3449 GI/2024

(2535)

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. 24]

नई दिल् ली, िून 16—िून 22, 2024, िजनवार/ ज् येष् ठ 26 —आषाढ़ 1, 1946

No. 24]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 16—JUNE 22, 2024, SATURDAY/JYAISHTHA 26– ASHADHA 1, 1946

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

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

भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के 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.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 14 िून, 2024

का.आ. 1152.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा,सरकार भारत के िूतावास, जवल्नुस मे^ेँ श्री अजभषेक यािव, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को िून 14,

2024 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/1/2024(20)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-I)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12072024-255322

CG-DL-W-12072024-255322

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12072024-255322

CG-DL-W-12072024-255322

2536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2024

S.O. 1152.—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 Abhishek Yadav,

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

services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from June 14, 2024.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2024(20)]

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

कार्मवक, लोक जिकायत और ृेंिन मंत्रालय

)

कार्मवक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग

(

नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 1153.—केन्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित् त िजत तयों का प्रयोग करते एए, श्री एस वी रािू, भारत के अृर मिा-साजलजसटर को, माननीय कनावटक उच्च

न्यायालय के समक्ष दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (केंरीय अन्वेषण ययूरो) की ओर से डी. के. जिवाकुमार बनाम कनावटक

राज्य और अन्य के मामले में ररट अृील सं. 646/2023 और आरसी 10(ए)/2020/सीबीआई/एसीबी/बीएलआर से

संबंजित अन्य कायवाजियों के संचालन के जलए तारी 29 नवंबर, 2023 से मामले का जनृटान िोने तक, जविेष लोक

अजभयोिक के प ृ में जनयुत त करती िज ।

[फा. सं. 225/32/2023-एवीडी- II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2024

S.O. 1153.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

India, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the Writ Appeal number 646/2023 and other proceedings

pertaining to RC10(A)/2020-CBI/ACB/BLR in the matter of D.K. Shivakumar vs. State of Karnataka and others on

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

Karnataka with effect from 29^th November, 2023 till the disposal of the Case.

[F. No. 225/32/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रजल, 2024

का.आ. 1154.—केन् र सरकार, एति् द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते एए झार ंड राज् य सरकार, गषि, कारागार

एवं आृिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, झार ंड, रांची, की अजिसूचना सं. 10/सी.बी.आई.-415/2023-5456/रांची, दिनांक

22.11.2023 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से श्री राम भज्जु, ओवरजसयर, मगि कोजलयरी, सीसीएल, चतरा, झार ंड के

जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (वषव 2018 में य ासंिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित काररत अृरािों के जलए

श्री नागेश्वर राम, ृुत्र श्री लाटन राम द्वारा दिनांक 08.11.2023 को ििव करायी गई जिकायत, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक

18.03.2024 को एक सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी03ए/2024-आर ििव दकया गया िज, से उत्ृन्न अृराि (िों) का

अन्वेषण करने के जलए त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र

एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2537

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से, दिनांक 18.03.2024 से)

समस्ट्त झार ंड राज्य में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/18/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2024

S.O. 1154.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No.10/C.B.I-415/2023-5456/Ranchi dated 22.11.2023, Home,

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

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 18.03.2024) to the whole State of Jharkhand

for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 08.11.2023 lodged by Shri Nageshwar Ram

S/o Late Latan Ram, against Shri Ram Bhajju, Overseer, Magadh Colliery, CCL, Chatra, Jharkhand u/s 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), based on which a CBI case RC03(A)/2024-R has been

registered on 18.03.2024 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such

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

facts.

[F. No. 228/18/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रजल, 2024

का.आ. 1155.—केन् र सरकार, एति् द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते एए छत्तीसगढ़ राज् य सरकार की

अजिसूचना सं. एफ-4-4/गषि-सी/2024, दिनांक 16.02.2024 और संिोजित अजिसूचना सं. एफ-4-4/गषि-सी/2024,

दिनांक 10.04.2024, गषि जवभाग (सी-सेतिन), मंत्रालय, मिानिी भवन, नवा रायृुर, अटल नगर, छत्तीसगढ़ िासन के

माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, राज्य सेवा ृरीक्षा, 2021 की भती प्रदिया में अजनयजमतताओं की जिकायतों के संबंि में

भारतीय िंड संजिता की िारा 420, 120-बी एवं भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (2018 में य ा-संिोजित) की

िारा 7/7-ए और िारा 12 के तित ाना-अिुवण्डा, जिला-बालोि में ृंिीकषत अृराि सं. 28/2024 त ा भारतीय िंड

संजिता की िारा 120-बी, 420 एवं भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (2018 में य ा-संिोजित) की िारा 7/7-ए

और िारा 12 के तित जिला-रायृुर के एसीबी/ईओडबल्यू ाने में ृंिीकषत अृराि सं. 05/2024 से िुड़े मामलों मे

तलािी एवं अन्वेषण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/19/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2024

S.O. 1155.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Chhattisgarh, issued vide Notification No.F-4-4/Home-C/2024 dated 16.02.2024 and Amended

Notification No.F-4-4/Home-C/2024 dated 10.04.2024, Home Department (C-Section), Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Government of Chhattisgarh, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the entire State of Chhattisgarh to search and investigate into

the matters pertaining to the Crime No. 28/2024 concerning the complaints of irregularities in the recruitment process

of State Service Examination, 2021, registered at Police Station-Arjunda, District-Balod under Section 420, 120-B of

IPC & sections 7/7-A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Crime No. 05/2024

registered with ACB/EOW Police Station of District-Raipur under Sections 120B, 420 of IPC and Sections 7/7-A and

12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in

2538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/19/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2024

का.आ. 1156.—केन् र सरकार, एति् द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का

अजिजनयम सं. 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते एए, असम राज् य

सरकार की अजिसूचना ज्ञाृन सं. एचएमए-19015/19/2022-ृोल(ए)-एच&ृी/231(ईसीएफ-250762)-ए, दिनांक

14.03.2024, रािनीजतक (ए) जवभाग :: दिसृुर, असम सरकार के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, असम के ृजिमी काबी

आंगलोंग जिला के जिरीककंडडंग ाना अंतगवत मुकरोि में दिनांक 22/11/2022 को एई गोलीवारी की घटना, जिसके

ृररणामस्ट्वप ृ 5 (ृाेँच) नागररकों और 1 (एक) िोमगाडव की मषत्यु िो गई ी, के संबंि में (1) जिरीककंडडंग ाना में

भारतीय िंड संजिता (आईृीसी) की िाराएेँ 379/353/34 सृरठत असम वन जवजनयमन (एएफआर) अजिजनयम की िारा

40/41 के अंतगवत ििव मामला सं. 09/2022 (2) जिरीककंडडंग ाना में भारतीय िंड संजिता (आईृीसी) की िाराएेँ

147/148/149/326/333/353/385/427/302/307 सृरठत आयुि (आम्सव) अजिजनयम की िारा 27 और लोक संृजत्त

नुकसान जनवारण अजिजनयम की िारा 3 के अंतगवत ििव मामला सं. 10/2022 और (3) जिरीककंडडंग ाना में भारतीय िंड

संजिता (आईृीसी) की िाराएेँ 447/448/436/427 सृरठत लोक संृजत्त नुकसान जनवारण अजिजनयम की िारा 04 के

अंतगवत ििव मामला सं. 11/2022 से िुड़े अृरािों का अन्वेषण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य

अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त असम राज्य में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/07/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2024

S.O. 1156.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Assam, issued vide Notification Memo No. HMA-19015/19/2022-POL(A)-H&P/231(ECF-250762)-

A dated 14.03.2024, Political (A) Department :: Dispur, Government of Assam, hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole State of Assam for carrying out

investigation of the offences relating to (1) Zirikindeng PS Case No. 09/2022 u/s 379/353/34 IPC r/w Sec 40/41 AFR

Act, (2) Zirikindeng PS Case No. 10/2022 u/s 147/148/149/326/333/353/385/427/302/307 IPC r/w Sec 27 Arms Act

and Sec 3 PDPP Act and (3) Zirikindeng PS Case No. 11/2022 u/s 447/448/436/427 IPC r/w Sec 04 of PDPP Act

registered in connection with the incident of firing on 22/11/2022 at Mukrow under Zirikindeng PS, West Karbi

Anglong District, Assam resulting into the death of 5 (five) civilians and 1 (one) Home Guard and any attempt,

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

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

[F. No. 228/07/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2024

का.आ. 1157.—केन् र सरकार एति् द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का

अजिजनयम सं. 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते एए, मेघालय राज् य

सरकार की अजिसूचना ज्ञाृन सं. ृोल.130/2023/12-ए जिलांग दिनांक 16.02.2024, गषि (रािनीजतक) जवभाग,

मेघालय राज् य सरकार के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से ना्टवयांग ाना, ृजिम िैंजतया जिल्स जिला में भा.िं.सं. की िारा

302/326/120बी/34 के अंतगवत िंडनीय अृरािों के संबंि में ििव मामला सं. 39(11)2022 से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) त ा

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2539

ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए

गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की

िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मेघालय राज्य में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/09/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2024

S.O. 1157.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Meghalaya, issued vide Notification Memo No. POL.130/2023/12-A Shillong dated 16.02.2024,

Home(Political) Department, Government of Meghalaya, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members

of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole State of Meghalaya for the investigation of offences

punishable under Section 302/326/120B/34 IPC arising out of Case No. 39(11)2022 registered at Nartiang Police

Station, West Jaintia Hills District and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with

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

same facts.

[F. No. 228/09/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2024

का.आ. 1158.—केंरीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते एए, श्री रमाकांत रघुराि यािव, अजिविा को, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरीय

अन्वेषण ययूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त मामलों, जिन्िें नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) और स्ट्तंभ (3) में वर्णवत दकया गया िज, का

उि सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (4) में वर्णवत न्यायालयों में और दकसी अृील या ृुनरीक्षण न्यायालय, जिसे जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत

दकया गया िज, में उि मामलों से उद्भूत िोने वाली कोई अृील, ृुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों के अजभयोिन के संचालन के

जलए प्रभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से, मामलों के जनृटान तक, या अगले आिेि तक, इनमें से िो भी ृूववतर िो, जविेष

लोक अजभयोिक के प ृ में जनयुि करती िज।

ि.सं.

आरसी.सं.

न्यायालय मामला सं.

न्यायालय का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

आरसी. 10/ई/96-ईओयू-VII/नई दिल्ली

661/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009

अृर मु्‍य मेरोृोजलटन

मजिस्ट्रेट

तीसरा

न्यायालय, मुंबई

आरसी. 7/ई/96/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

774/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009

आरसी. 6/ई/96-ईओयू.IX/नई दिल्ली

696/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009

आरसी. 12/ई/99/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

699/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009

आरसी. 7/ई/98/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

और

आरसी. 8/ई/98/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

1888/सीबीआई

ृुजलस

मामला/2000

(933/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/09)

6. आरसी. 2/ई/2001/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

117/सीबीआई

ृुजलस

2540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मामला/2001

(728/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009)

आरसी. 8/ई/99/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

और

आरसी. 9/ई/99/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

118/सीबीआई

ृुजलस

मामला/2001

(930/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009)

आरसी. 7/ई/2000/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

775/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009

आरसी. 10/ई/99/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

108/सबीआई

ृुजलस

मामला/2002

(932/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009)

10.

आरसी. 5/ई/99/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

184/सीबीआई

ृुजलस

मामला/2002

(884/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009)

11.

आरसी. 3/ई/2003/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

3/सीबीआई

ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय मामला/2004

(672/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009) और

672/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2014 अनुृूरक सीएस

12.

आरसी. 2/ई/2002/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

211/सीबीआई

ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय मामला/2004

(725/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009)

13.

आरसी. 6/ई/2003/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

886/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009

14.

आरसी. 4/ई/2003/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

801/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009

15.

आरसी. 7/ई/2003/सीबीआई/ईओबी/मुंबई

676/ृुजलस

वारंट

जवचारणीय

मामला/2009

[फा. सं. 225/15/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2024

S.O. 1158.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ramakant Raghuraj Yadav, Advocate as

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

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2541

(Central Bureau of Investigation) mentioned in column (2) and (3) of the table below, in the Court mentioned in

column (4) of the said Table and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of said cases in any appellate or

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

order, whichever is earlier.

TABLE

SI.

No.

RC. No.

Court Case No.

Name of the Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

RC.10/E/96-EOU-VII/New Delhi

661/Police Warrant Triable Case/2009

Additional

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate 3rd Court,

Mumbai

RC. 7/E/96/CBI/EOB/ Mumbai

774/Police Warrant Triable Case/2009

RC. 6/E/96-EOU.IX/New Delhi

696/Police Warrant Triable Case/2009

RC.12/E/99/CBI/EOB/Mumbai

699/Police Warrant Triable Case/2009

RC. 7/E/98/CBI/EOB/Mumbai & RC.

8/E/98/CBI/EOB/Mumbai

1888/CBI Police Case/2000 (933/Police

Warrant Triable Case/09)

RC.2/E/2001/CBI/EOB/ Mumbai

117/CBI Police Case/2001 (728/Police

Warrant Triable Case/2009)

RC. 8/E/99/CBI/EOB/Mumbai & RC.

9/E/99/CBI/EOB/Mumbai

118/CBI Police Case/2001 (930/Police

Warrant Triable Case/2009)

RC. 7/E/2000/CBI/EOB/ Mumbai

775/Police Warrant Triable Case/2009

RC.10/E/99/CBI/EOB/Mumbai

108/CBI Police Case/2002 (932/Police

Warrant Triable Case/2009)

RC. 5/E/99/CBI/EOB/Mumbai

184/CBI Police Case/2002 (884/Police

Warrant Triable Case/2009)

RC.3/E/2003/CBI/EOB/ Mumbai

3/CBI Police Warrant Triable Case/2004

(672/Police Warrant Triable Case/2009)

672/Police

Warrant

Triable

Case/2014 Suppl. CS

Additional

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate 19^th Court,

Mumbai

RC. 2/E/2002/CBI/EOB/ Mumbai

211/CBI

Police

Warrant

Triable

Case/2004 (725/Police Warrant Triable

Case/09)

RC. 6/E/2003/CBI/EOB/ Mumbai

886/Police Warrant Triable Case/2009

RC. 4/E/2003/CBI/EOB/ Mumbai

801/Police Warrant Triable Case/2009

RC. 7/E/2003/CBI/EOB/ Mumbai

676/Police Warrant Triable Case/2009

[F. No. 225/15/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2024

का.आ. 1159.—केंरीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृ-िारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजत तयों का प्रयोग करते एए, श्री रजबन् रना िाि, अजिवत ता को उत त सारणी के स्ट् तंभ (5) में उजल् लज त

न् यायालयों में, नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट् तंभ (2) और (4) में उजल् लज त दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरीय अन्वेषण

ययूरो) द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत मामलों के अजभयोिन और जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृीलीय अ वा ृुनरीक्षण न् यायालय में इन

मामलों से उत् ृन् न अृील, ृुनरीक्षण या अन् य मामलों का संचालन करने के जलए जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के प ृ में उनके

ृिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वषों के जलए या मामलों के जनृटान िोने तक, िो भी ृिले िो, जविेष लोक

अजभयोिक जनयुत त करती िज, अ ावत्:-

2542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सारणी

ि.

सं.

आरसी सं.

िा ा का नाम

जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन/जवचारण सं.

न् यायालय का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

आरसी0562014एस0010

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

05/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0011

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

06/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0018

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

13/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0023

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

18/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0024

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

19/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0032

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

27/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0033

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

28/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0037

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

32/2014

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन

32/2014 ( )

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0038

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन 33/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0040

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन 35/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0042

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन 37/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0046

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन 41/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0047

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन 42/2014

जवचारण 02/2017

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर जविेष

न् यायािीि

सीबीआई,

भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0049

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जवचारण 05/2018

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0050

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जवचारण 01/2018

जविेष न् यायािीि सीबीआई,

भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0151994एस0052

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन 32/1994

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0151998एस0013

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2543

स्ट् ाृन 04/1998

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0152001एस0017

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन 10/2003

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0013

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन 08/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

आरसी0562014एस0028

एसीबी, भुवनेश् वर

जविेष

ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृन 23/2014

जविेष

मु्‍ य

न् याजयक

िंडाजिकारी, भुवनेश् वर

[फा. सं. 225/06/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2024

S.O. 1159.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

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

Bureau of Investigation) as mentioned in column (2) and (4) of the table below, in the Courts mentioned in column

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

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

whichever is earlier, namely

TABLE

Sl. No.

RC. No.

Branch Name

Special Police

Establishment/ Trial No.

Name of the Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

RC0562014S0010

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

05/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0011

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

06/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0018

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

13/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0023

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

18/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0024

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

19/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0032

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

27/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0033

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

28/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0037

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

32/2014

Special Police Establishment

32/2014 (B)

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0038

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

33/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0040

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

35/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0042

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

37/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0046

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

41/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0047

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establishment

42/2014

Trial 02/2017

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

Special

Judge,

CBI,

Bhubaneswar

2544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RC0562014S0049

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Trial 05/2018

Special

Judge,

CBI,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0050

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Trial 01/2018

Special

Judge,

CBI,

Bhubaneswar

RC0151994S0052

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establish-

ment 32/1994

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0151998S0013

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establish-

ment 04/1998

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0152001S0017

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special

Police

Establishment 10/2003

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0013

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establish-

ment 08/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

RC0562014S0028

ACB, Bhubaneswar

Special Police Establish-

ment 23/2014

Special

CJM,

Bhubaneswar

[F. No. 225/06/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

िुजद्धृत्र

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2024

का.आ. 1160.—केंरीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित् त िजत तयों का प्रयोग करते एए, भारत के रािृत्र (साप्ताजिक) भाग II, ंड 3, उृ ंड (ii), तारी 1 िुलाई, 2023

में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना सं्‍याक का.आ. 1050, तारी 13 िनवरी, 2023 में जनम्नजलज त संिोिन

करती िज, अ ावत्:-

उि अजिसूचना की ताजलका में, ि.सं. 9 से 14 और उससे संबंजित प्रजवजष्टयों के स्ट् ान ृर जनम्नजलज त ि.सं.

और प्रजवजष्टयां र ी िाएंगी, अ ावत्:-

सारणी

ि. सं.

सीबीआई मामला आरसी सं्‍या

(1)

(2)

आरसी.5(ए)/2018-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

10.

आरसी.6(ए)/2018-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

11.

आरसी.7(ए)/2018-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

12.

आरसी.8(ए)/2018-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

13.

आरसी.9(ए)/2018-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

14.

आरसी.10(ए)/2018-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

[फा. सं. 225/13/2022-एवीडी-II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2024

S.O. 1160.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of

the Government of India number S.O. 1050, dated the 13^th January, 2023 published in the Gazette of India (Weekly),

Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated 1^st July, 2023, namely:-

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2545

In the said Notification in the Table, for serial numbers 9 to 14 and the entries relating thereto, the following

serial numbers and entries shall be substituted, namely:-

TABLE

Sl. No.

CBI Case RC No.

(1)

(2)

RC.5(A)/2018-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

RC.6(A)/2018-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

RC.7(A)/2018-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

RC.8(A)/2018-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

RC.9(A)/2018-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

RC.10(A)/2018-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

[F. No. 225/13/2022-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2024

का.आ. 1161.—केन्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उृिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित् त िजत तयों का प्रयोग करते एए, श्री िेवेन्र ृाल डसंि, अजिविा को जविेष न्यायािीि, न्यायालय सीबीआई (भ्रष्टाचार

जनवारण अजिजनयम) (संसि सिस्ट्य/जविान सभा सिस्ट्य मामले) आरएडीसी नई दिल्ली, माननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय

और भारत के माननीय सवोच्च न्यायालय में, दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केन्रीय अन्वेषण ययूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त,

सीबीआई मामला आरसी 53(ए)/2022/एसीबी/दिल्ली का अजभयोिन और जवजि द्वारा स्ट् ाजृत दकसी अृील या

ृुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में इस मामले से उद्भूत िोने वाली अृीलें, ृुनरीक्षण और/या अन्य मामलों को संचाजलत करने के

जलए तारी 09.03.2023 से तीन वषव की अवजि के जलए या मामले का जनृटान िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी ृिले िो,

जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के प ृ में जनयुत त करती िज।

[फा. सं. 225/10/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2024

S.O. 1161.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeal or other matters arising out of CBI Case No.

RC53(A)/2022/ACB/Delhi, instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), in

the Court of Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) (MPs/MLAs Cases), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi, the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, for a period of three years with effect from

9^th March, 2023 or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/10/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024

का.आ. 1162.—केन् र सरकार, एति् द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते एए रािस्ट् ान राज् य सरकार की

अजिसूचना सं. एफ. 2/8(110)गषि-5/81, दिनांक 04.01.2024, गषि (गष.-v) जवभाग, ियृुर, रािस्ट् ान सरकार के

माध् यम से िारी सािारण सम्मजत से, श्री चंृा लाल सोनी सुृुत्र श्री बरी नारायण सोनी द्वारा दिनांक 17.01.2024 को

ििव कराई गई जिकायत के आिार ृर श्री अंदकत आस्ट्वाल, जनरीक्षक, सीिीएसटी, ियृुर, श्री संिीृ ृायल,

2546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

आईआरएस, सीिीएसटी, ियृुर और प ृ लक्ष्मी ज्वेलसव ियृुर के जवरुद्ध भारतीय िण्ड संजिता की िारा 120बी सृरठत

भ्रष् टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (वषव 2018 में य ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित ृंिीकषत सीबीआई मामला

आरसीिेडीएच 2024ए0001, दिनांक 17.01.2024 से संबद्ध अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े या

उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न

दकसी अन्य अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का

जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 17.01.2024 से) समस्ट् त रािस्ट् ान राज् य में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/12/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024

S.O. 1162.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

State Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.2/8(110)Home-5/81 dated 04.01.2024, Home (Group-

V) Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan Government, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 17.01.2024) to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation

into the offence(s) of CBI case RCJDH2024A0001 dated 17.01.2024 u/s 120B of IPC r/w Section 7 of PC Act, 1988

(as amended in 2018) against Shri Ankit Aswal, Inspector, CGST, Jaipur, Shri Sandeep Payal, IRS, CGST, Jaipur and

Rup Laxmi Jewellers Jaipur registered on the basis of the complaint dated 17.01.2024 lodged by Shri Champa Lal

Soni S/o Shri Badri Narayan Soni and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with

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

same facts.

[F. No. 228/12/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024

का.आ. 1163.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa

-

सि

-

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ सं. एल-22013/01/2024-आई.आर.(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024

S.O. 1163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 62/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/06/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2547

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 62/2020

Ref. No.-D-850/AB/2020/39/IR/DDN

Rajiv Kumar Yadav V/s FCI

BETWEEN

Sri Rajiv Kumar Yadav

S/o Sri Badam Singh

Village- Mohalla- Chaukhanda, PS and PO- Shamsabad, District- Farrukhabad (UP)

…….Workman

AND

1. The General Manager (Principal Employer)

Food Corporation of India, ‘

Regional office, T.C. 3, V- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)

2. The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority),

Food Corporation of India (FCI)

District Office, Shahjahanpur (U.P.)

3. Sri Rajendra Saxena (Representative

M/s Keshav Singh Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla,

Shahajanpur (U.P.).

……. Respondent

AWARD

By order/letter dated 9^th September 2020 appropriate government referred in following dispute to this Tribunal.

“Whether the termination of the services of Sri Rajiv Kumar Yadav S/o Sri Badam Singh, who was engaged in Roja

depot of FCI, Shahajanpur, (U.P.) by M/s Keshav Singh, contractor of FCI, for the period 03.08.2008 to 23.04.2010

is proper and justified.

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

Accordingly I.D. case registered before this Tribunal.

Claimant filed statement of claim supported by an affidavit dated 21.12.2020 and the relevant facts stated by the

clamant in its claim petition are as under:-

That in District Shahajanpur U.P. there is institution of the name of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam (hereinafter referred as

employees)

On 23.04.2010 claimant was appointed in institution and since then he was working and discharging his duties

regularly however on 24.04.2020 his services were retrenched without the provisions as provided under section 25(F)

of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said facts claimant approach appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances when no heed was

paid then for redressal of grievances application for conciliation under Industrial Dispute Act, 1946(hereinafter

referred to as “Act”) thereafter the reference dated 09.09.2020 was made to this Tribunal.

In the claim statement filed by claimant against order of termination/ retrenchment, claimant prayed that said order of

termination/retrenchment may be set aside and he may be reinstated in services with all consequential benefits.

On behalf of respondent a written statement filed on 10.02.2023 in which a preliminary objection taken relevant

portion quoted as under:-

“The relevant provisions governing the payment of contract labours engaged by the contractor under Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. is being reproduced below:

Section 21-Responsibility for payment of wages

2548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract Labour and

such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed.

(2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the time of

disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as

wages in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorized

representative of the principal employer.

(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then

the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may

be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by

deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor”.

The claimant has nowhere alleged the failure of contractor. The principal employer will come in picture only when

the contractor fails to make the payment to the labour engaged by him.

6. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad vide its judgment and order dated 21.12.21 in writ

petition C No. 23288 of 2021 titled Food Corporation of India and another Versus Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner and 2 others has set aside the order dated 09.07.21 passed by Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

under Rule 25 (2)(v)(a)&(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971 with the following

observation.

"The Court is of the view that the order dated 9.7.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and, therefore, deserves

to be quashed. A bare reading of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules,

1971, definitely makes it clear that if any demand had to be made then it had to be made to the effect that the

contractor had to pay the salary to its workers which ought to have been at par with the salary of the workers of the

principal employer.

The contractor was such a person whose service was taken by the principal employer so that the contractor could

make available the labour which was required by the principal employer. If the contractor despite any order being

made under Rule 25(2)(a)&(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971, did not pay wages as

per the order passed under Rule 25(2)(v)(a)(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971, then

the principal employer could be made liable to pay the wages and the expenses which would have been incurred by

the principal employer in providing amenities could have been taken by the principal employer from the contractor

either by the deduction from any amount which was payable to the contractor or the amount paid by the principal

employer would have become a debt payable by the contractor. Definitely, no order could have been passed directly

asking the principal employer i.e. the petitioner for making the payment to the workmen who were employed by the

contractor. Since the contractor himself had not been made a party in the proceedings before the Deputy Chief

Labour Commissioner (Central), definitely no direction could be used to the contractor and, therefore, the direction

which has been issued to the principal employer could not have also been issued at all.”

Further, the Court finds that there were various issues which had to be thrashed out before any order could be passed

and a vague order could not have been passed directing the petitioner to ascertain as to who was working and who

was not working.

The Court also holds that some the Appellate Authority was the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and the

order was also passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, no Appeal would lie

With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. The order ,dated: 9.7.2021 passed by the Deputy Chief

Labour Commissioner (Central) is quashed. The recovery etc. which might have been issued in pursuance of the

order dated 9.7.2021 also stands quashed"

A copy of the judgment and order dated 21.12.21 in writ petition C No. 23288 of 2021 titled Food Corporation of

India & another versus Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner and 2 others pronounced by the Hon'ble Court of

Allahabad vide is hereby filed as annexure 'E'. 7. That it is submitted that after the issue of notification dated

21.04.2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of labour New Delhi regarding prohibition of employment of

Contractor Labour so many unions are claiming that contract Labour employed by the ex-contractor are their

members and may be regularized in the employment of Food Corporation of India. There are various cases pending

before different judicial forums and before the conciliating authorities such as RLC, Kanpur, Dy. CLC, Kanpur,

CGIT, New Delhi / Lucknow/ Kanpur, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad Lucknow and Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India.

Details of which are as under :-

➤ID Case No. 157 of 2012 and 112 of 2020 pending before CGIT Delhi. ➤ID Case No. 19 to 77 of 2020 pending

before CGIT Lucknow 59 cases.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2549

Three cases 36 of 2016, 66 of 2015 & 03 of 2021 are pending before CGIT Kanpur.

Total 98 Writ petitions have been filed before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. Out of which 75 Writ petitions had been

disposed off dismissed for approaching appropriate authority for seeking regularization at FSD Roza.

Total 14 Writ petitions were filed before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

Special appeal number 126 of 2020 was filed by FCI before High Court Lucknow & still pending.

8. That Shri Sawan Kumar Nishad and 34 others have filed a Writ Petition No. 4337 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High

Court, Allahabad claiming the issuance of the prerogative writ for their absorption in the Food Corporation of India

as per Notification no. 23.04.2010. But the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition vide order dated

25.08.2021 on basis of judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Steel

Authority of India Limited and others vs. National Union water front workers & others (2001) 7 SSC1, holding that

the relief as claimed cannot be countenanced. Following which series of writ petitions were dismissed on this line by

Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.

Accordingly it has been prayed that preliminary objection taken on behalf of respondent may kindly be decided

thereafter time was granted to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit on 26.04.2023, quoted herein below:-

Matter taken up in revised list.

Sri Dhirendra Singh for FCI.

None for worker.

WS filed, taken on record.

Copy be sent to worker along with notice.

List on 24.08.2023 for rejoinder.

On 24.08.2023 an order was passed quoted herein below:

Matter taken up in revised list.

Sri Dhirendra Singh for FCI.

None for worker.

Last opportunity is granted for rejoinder.

List on 01.12.2023.

On 01.12.2023 an order passed quoted herein below:

Taken up in revised list.

Sri Dhirendra Singh for FCI.

None for claimant.

Further last opportunity is granted for rejoinder, failing which case shall proceed ex-parte against claimant.

List on 21.02.2024. Notice to claimant.

On 21.01.2024 an order passed quoted herein below:

Matter taken up in revised list.

Sri Dhirendra Singh for OP. None for claimant.

File reserved for orders.

Accordingly after hearing learned counsel for respondent and going through record as till date no rejoinder affidavit

has been filed by claimant, so taking into consideration the said facts and the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in

the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

"It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the

order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman

raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement

before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence

to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred

by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief."

2550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees' Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held

as under:

"The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj

Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and

Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the

workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not

necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation

made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led."

And by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary- cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held

as under:

"The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the

respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal

of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent.

In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed."

As the workman/claimant has filed any statement of claim, so the present case is liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

Date 11.3.2024

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024

का.आ. 1164.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa

-सि-

]

ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[ सं. एल-22013/01/2024-आई.आर.(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024

S.O. 1164.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 63/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/06/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 63/2020

Ref. No.-D-851/AB/2020/40/IR/DDN

Mansharam V/s FCI

BETWEEN

Sri Mansharam,

S/o Sri Devi Prasad

Village- Shekharpur, PS and PO- Bharkhera, Tehsil- Bisalpur, District Piliphit

Workman

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2551

AND

1. The General Manager (Principal Employer)

Food Corporation of India, ‘

Regional office, T.C. 3, V- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)

2. The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority),

Food Corporation of India (FCI)

District Office, Shahjahanpur (U.P.)

3. Sri Rajendra Saxena (Representative

M/s Keshav Singh Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla,

Shahajanpur (U.P.).

……. Respondent

AWARD

By order/letter dated 9^th September 2020 appropriate government referred in following dispute to this

Tribunal.

“Whether the termination of the services of Sri Mansharam S/o Sri Devi Prasad, who was engaged in Roja

depot of FCI, Shahajanpur, (U.P.) by M/s Keshav Singh, contractor of FCI, for the period 08.07.2008 to

23.04.2010 is proper and justified.

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

Accordingly I.D. case registered before this Tribunal.

Claimant filed statement of claim supported by an affidavit dated 21.12.2020 and the relevant facts stated by the

clamant in its claim petition are as under:-

That in District Shahajanpur U.P. there is institution of the name of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam (hereinafter referred as

employees)

On 23.04.2010 claimant was appointed in institution and since then he was working and discharging his duties

regularly however on 24.04.2020 his services were retrenched without the provisions as provided under section 25(F)

of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said facts claimant approach appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances when no heed was

paid then for redressal of grievances application for conciliation under Industrial Dispute Act, 1946(hereinafter

referred to as “Act”) thereafter the reference dated 09.09.2020 was made to this Tribunal.

In the claim statement filed by claimant against order of termination/ retrenchment, claimant prayed that said order of

termination/retrenchment may be set aside and he may be reinstated in services with all consequential benefits.

On behalf of respondent a written statement filed on 10.02.2023 in which a preliminary objection taken relevant

portion quoted as under:-

“The relevant provisions governing the payment of contract labours engaged by the contractor under

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. is being reproduced below:

Section 21-Responsibility for payment of wages

(1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract

Labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed.

(2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the

time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the

amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the

authorized representative of the principal employer.

(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short

payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance

due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid

from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as

a debt payable by the contractor”.

2552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The claimant has nowhere alleged the failure of contractor. The principal employer will come in picture only

when the contractor fails to make the payment to the labour engaged by him.

It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad vide its judgment and order dated

21.12.21 in writ petition C No. 23288 of 2021 titled Food Corporation of India and another Versus Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner and 2 others has set aside the order dated 09.07.21 passed by Deputy Chief

Labour Commissioner under Rule 25 (2)(v)(a)&(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules,

1971 with the following observation.

"The Court is of the view that the order dated 9.7.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and, therefore,

deserves to be quashed. A bare reading of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Rules, 1971, definitely makes it clear that if any demand had to be made then it had to be made to

the effect that the contractor had to pay the salary to its workers which ought to have been at par with the

salary of the workers of the principal employer.

The contractor was such a person whose service was taken by the principal employer so that the contractor

could make available the labour which was required by the principal employer. If the contractor despite any

order being made under Rule 25(2)(a)&(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971,

did not pay wages as per the order passed under Rule 25(2)(v)(a)(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Rules, 1971, then the principal employer could be made liable to pay the wages and the expenses

which would have been incurred by the principal employer in providing amenities could have been taken by

the principal employer from the contractor either by the deduction from any amount which was payable to

the contractor or the amount paid by the principal employer would have become a debt payable by the

contractor. Definitely, no order could have been passed directly asking the principal employer i.e. the

petitioner for making the payment to the workmen who were employed by the contractor. Since the

contractor himself had not been made a party in the proceedings before the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central), definitely no direction could be used to the contractor and, therefore, the direction

which has been issued to the principal employer could not have also been issued at all.”

Further, the Court finds that there were various issues which had to be thrashed out before any order could

be passed and a vague order could not have been passed directing the petitioner to ascertain as to who was

working and who was not working.

The Court also holds that some the Appellate Authority was the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central) and the order was also passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, no Appeal would lie

With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. The order ,dated: 9.7.2021 passed by the Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) is quashed. The recovery etc. which might have been issued in

pursuance of the order dated 9.7.2021 also stands quashed"

A copy of the judgment and order dated 21.12.21 in writ petition C No. 23288 of 2021 titled Food

Corporation of India & another versus Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner and 2 others pronounced by the

Hon'ble Court of Allahabad vide is hereby filed as annexure 'E'. 7. That it is submitted that after the issue of

notification dated 21.04.2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of labour New Delhi regarding

prohibition of employment of Contractor Labour so many unions are claiming that contract Labour

employed by the ex-contractor are their members and may be regularized in the employment of Food

Corporation of India. There are various cases pending before different judicial forums and before the

conciliating authorities such as RLC, Kanpur, Dy. CLC, Kanpur, CGIT, New Delhi / Lucknow/ Kanpur,

Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad Lucknow and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Details of which are as under :-

➤ID Case No. 157 of 2012 and 112 of 2020 pending before CGIT Delhi. ➤ID Case No. 19 to 77 of 2020

pending before CGIT Lucknow 59 cases.

Three cases 36 of 2016, 66 of 2015 & 03 of 2021 are pending before CGIT Kanpur.

Total 98 Writ petitions have been filed before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. Out of which 75 Writ petitions

had been disposed off dismissed for approaching appropriate authority for seeking regularization at FSD

Roza.

Total 14 Writ petitions were filed before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

Special appeal number 126 of 2020 was filed by FCI before High Court Lucknow & still pending.

8. That Shri Sawan Kumar Nishad and 34 others have filed a Writ Petition No. 4337 of 2021 before the

Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad claiming the issuance of the prerogative writ for their absorption in the

Food Corporation of India as per Notification no. 23.04.2010. But the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the

Writ Petition vide order dated 25.08.2021 on basis of judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2553

Supreme Court of India passed in Steel Authority of India Limited and others vs. National Union water front

workers & others (2001) 7 SSC1, holding that the relief as claimed cannot be countenanced. Following

which series of writ petitions were dismissed on this line by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.

Accordingly it has been prayed that preliminary objection taken on behalf of respondent may kindly be decided

thereafter time was granted to the claimant to file rejoinder affidavit on 26.04.2023, quoted herein below:-

Matter taken up in revised list.

Sri Dhirendra Singh for FCI.

None for worker.

WS filed, taken on record.

Copy be sent to worker along with notice.

List on 24.08.2023 for rejoinder.

On 24.08.2023 an order was passed quoted herein below:

Matter taken up in revised list.

Sri Dhirendra Singh for FCI.

None for worker.

Last opportunity is granted for rejoinder.

List on 01.12.2023.

On 01.12.2023 an order passed quoted herein below:

Taken up in revised list.

Sri Dhirendra Singh for FCI.

None for claimant.

Further last opportunity is granted for rejoinder, failing which case shall proceed ex-parte against claimant.

List on 21.02.2024. Notice to claimant.

On 21.01.2024 an order passed quoted herein below:

Matter taken up in revised list.

Sri Dhirendra Singh for OP. None for claimant.

File reserved for orders.

Accordingly after hearing learned counsel for respondent and going through record as till date no rejoinder affidavit

has been filed by claimant, so taking into consideration the said facts and the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in

the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

"It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.

Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative

for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is

challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file

written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in

favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief."

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees' Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held

as under:

"The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,

V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)

FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led

by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In

such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead

evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,

who would fail if no evidence is led."

2554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary- cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held

as under:

"The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the

respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.

A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led

by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed."

As the workman/claimant has filed any statement of claim, so the present case is liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

Date 11.3.2024

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024

का.आ. 1165.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa

-

सि

-

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2024-आई.आर.(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024

S.O. 1165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 66/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/06/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 66/2020

Ref. No.-D-854/AB/2020/43/IRDDN

Tejpal V/s FCI

BETWEEN

Sri Tejpal,

S/o Sri Kaliyan Roy

Village- Karnapur, Post and PS- Bharkheda, District Piliphit

……… Workman

AND

1. The General Manager (Principal Employer)

Food Corporation of India, ‘

Regional office, T.C. 3, V- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 22, 2024/आषाढ़ 1, 1946

2555

2. The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority),

Food Corporation of India (FCI)

District Office, Shahjahanpur (U.P.)

3. Sri Rajendra Saxena (Representative

M/s Keshav Singh Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla,

Shahajanpur (U.P.).

……. Respondent

Award

By order/letter dated 9^th September 2020 appropriate government referred in following dispute to this Tribunal.

“Whether the termination of the services of Sri Tejpal S/o Sri Kaliyan Roy, who was engaged in Roja depot

of FCI, Shahajanpur, (U.P.) by M/s Keshav Singh, contractor of FCI, for the period 07.08.2008 to

23.04.2010 is proper and justified.

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

Accordingly I.D. case registered before this Tribunal.

Claimant filed statement of claim supported by an affidavit dated 21.12.2020 and the relevant facts stated by the

clamant in its claim petition are as under:-

That in District Shahajanpur U.P. there is institution of the name of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam (hereinafter referred as

employees)

On 23.04.2010 claimant was appointed in institution and since then he was working and discharging his duties

regularly however on 24.04.2020 his services were retrenched without the provisions as provided under section 25(F)

of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said facts claimant approach appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances when no heed was

paid then for redressal of grievances application for conciliation under Industrial Dispute Act, 1946(hereinafter

referred to as “Act”) thereafter the reference dated 09.09.2020 was made to this Tribunal.

In the claim statement filed by claimant against order of termination/ retrenchment, claimant prayed that said order of

termination/retrenchment may be set aside and he may be reinstated in services with all consequential benefits.

On behalf of respondent a written statement filed on 10.02.2023 in which a preliminary objection taken relevant

portion quoted as under:-

“The relevant provisions governing the payment of contract labours engaged by the contractor under

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. is being reproduced below:

Section 21-Responsibility for payment of wages

(1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract

Labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed.

(2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the

time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the

amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the

authorized representative of the principal employer.

(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short

payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance

due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid

from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as

a debt payable by the contractor”.

The claimant has nowhere alleged the failure of contractor. The principal employer will come in picture only

when the contractor fails to make the payment to the labour engaged by him.

6. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad vide its judgment and order dated 21.12.21 in

writ petition C No. 23288 of 2021 titled Food Corporation of India and another Versus Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner and 2 others has set aside the order dated 09.07.21 passed by Deputy Chief Labour

2556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 22, 2024/ASHADHA 1, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Commissioner under Rule 25 (2)(v)(a)&(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971

with the following observation.