cases filed by the different workmen against the same management U/S 2A of the I.D Act.

Having common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for disposal.

Claimants cases are that they were appointed as Security Guard with the management at the last drawn salary

of Rs. 21,537/- per month. They did their duty with sincerity and honestly and did not give any chance to complain to

anyone. Management-1 had appointed them through management-2 and this fact have been opposed by the claimants.

Only for this reason management had terminated their services on 23.02.2018, after stopping their wages for six month

i.e. from April to October 2017. They had sent the demand letter to the management on 14.05.2018 with the request to

take them on duty, however, management did not take them on duty. They had also filed their claims with the

Assistant Labour commissioner, but, there also nothing was yielded. Hence, they filed the claims here with the request

that their termination be declared illegal and they be taken back on duty with full back wages.

Both the respondents have appeared and filed their respective W.S. Mangement-1 has denied the relationship

of employer and employee. It is his case that management-1 had entered into agreement dated 01.04.2017 with Sanjay

Kumar Security Agency i.e. Respondent-2 for providing security/surveillance and allied services to NTPC during the

period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2019. The management-1 never got any papers or vouchers, etc. signed from the claimants.

The establishment of the management-2 is a law abiding and always works within the frameworks and