4685 GI/2024

(3355)

236रजिस्ट्री 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. 31]

नई दिल् ली, अगस्ट् त 4—अगस्ट् त 10, 2024, िजनवार/ श्रावण 13—श्रावण 19, 1946

No. 31]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 4—AUGUST 10, 2024, SATURDAY/ SHRAVANA 13– SHRAVANA 19, 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)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 5 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1501.—भारतीय जनयाात-आयात बैंक अजिजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की िारा 6 की उप-िारा (2)

के साथ पठठत िारा 6 की उप-िारा (1) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा,

भारतीय जनयाात-आयात बैंक (एजजिम बैंक) के प्रबंि जनिेिक सुश्री िर्ाा बंगारी (िन्म जतजथ: 20.2.1970) के कायाकाल को

उनके वतामान कायाकाल (िो 7.9.2024 तक िै) के पूरा िोने की तारीख से िो (02) वर्ा की अवजि के जलए अथाात

8.9.2024 से 7.9.2026 तक अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, बढाती िै।

[फा. सं. 9/7/2020-आईएफ-I]

सुभार्चन्र अमीन, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-21082024-256491

CG-DL-W-21082024-256491

3356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1501.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of

section 6 read with sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Export-Import Bank of India Act,

1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby extends the present tenure of Ms.

Harsha Bangari (D.O.B: 20.02.1970), Managing Director, Export-Import Bank of India

(Exim Bank), which is upto 07.09.2024, for a further period of two (02) years from

08.09.2024 to 07.09.2026, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/7/2020-IF-I]

SUBHASHCHANDRA AMIN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1502..—राष्ट्रीय अवसंरचना जवत्तपोर्ण और जवकास बैंक अजिजनयम, 2021 (2021 का 17) की िारा

6 की उप-िारा (1) के खंड (घ) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री भूर्ण कुमार जसन्िा

के स्ट्थान पर श्री मनोि मुट्टजत्तल अय्यप्पन, संयुि सजचव, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग, जवत्त मंत्रालय को तत्काल प्रभाव से और

अगले आिेिों तक, राष्ट्रीय अवसंरचना जवत्तपोर्ण और जवकास बैंक के जनिेिक मण्डल में जनिेिक के पि पर नाजमत करती

िै।

[फा. सं. 18/7(iii)/2022-आईएफ-I]

सुभार्चन्र अमीन, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024

S.O. 1502.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the

National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development Act, 2021 (17 of 2021), the Central Government

hereby nominates Shri Manoj Muttathil Ayyappan, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of

Finance, as Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development, vice

Dr. Bhushan Kumar Sinha, with immediate effect and until further orders.

[F. No. 18/7(iii)/2022-IF-I]

SUBHASHCHANDRA AMIN, Under Secy.

जविेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1503.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, सरकार भारत के िूतावास, कुवैत मे^ेँ श्री आकांक्ष रािोठरया, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को िुलाई 31,

2024 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवािन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िै।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2024(25)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-l)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3357

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1503.—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 Akanksh Rajoria,

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

services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from July 31, 2024.

[F. No. T-4330/01/2024(25)]

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

नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1504.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, सरकार भारत के िूतावास, िानोई मे^ेँ श्री अकाा राय, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी,को िुलाई 31, 2024

से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवािन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िै।

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2024(26)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-l)

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1504.—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 Arka Roy, Assistant

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

Assistant Consular Officer with effect from July 31, 2024.

[F. No. T-4330/01/2024(26)]

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

जवद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 26 िून, 2024

का.आ. 1505.—केंरीय सरकार, रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन आरईसी जलजमटेड के जनम्नजलजखत

कायाालयों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित कमाचारीवृंि ने हिंिी का कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत

करती िै।

1. क्षेत्रीय कायाालय, जिलांग, सेरेजनटी िोम्स,

पोलो जिल्स, जिलांग- 793001 (मेघालय)

2. क्षेत्रीय कायाालय, रायपुर, एफ-6 एवं एफ-7 ब्लॉक बी-1,

प्रथम तल पुिारी चेंबसा, कमर्िायल कॉम्प्लेजस,

पंचपेडी नाका, रायपुर-492001

[फा. सं. 11011/01/2024-हिंिी]

िीरि कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव, मुख्य अजभयंता (प्रभारी रािभार्ा)

3358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 26^th June, 2024

S.O. 1505.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of REC Limited under the

administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

1. Regional Office, Shillong, Serinity Homes, Polo Hills, Shillong–793001 (Meghalaya)

2. Regional Office, Raipur, F-6 & F-7, Block B-1, First floor Pujari Chambers, Commercial Complex, Panchpedi

Naka, Raipur-492001

[F. No. 11011/01/2024-Hindi]

Dhiraj Kumar Srivastava, Chief Engineer (In-Charge O.L.)

नई दिल्ली, 18 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1506.—केंरीय सरकार, रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन पावर जिड कापोरेिन ऑफ

इंजडया जलजमटेड के जनम्नजलजखत कायाालयों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित कमाचारीवृंि ने हिंिी का कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया

िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै:

1. पावर जिड कापोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड

765/400/220 के.वी. बनासकांठा उपकेंर,

िाम- मुड़ेठा, अरजनवाड़ा रोड,

तालुका- डीसा, जिला- बनासकांठा

गुिरात-385530

4. पावर जिड कापोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड,

400/220 के.वी. कला उपकेंर, सवे नं.- 39,

िाम- कला, अंबोली, जसलवासा,

संघ प्रिेि िािरा नगर िवेली

396230

2. पावर जिड कापोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड,

765/400/220 के.वी. भुि पुहलंग स्ट्टेिन,

िाम – पालनपुर (बाड़ी), तालुका- नखतराना

जिला-कच्छ,

गुिरात-370001

5. पावर जिड कापोरेिन ऑफइंजडया जलजमटेड,

765/400/220 के.वी. उपकेंर फ़तेिपुर,

लखनऊ रोड, चौफेरवा रोड,

फ़तेिपुर-212601

3. पावर जिड कापोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड,

400/220 के.वी. रीवा पूहलंग उपकेंर

िाम- बरसैता िेि, तिसील- गुढ

जिला- रीवा

मध्यप्रिेि-486553

6. पावर जिड कापोरेिन ऑफइंजडया जलजमटेड,

उत्तर-पूवी क्षेत्र,

+ 800 के.वी. एचवीडीवीसी कन्वटार स्ट्टेिन,

जबश्वनाथ चाठरआली, असम

[फा. सं. 11011/01/2024-हिंिी]

िीरि कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव, मुख्य अजभयंता (प्रभारी रािभार्ा)

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2024

S.O. 1506.— In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of Power Grid Corporation of

India Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, wherein 80% of the staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi:

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

765/400/220 KV Banaskantha Substation

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

400/220 KV Substation, Survey No. 39,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3359

Vill-Mudetha, Arniwada Road, Taluka-Deesa

Gujarat 385530

Village- Kala, Amboli, Silvassa – U.T. Of

D & NH-396230

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

765/400/220 KV Substation,

Village-Palanpur, Badi, Taluka-Nakhatrana,

Distt-Kutch (Gujarat)-370001

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

765/400/220 KV Sub-station, Fatehpur,

Lucknow Road, Chauferwa,

Fatehpur-212601

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

400/220 KV Rewa Pooling Substation

Vill- Baraita Desh, Teh- Gurh,

Distt- Rewa, Madhya Pradesh-486553

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

North-eastern region

+ 800 KV HVDC Converter station

Biswanath Chariali, Assam

[F. No. 11011/01/2024-Hindi]

DHIRAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, Chief Engineer (In-Charge O.L.)

पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 30 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1507.—भारत सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िै ) की िारा 3 की उपिारा (1)

के अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1870 तारीख

30.11.2023 िो भारत के रािपत्र तारीख 10.12.2023 –16.12.2023 (साप्ताजिक) में प्रकाजित की गयी थी, द्वारा उस

अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में गेल (इजण्डया) जलजमटेड द्वारा िठरयाणा राज्य में सुल्तानपुर – झज्जर –

जिसार पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस के पठरविन के जलए पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के

अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोर्णा की थी;

और उि रािपत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतयां िनता को उपलब्ि करा िी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने िनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों को परीक्षण के उपरांत जनपटान कर दिया िै;

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार को अपनी ठरपोटा

िे िी िै;

और भारत सरकार ने, उि ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पश्चात और यि संतुष्ट िो िाने पर दक उि भूजम

पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उस में उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िै;

अतः अब, भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,

यि घोर्णा करती िै दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए उपयोग के

अजिकार का अिान दकया िाता िै;

और, भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम दक िारा 6 दक उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,

जनिेि िेती िै दक पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए भूजम में उपयोग का अजिकार, इस घोर्णा के प्रकािन की तारीख से, भारत

सरकार में जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर, गेल (इजण्डया) जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।

सुल्तानपुर-झज्जर-जिसार गैस पाईप लाईन पठरयोिना

अनुसूची

राज्य - िठरयाणा

जिला

तिसील

गाेँव

खसरा संख्यां

क्षेत्रफल

िेजटेयर

आर

वगा मीटर

झज्जर

गुढा

46//19

कुल=

जिसार

िांसी

ढन्ढेरी

30//24

30//17

3360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

30//14

30//7

30//4

30//3

2//23

2//22

2//21

1//25

35//12

35//13

35//14

35//24

35//25/2

47//1

47//2

कुल=

जिसार

भगाना

50//24

50//18

50//13

50//12

50//11

51//14

51//16

51//17

51//8/2

38//25

52//5

38//24

52//4

52//3/2

52//3/1

52//8/1

52//8/2

52//9

52//12

52//11

52//10/1

53//15

53//14

53//17/1

29//16

29//17/1

29//14

29//15

29//7

53//13/1/1

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3361

53//12/2

53//9/2

53//10

53//1/1

54//5/1

जिसार

भगाना

36//25/1

36//24

36//17/2

36//18

36//13/1

36//12

36//9/2

36//10

36//1/1

29//25/1/1

77//24

77//1

78//4

77//17

77//14

77//7

77//8

77//4

77//3

77//2/2

77//2/1

कुल=

[फा. सं. एल-14014/67/2022-िी-पी-II(ई-42162)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, 30th July, 2024

S.O.1507.—Whereas by notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

S.O. No. 1870 dated 30.11.2023 issued under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

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

the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 10.12.2023 – 16.12.2023 (Weekly), the Government of India declared its

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

purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of natural gas Sultanpur – Jhajjar - Hisar through Pipeline in the State

of Haryana by GAIL (India) Limited;

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

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

disposed of by the Competent Authority;

3362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

report to Government of India;

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

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

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

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

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

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

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

all encumbrances.

SULTANPUR - JHAJJAR - HISAR GAS PIPELINE PROJECT

SCHEDULE

State : HARYANA

District

Tehsil

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hect.

Are

Sq. mt.

JHAJJAR

GUDHA

46//19

TOTAL

HISAR

HANSI

DHANDHERI

30//24

30//17

30//14

30//7

30//4

30//3

2//23

2//22

2//21

1//25

35//12

35//13

35//14

35//24

35//25/2

47//1

47//2

TOTAL

HISAR

BHAGANA

50//24

50//18

50//13

50//12

50//11

51//14

51//16

51//17

51//8/2

38//25

52//5

38//24

52//4

52//3/2

52//3/1

52//8/1

52//8/2

52//9

52//12

52//11

52//10/1

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3363

53//15

53//14

53//17/1

29//16

HISAR

BHAGANA

29//17/1

29//14

29//15

29//7

53//13/1/1

53//12/2

53//9/2

53//10

53//1/1

54//5/1

36//25/1

36//24

36//17/2

36//18

36//13/1

36//12

36//9/2

36//10

36//1/1

29//25/1/1

77//24

77//1

78//4

77//17

77//14

77//7

77//8

77//4

77//3

77//2/2

77//2/1

TOTAL

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

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ.1508.—भारत सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश् चात् उज त अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 की उपिारा (1)

के अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख् या का.आ. 2375(अ) तारीख

18.05.2023 िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र तारीख 01.06.2023 में प्रकाजित की गयी थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से

3364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

संलग् न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष् ट भूजम में गेल (इजण् डया) जलजमटेड द्वारा पंिाब राज्य में िािरी-बवाना-नांगल स्ट्पर पाइपलाईन

(एच.एम.ई.एल. भटटंडा कनेजजटजवटी) के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस के पठरविन के जलए पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के

जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोर्णा की थी;

और उज त रािपत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतयां िनता को उपलब् ि करा िी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उज त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार को अपनी ठरपोटा

िे िी िै;

और भारत सरकार ने, उज त ठरपोटा पर जवचार करने के पश् चात् और यि संतुष्ट िो िाने पर दक उज त भूजम

अत: अब, भारत सरकार, उज त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजज तयों का प्रयोग करते

हुए, यि घोर्णा करती िै दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग् न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष् ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए उपयोग

के अजिकार का अिान दकया िाता िै;

और, भारत सरकार, उज त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित् त िजज तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए,

सरकार में जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल् लंगमों से मुज त िोकर, गेल (इजण् डया) जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।

अनुसूची

िािरी बवाना नांगल स्ट्पर पाइपलाईन (एच एम ई एल भटटंडा कनेजजटजवटी)

पंिाब

जिला

तिसील

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र

संिोजित क्षेत्र

gsDVs;j&,;j& oxZ ehVj

भटटंडा

जसजवयन

606

601

602

597/2

भटटंडा

बिमन िीवाना

886

885

878/2

877/2/3

877/2/1

865/4

840/2

804/3

800/1/1

799/2

797/2

796/1

792/1

793/2

698/1

695/2/2

694/1/1

694/1/2

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3365

695/2/1

692/1/2

876

699/2

692/1/1

भटटंडा

भटटंडा (पट्टी झूटी)

1037

1034

1091/3

1096/1

1099/2

1027

1108

1104

1131

1137

1112

1119

1169

1149

भटटंडा

बीर बेिमान

502

484

471

455

454

भटटंडा

मुल्ताजनया

644

भटटंडा

तालाब निर

14//25

36//10

36//12/1

36//18/3

36//24/2

39//5/2

40//10

40//12/2

40//13/1

40//18

40//23

59//4

59//3/2

59//6/2

58//11/1

58//22

58//23/1

60//3

64//20/1

72//3/1

3366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

72//3/2

72//7

भटटंडा

नरुआना

1385

1386

642

797

808

1408

598

1390

1414

511

604

659

भटटंडा

गुरुसरसेनवाला

430

366/2

भटटंडा

तलवंडी साबो

गेिरी बटर

999

798

1020

996

1241

923

917

523

919

915

817

818

1239

1213/1

582

भटटंडा

तलवंडी साबो

डुनेवाला

46//11/2

46//18

54//24

53//5/2

54//9

54//12

33//22/1/1

35//3

35//14/2

35//2

33//23/2

36//18

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3367

36//19

36//20

47//6

47//15

47//4

भटटंडा

तलवंडी साबो

भगवानगढ

597/2

913/1

874/2

909/3/4

605/1

878

888

भटटंडा

तलवंडी साबो

मलवाला

9//21

21//19

26//3

26//8

26//13

43//4

43//24/2/2

48//14

48//17

48//24

64//4

80//4

69//1

69//9

80//16

95//12

95//10

68//5

64//7/2

64//16

64//17

69//18/1

भटटंडा

तलवंडी साबो

बंगी रघु

248/1

249/1

235

294

263/2

262/1

262/2

249/2

255/2

3368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

36/1

211/2/2

254/2

339

341/1

236/1

295/1/2

भटटंडा

तलवंडी साबो

सुखलाजि

4//15

5//20

5//22

5//23

5//25/4

10//18

25//22

29//3/2

29//13

29//17

29//25/1

47//10

47//11

47//19

47//20

47//23

50//13/1

10//1/1

भटटंडा

तलवंडी साबो

बाघा

128//5/1

2//19

2//20

2//10

2//11

52//25/1

93//5

भटटंडा

तलवंडी साबो

तारखानवाला

9//10

9//11

9//12

18//25

22//7

22//2

22//8

18//23

8//21/1

भटटंडा

तलवंडी साबो

रामा

139//11

139//1

146//5/1

147//6

148//11

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3369

148//14

148//15

147//7/2/1

138//21

139//18

139//24

147//1

241//12

253//3

253//6/1

238//25

215//17

220//3

220//8

238//7

150//16/2

150//19

150//20

149//19/2

149//20

242//21

241//13

191//4

149//17

220//13

241//9

[फा. सं. L-14014-232-2021-GP-II (E-41137)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30 th July, 2024

S.O. 1508.—Whereas by notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

S.O. No. 2375 (E) dated 18.05.2023 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

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

No. 2375 (E) dated 18.05.2023 which published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 01.06.2023, the

Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended

to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of natural gas through Dadri–Bawana–Nangal

Spur Pipeline (HMEL Bathinda Connectivity) in the state of Punjab by GAIL (India) Limited;

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

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

report to Government of India;

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

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

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

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

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

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

3370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

DADRI - BAWANA - NANGAL SPUR PIPELINE (HMEL BATHINDA CONNECTIVITY)

State: Punjab

District

Tehsil

Village

Survey No.

AREA

NOTIFIED AREA

REVISED AREA

Hect.-Are-Sq.mtr.

Bathinda

Sivian

606

601

602

597/2

Bathinda

Behman Diwana

886

885

878/2

877/2/3

877/2/1

865/4

840/2

804/3

800/1/1

799/2

797/2

796/1

792/1

793/2

698/1

695/2/2

694/1/1

694/1/2

695/2/1

692/1/2

876

699/2

692/1/1

Bathinda

1037

1034

1091/3

1096/1

1099/2

1027

1108

1104

1131

1137

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3371

1112

1119

1169

1149

Bathinda

Bir Behman

502

484

471

455

454

Bathinda

Multania

644

Bathinda

Talab Nehar

14//25

36//10

36//12/1

36//18/3

36//24/2

39//5/2

40//10

40//12/2

40//13/1

40//18

40//23

59//4

59//3/2

59//6/2

58//11/1

58//22

58//23/1

60//3

64//20/1

72//3/1

72//3/2

72//7

Bathinda

Naruana

1385

1386

642

797

808

1408

598

1390

1414

511

604

3372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

659

Bathinda

Gurusarsenwala

430

366/2

Bathinda

Talwandi Sabo

Gehri Buttar

999

798

1020

996

1241

923

917

523

919

915

817

818

1239

1213/1

582

Bathinda

Talwandi Sabo

Dunewala

46//11/2

46//18

54//24

53//5/2

54//9

54//12

33//22/1/1

35//3

35//14/2

35//2

33//23/2

36//18

36//19

36//20

47//6

47//15

47//4

Bathinda

Talwandi Sabo

Bhagwangarh

597/2

913/1

874/2

909/3/4

605/1

878

888

Bathinda

Talwandi Sabo

Malwala

9//21

21//19

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3373

26//3

26//8

26//13

43//4

43//24/2/2

48//14

48//17

48//24

64//4

80//4

69//1

69//9

80//16

95//12

95//10

68//5

64//7/2

64//16

64//17

69//18/1

Bathinda

Talwandi Sabo

Banghi Ragghu

248/1

249/1

235

294

263/2

262/1

262/2

249/2

255/2

36/1

211/2/2

254/2

339

341/1

236/1

295/1/2

Bathinda

Talwandi Sabo

Sukhladdi

4//15

5//20

5//22

5//23

5//25/4

10//18

25//22

3374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29//3/2

29//13

29//17

29//25/1

47//10

47//11

47//19

47//20

47//23

50//13/1

10//1/1

Bathinda

Talwandi Sabo

Bagha

128//5/1

2//19

2//20

2//10

2//11

52//25/1

93//5

Bathinda

Talwandi Sabo

Tarkhanwala

9//10

9//11

9//12

18//25

22//7

22//2

22//8

18//23

8//21/1

Bathinda

Talwandi Sabo

Raman

139//11

139//1

146//5/1

147//6

148//11

148//14

148//15

147//7/2/1

138//21

139//18

139//24

147//1

241//12

253//3

253//6/1

238//25

215//17

220//3

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3375

220//8

238//7

150//16/2

150//19

150//20

149//19/2

149//20

242//21

241//13

191//4

149//17

220//13

241//9

[F. No. L-14014-232-2021-GP-II (E-41137)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1509.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एयरपोर्टसा अथॉठरटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; मेससा आदित्य िंकर चौिुरी जसजयोठरटी एिेंसी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

श्री अब्िुल िफ़ीज़ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ठरफरेन्स न.-2/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-85]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1509—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 2/2020) 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 Airports Authority of India; M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhury Security Agency and Shri Abdul

Hafeez which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-85]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

3376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 3^rd day of May, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.2/2020

Between:

Sri Abdul Hafeez,

S/o Sri SK Silar,

H.No. 25-164, Plot No. 98,

Subhashnagar, Bollaguda,

Thirumalgiri,

Secunderabad.

.. ….Petitioner

AND

The Airports Authority of India,

Represented by its Director,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad-16.

The Regional Executive Director,

Southern Region,

Airport Authority of India,

ATS Complex, Chennai Airport,

Chennai, Tamilnadu.600027.

The Director General (DGR),

No. 4, West Block, R.K.ura,,

New Delhi-110022.

M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhuri Security Agency,

Rep., by its Managing Director, Shop No:8,

Plot No; 5-3-125, Employees Colony,

Main Road, Yapral, Secundrabad,

Medchal, Malkajgiri, Telengana. 500087.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, M Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, for R1 & R2

A W A R D

Sri Abdul Hafeez, who worked as Security Guard (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Airport Authority of India

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient

opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, a ‘No claim’ award is

passed for want of evidence.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3377

Typed to my dication by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 3^rd day of May,

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, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1510.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

श्री जचलाका मोिे के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ठरफरेन्स न.-3/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िे -16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-86]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 3/2020) 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 Airports Authority of India; M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhury Security Agency and Shri Chilaka

Moshe which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-86]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 3^rd day of May, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.3/2020

Between:

Sri Chilaka Moshe,

S/o Dayaratnam,

10-87-21, Amaravathi Plots,

Chenchupet, Indra Nagar Colony,

Tenali, Andhra Pradesh

.. .Petitioner

AND

The Airports Authority of India,

Represented by its Director,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad-16.

3378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Regional Executive Director,

Southern Region,

Airport Authority of India,

ATS Complex, Chennai Airport,

Chennai, Tamilnadu.600027.

The Director General (DGR),

No. 4, West Block, R.K.ura,,

New Delhi-110022.

M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhuri Security Agency,

Rep., by its Managing Director, Shop No:8,

Plot No: 5-3-125, Employees Colony,

Main Road, Yapral, Secundrabad,

Medchal, Malkajgiri, Telengana. 500087.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, M Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, for R1 & R2

A W A R D

Sri Chilaka Moshe, who worked as Security Guard (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Airport Authority of India

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient

opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, a ‘No claim’ award is

passed for want of evidence.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dication by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 3^rd day of May,

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, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1511.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3379

श्री िे. प्रभाकर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ठरफरेन्स न.-4/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.-िेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-87]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 4/2020) 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 Airports Authority of India; M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhury Security Agency and Shri J.

Prabhakar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-87]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 3^rd day of May, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.4/2020

Between:

Sri J. Prabhakar,

S/o Late J. Narasaiah,

9-19/39/16/18,

Ferojedguda (Suryacolony),

Bolaram, Alwal, Medchal.-500101.

.. ….Petitioner

AND

The Airports Authority of India,

Represented by its Director,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad-16.

The Regional Executive Director,

Southern Region,

Airport Authority of India,

ATS Complex, Chennai Airport,

Chennai, Tamilnadu.600027.

The Director General (DGR),

No. 4, West Block, R.K.ura,,

New Delhi-110022.

M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhuri Security Agency,

Rep., by its Managing Director, Shop No:8,

Plot No; 5-3-125, Employees Colony,

Main Road, Yapral, Secunderabad,

Medchal, Malkajgiri, Telengana. 500087. … Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, M Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, for R1 & R2

3380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

A W A R D

Sri J. Prabhakar who worked as Gunman (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Airport Authority of India seeking for

reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and

all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient

opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, a ‘No claim’ award is

passed for want of evidence.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dication by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 3^rd day of May,

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, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1512.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

श्री वस्ट्का जववेका के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ठरफरेन्स न.-5/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-88]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 5/2020) 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 Airports Authority of India; M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhury Security Agency and Shri Vaska

Viveka which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-88]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3381

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 3^rd day of May, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.5/2020

Between:

Sri Vaska Viveka,

S/o Sri Subramanyam,

H.No.1-51/7 Radha Nilayam,

Banjara Colony,

Kapra, Secunderabad-500062.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Airports Authority of India,

Represented by its Director,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad-16.

The Regional Executive Director,

Southern Region,

Airport Authority of India,

ATS Complex, Chennai Airport,

Chennai, Tamilnadu.600027.

The Director General (DGR),

No. 4, West Block, R.K.ura,,

New Delhi-110022.

M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhuri Security Agency,

Rep., by its Managing Director, Shop No:8,

Plot No; 5-3-125, Employees Colony,

Main Road, Yapral, Secundrabad,

Medchal, Malkajgiri, Telengana. 500087. … Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, M Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, for R1 & R2

A W A R D

Sri Vaska Viveka who worked as Security Guard (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Airport Authority of India

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient

opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, a ‘No claim’ award is

passed for want of evidence.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dication by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 3^rd day of May,

2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

3382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1513.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

श्री वी.एन.वी.एस. नारायण के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-6/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.-िेड -16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-89]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 6/2020) 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 Airports Authority of India; M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhury Security Agency and Shri V.N.V.S.

Narayana which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-89]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 3^rd day of May, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.6/2020

Between:

Sri V.N.V.S Narayana,

S/o Radhakrishna Murthy,

H.No. 1-08-052, Old City Colony,

Bapuji Nagar, Old Bowenpally,

Secundarabad.

.. ….Petitioner

AND

The Airports Authority of India,

Represented by its Director,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad-16.

The Regional Executive Director,

Southern Region,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3383

Airport Authority of India,

ATS Complex, Chennai Airport,

Chennai, Tamilnadu.600027.

The Director General (DGR),

No. 4, West Block, R.K.ura,,

New Delhi-110022.

M/s Aditya Shankar Choudhuri Security Agency,

Rep., by its Managing Director, Shop No:8,

Plot No; 5-3-125, Employees Colony,

Main Road, Yapral, Secundrabad,

Medchal, Malkajgiri, Telengana. 500087. … Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, M Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, for R1 & R2

A W A R D

Sri V.N.V.S Narayana who worked as Gunman (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Airport Authority of India

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient

opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, a ‘No claim’ award is

passed for want of evidence.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dication by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 3^rd day of May,

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, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1514.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार एल

आई सी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री येराा रािामौली के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-124/2015) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया

गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -17012/28/2015-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

3384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S.O. 1514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 124/2015) 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 Yerra Rajamouli which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[F. No. L-17012/28/2015-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 July, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 124/2015

Between:

Sri Yerra Rajamouli,

S/o Sh. Lingaiah,

H.No.2-9, Bobbaronipally(P.O.)

Duggondi (M), Mallampalli(P.O.),

Distt. Warangal – 506311.

… .. Petitioner

AND

1. The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India,

South Central Zonal Office,

Secretariat Road, Saifabad,

Hyderabad – 500 004.

2. The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Office,

‘Jeevan Prakash’ Balasamudram,

Hanamakonda, Warangal – 506 001.

… . Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri B.S.R. Murthy, Advocate

A W A R D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 17012/28/2015-IR(M) dated 2.11.2015

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 the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office,

Hyderabad/Sub-Divisional Office, Nizamabad in terminating the services after crossing 240 days continuous

service of Sri Yerra Rajamouli, Ex-Temp. Sub-staff of LIC of India, Divisional Office, Warangal with effect

from 1.10.2014 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 124/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3385

It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as temporary sub-staff in the month of May, 2008 and performed as a

temporary Assistant in the branch office, Narsampet of LIC of India, Warangal Division on payment of Rs.100/- per

day. It is submitted that Petitioner has worked continuously without any break to the entire satisfaction of superior

officers. There were no complaints of whatsoever nature against the Petitioner in his entire service. It is submitted

that Petitioner, being a temporary assistant used to maintain the NB department work status report registers from the

date of joining to till date of termination. It is submitted that Respondent has not issued any appointment letter and

wage slips to the Petitioner during his service. The Petitioner used to sign on the vouchers at the time of taking

salary and he was not extended any benefits like Provident Fund and ESI etc.. While so, suddenly, Petitioner’s

services were orally terminated on 30^th September 2014 without paying the wages for the months of July, August and

September, 2014. It is submitted that he was terminated without conducting any enquiry, nor notice pay or

compensation, which is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of ID Act and against the principles of

natural justice. He approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) to intervene the matter. It is submitted

that the termination of the Petitioner is in violation of section 25 F,G &H of the industrial dispute. The Respondent

has not issued any notice and also not paid any retrenchment compensation. Petitioner’s last drawn salary was

Rs.350 /- per day at the time of termination. It is further submitted that the entire family is dependent on the

Petitioner’s income and after termination, they are facing untold problems and hardship and Petitioner is the only

bread earner of the family. In spite of his best efforts, he could not secure any other alternate employment. Hence,

prayed to set aside the oral termination order with effect from 1.10.2014 and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the

Petitioner into Service with continuity of service, full back wages and with all other attendant benefits.

Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:

It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged intermittently as daily wager and need basis for doing miscellaneous

jobs. He was neither recruited nor selected and worked purely as a daily wager and as such salary and other benefits

like Provident fund are not applicable to him. It is submitted that the payments were made to the Petitioner as

consolidated amounts towards the work done by him on need basis. At the time of payment of the consolidated

amounts for the work done by the Petitioner, he never objected to the amounts paid to him. The Petitioner was neither

appointed under the LIC of India (Employment of temporary staff) Instructions 1993 or any other instructions issued

by the Corporation from time to time. Hence, the question of termination of services does not arise. As he worked

purely as a daily wager, he was not entitled to reinstatement. It is submitted that as per the Supreme Court order dated

18^th January, 2011 in C.A. No.953 to 968 of 2005 LIC of India issued an employment notice on 20^th May 2011 calling

applications for recruitment of Peons from the eligible persons. The eligibility criteria was as under:-

A. All temporary persons who were working for more than 5 years and were continuing as an 18^th January 2011.

B. Possessing minimum qualification and age as prescribed by the LIC of India at the time of their entering into

LIC of India.

C. Candidates have to submit the copies of proof of working with the Corporation for more than 5 years as on

18^th January 2011 duly signed by the Chief /Sr./Br. Branch Manager of the branch office,

Manager(P&I)/Manager (OS) of the respective divisional offices.

D. The onus of furnishing authentic documentary proof of the above at the time of submission of the application

shall on the candidate.

As per the Supreme Court Order cited above, those temporary employees who are not governed by the above criteria

shall cease to be in the employment. It is submitted that after verification of the applications from the eligible

candidates, written test was conducted on 21.6.2011 and an interview was conducted for the candidates and whoever

successful in the written test appointment letters were issued to the candidates as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s

norms, who were successful both in the written test and interview. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never

recruited nor was given any appointment letter by any of the authorities of the Corporation. Even if month of

appointment is taken as per the contention of the Petitioner as May 2008, he has not completed 5 years as on 18^th

January 2011 as per the eligibility criteria issued by the LIC of India. It is submitted that the Petitioner not paid for

the month of July, August, September of 2014 and without conducting any enquiry notice, pay compensation does not

arise since the Petitioner was engaged as daily wage worker intermittently on need basis. It is submitted that the

Petitioner being a daily wager, I.D. Act is not applicable to him. The provisions of Section 25 F,G,& H of the I.D.

Act are not applicable to him for paying the retrenchment compensation, reemployment and notice pay. The

Petitioner was engaged intermittently at Narsampet Branch office under Warangal Division and not at Nizamabad as

stated in the reference. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages etc., he was a daily

wager. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition as devoid of merits.

Learned Counsels for both the parties filed written arguments. Perused written arguments.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following points emerge for determination in this

matter:-

3386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Divisional Office, Nizambad in terminating the services of Sri Yerra Rajamouli, Ex-Temp. Sub-staff of LIC

of India, Divisional Office, Warangal with effect from 1.10.2014 is in contravention of provisions of

Sec.25F, G and H of the I.D. Act, 1947?

II.

Whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement into the service with continuity of service and full back

wages with all other attendant benefits in the Respondent Management?

III.

To what relief Petitioner is entitled for?

Findings:-

To fortify the claim Petitioner has examined himself as witness WW1 and in documentary evidence he has

filed Photostat copies of documents which are marked as Ex.W1 to W8. Ex.W1, is reference order dated 25.8.2015

from Ministry of Labour & Employment, Ex.W2 is representation to ALC(C), Ramagundam by Petitioner dated

11.12.2014, Ex.W3 is letter by Respondent No.2 to ALC(C), Ramagundam dated 7.3.2015, Ex.W4 is reply to

Ex.W3, Ex.W5 is minutes of conciliation proceedings, dated 28.1.2015, Ex.W6 is bunch of wage payment vouchers

from May, 2008 to 1.7.2014, Ex.W7 is copies of work status report registers and Ex.W8 is copies of attendance

registers. On the other hand Respondent has examined MW1 in support of his contentions. Both the parties have

also filed written submissions as well.

Point No.I :- As per claim of the Petitioner, he was appointed as temporary sub staff in the month of May,

2008 and performed as a temporary Assistant in the branch office, Narsampet of LIC of India, Warangal Division on

payment of Rs.100/- per day and he has worked continuously without any Break to the entire satisfaction of superior

officers. Further, it is claimed that Respondent has not issued any appointment letter and wage slips to the Petitioner

during service. Petitioner states that he used to sign on the vouchers at the time of taking salary. The copies of the

attendance register are marked as Ex. W8, from page No.82 to 151 and the salary payment vouchers are marked as

Ex. W6 from page No.7 to 40. It is claimed that Respondent has terminated the service of the Petitioner orally on

30^th September, 2014 without paying the work period wages for the month of July, August, September, 2014 and

without assigning any reasons, conducting any enquiry and without notice and payment of notice pay, or

compensation and the same is arbitrary, illegal and in contravention to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The witness WW1 has deposed the version of claim statement in his chief affidavit.

Admittedly, Petitioner was not issued any appointment letter by the Respondent at the time of appointment

and Petitioner was engaged as daily wager on payment of Rs.100/- per day in the Respondent office in the year 2008.

Per contra, Respondent contended that the claim of the Petitioner that he was appointed as a temporary sub

staff in the month of May, 2008 and performed as a temporary Assistant in clerical cadre on payment of Rs.100/- per

day is denied. Further, Respondent contended that the Petitioner is one of those persons who was taken for

engagement when work arises and Respondent counted the work done days and the payment was made on daily basis.

It is contended that Petitioner was only a daily wager and question of appointing the Petitioner in May 2008 does not

arise. Further, Respondent contended that provisions of Industrial Dispute Act are not applicable to the Petitioner’s

case, and he has not worked for 240 days in any year continuously. Before going into merit of the evidence in the

present matter appreciation of evidence, it would be apposite to extract the relevant provision in this context as

contained in I.D. Act.

Section 25F provides:-

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 payfor every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

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

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

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 authorized 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;

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3387

(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;

In view of the provision contained under Sec.25F of I.D. Act, Petitioner has to prove that he has worked continuously

for 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from date of termination. WW1 has deposed in the chief affidavit that

he has worked in the Respondents’ office since May, 2008 on daily wages and had worked without any break till he

was orally terminated on 30^th September, 2014. WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and he

remained firm in his statement. Nothing has been elicited to contradict the statement of WW1 that he did work in

the Respondent office as a daily wager. Further, the documents filed by the Petitioner regarding attendance, i.e.,

Ex.W8 from page 82 to 151 for the period from January, 2009 to December, 2012 goes to reveal that the Petitioner

workman has attended the duties in the Respondent office continuously for the alleged duration from January, 2009 to

September 2014 and there is no break in the service except on national holidays and regular holidays of Sundays and

Saturdays. Further, Documents Ex.W6 from page 7 to 40 are the copies of payment vouchers from May 2008,

which goes to reveal that the Petitioner has been paid the wages continuously for work done by the Respondent office

and for said documents have not been denied by the Respondent. As per these documents, wages has been paid

regularly by Respondent to the Petitioner on the basis of working days and work done by the Workman. Thus, from

the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioner, it is established that the Petitioner had worked as daily

wager in the Respondent office and worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from date of

termination.

10.

On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1. Witness MW1 has not denied the fact that

Petitioner had worked in the Respondent office on daily wages since 2008. MW1 in his cross examination states that,

“he is not an employee of Respondent organization and he is a daily wager, no notice was issued, notice pay or

retrenchment compensation was paid.” Further, witness states that the Petitioner was not paid wages for the month

of July, August, September,2014. Since he has not worked in the Respondent organization. Further, witness admitted

that he never worked at Narsampet branch, Warangal district and basing on record he is depositing in this case. Thus,

from the above statement of MW1, it reflects that witness has no personal knowledge about the facts of the case.

Therefore, from the statement of MW1 it is established that Petitioner has worked as daily wager in the Respondent

office and Respondent neither gave any notice before retrenchment nor paid retrenchment compensation.

Relevant decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard are extracted below:-

In the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S T Hadimani AIR 2002 SC page 1147, wherein Hon’ble Apex

Court have held,

“the onus lies upon claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year – In absence of proof of

receipt of salary or wages record of appointment, filing of an affidavit by workman is not sufficient evidence to

prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.

In the case of Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 38 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held,

“ It was for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months’

period.”

In the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S Mills Ltd Vs. State of Rajasthan and another AIR 2005

SC 4065, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held,

“It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked upto 240 days in the year preceding his

termination.”

In the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas AIR 2004 SC 4681, wherein Hon’ble

Apex Court have held,

“that the burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months

prior to his alleged retrenchment u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also held that it is improbable

that a person working in a Local Authority would not be in possession of any documentary evidence to support his

claim before the tr. Apart from muster rolls he could have shown the terms and conditions of his offer of

appointment and the remuneration received by him for working during the afore mentioned period. He even did not

examine any other witness in support of his case.”

In the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam ltd., Vs. Mohammed Rafi Chief Engineer, AIR 2009 SC

(Supp) 2215, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held,

3388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Period of 240 days of employment or engagement of workman-Burden of proof as to working for 240 days is on

workman and not employer.”

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and evidence produced by the Petitioner on record, it is established

that the Petitioner had worked as daily wager in the Respondent office for the period from May, 2008 to September,

2014 and he has been terminated in contravention of the provision of Sec. 25F, as he has been terminated without any

notice or payment of compensation. Therefore, the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the

Petitioner is in contravention of Section 25 F.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

11.

Point No.II:- In view of the discussion and finding at Point No.I, it is evident that the termination of the

Petitioner was in Contravention of the provision of Sec. 25F, G & H of the Act. Now, let us examine whether

Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in the services. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as

extracted below, Petitioner workman is entitled for compensation:-

In the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal, Civil Appeal No.10957/2015 have held:-

“It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of

retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,

however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has

completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been

found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between

a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in

Telegraph Deptt. V. Santosh Kumar Seal[12], wherein this Court stated: (SCC p.777, para ll) "In view of the

aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they

worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and

instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice."

23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with

full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may

be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and or malafide and/or by way

of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage

worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages

is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice.

Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.”

Further, in the case of Vikas Kumar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation dated 20^th January, 2023, the

Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“27. It is up to the descretion of the industrial tribunals are labour courts whether to award relief of compensation or

reinstatement to the workman as per the facts and circumstances of the case. Under section 11A, ID Act, discretion is

vested with the tribunal or the Labour Court to grant relief to the workman by way of awarding compensation in lieu

of discharge or dismissal. The vesting of such a discretion with the Tribunal or the Labour Court has been felt

necessary in the interest of industrial harmony and peace, as in some cases imposition of service of a workman on an,

unwilling employer might not be conducive to harmony and peace of the industries.”

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Apex Court and keeping in view the facts

and circumstances of the present case, since Petitioner was engaged as daily wager and was not appointed against any

vacant permanent post or through recruitment process under any rule, the appropriate relief would be granting him

compensation. Therefore, in lieu of relief of reinstatement to the Petitioner, the relief of compensation would be

appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, keeping in view the duration for which the Petitioner

had worked in the Respondent office continuously from 2008 to 2014, it would be appropriate to grant him

compensation of Rs.2,00,000( Rupees two lakhs only).

This point is answered Accordingly.

12.

Point No.III:- In view of the fore gone discussion and finding at Points No.I & II, the Petitioner is not

entitled for reinstatement and he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,00,000( Rupees two lakhs only) in lieu of

reinstatement.

Therefore, Point No.III is decided accordingly.

AWARD

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3389

The action of the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Hyderabad/Sub-

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

Rajamouli, Ex-Temp. Sub-staff of LIC of India, Divisional Office, Warangal with effect from 1.10.2014 is held not

justified as the same being in contravention of provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, oral termination order

dated 30.9.2014 of Petitioner from service is hereby set aside. Respondent is directed to pay a compensation of

Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only) in lieu of illegal reinstatement to the Petitioner within two months from the

date of receipt of this order. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dication by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 3^rd day of May,

2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Yerra Rajamouli

MW1: Sri S. Balaraman

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of reference order dt.25.8.2015

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of representation to ALC(C), Ramagundam by Petitioner

Dt. 11.12.2014

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of lr. by R2 to ALC(C), Ramagundam dt.7.3.2015

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of reply to R2 lr.by ALC(C), Ramagundam dt.13.5.2015

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings dt.28.1.2015

Ex.W6:

Photostat copies of wage payment vouchers from May, 2008 to 1.7.2014

Ex.W7:

Photostat copies of work status report registers

Ex.W8:

Photostat copies of attendance registers

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1515.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एयरपोटा अथॉठरटी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और एन.एस.सी.बी.आई. एयरपोटा िाउंड वकामेन'स

यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ठरफरेन्स

न.-18/2003) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.- एल -11011/26/2002-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 18/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to Airport Authority of India and N.S.C.B.I. Airport Ground Workmen Union which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

3390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[F. No. L-11011/26/2002-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 18 OF 2003

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Airport Authority of India, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata.

Versus

The General Secretary, N.S.C.B.I. Airport Ground Workmen’s Union

Appearance:

On behalf of Airport Authority of India :

Sri Sushil Karmakar,

Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of N.S.C.B.I. Airport Ground Workmen’s Union : Absent.

Dated: 15^th July, 2024

A W A R D

Ld. Counsel for the management of Airport Authority of India is found present, but none appears from the

side of the union which has espoused the dispute under reference. The record shows the union has stopped putting

appearance since 24-08-2023 and has failed to produce Sri Prasanna Kumar Dalai, W.W.1 for his further examination.

Therefore, a presumption can be drawn that the union is no more interested to proceed with the dispute raised by it

and as such it is not interested to pursue with the same.

However, by order No. L-11011/26/2002 (IR-M) dt. 26-05-2003 Central Govt., Ministry of Labour in

exercise of power conferred u/s 10 (1) (d) and sub-section (2A) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following issue

to this Tribunal for determination:-

“Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (IAD), Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

International Airport, Kolkata in not regularising the service of Sri Swapan Sarkar and 10 others since, October, 1987

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

The union in its claim statement has stated that Airport Authority of India through tender process had

engaged M/s. Hitech Computer for installation and operation of computer system at Cargo Complex and employ its

own personnel for operation of the computers. That those eleven alleged concerned workmen were engaged by M/s.

Hitech Computer Services and whose contract with Airport Authority of India came to an end w.e.f. 1^st June, 1998 but

extended from time to time.

Further, it has alleged that Airport Authority of India had regularised the service of the employees of its

another contractor named M/s. Ideal Cleaning Enterprises, but refused to regularise the services of the concerned

eleven workmen of it’s another contractor named M/s. Hitech Computer Services, on the expiry of contract in the

month of June, 1998 despite the Govt. has held the job of computer operation in the establishment of AAI, Air Cargo

Complex (Export & Import) at International Airport Division, NSCBI Airport, Kolkata is one of the integral function

of the AAI and incidental to the establishment of AAI and thereby prohibited engagement of contractors to run

computer operation at Cargo Complex of NSCBI Airport, Kolkata. Thus, the union has prayed for absorption and

regularisation of those eleven contactors employees of the Airport Authority of India.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3391

The claim and case of the union has been contested by the management of AAI by filing a written statement

where it has alleged that those eleven concerned workmen being employees of its one of the contractors named M/s.

Hitech Computer Services and as such there exists no relationship of employer and employee between it and those

alleged workmen and there cannot be any industrial dispute between them.

It has also alleged that it accepted the offer of M/s. Hitech Computer Services for installation and operation

of computer system at Cargo Complex vide letter dt. 28-10-1987. That as per the terms and conditions of the contract

M/s. Hitech Computer Services was required to install computers at the Cargo Complex and employ its personnel for

operating the computers. Therefore, the persons engaged by M/s. Hitech Computer Services were not the employees

of AAI. That in the year 1976 there was a notification prohibiting employment of contract labour including sweeping,

cleaning and watching building owned and occupied by the establishment. The computer service did not fall under the

purview of the notification dt.09-12-1976 and as such AAI was at liberty to engage contractor for computer job.

That contract between AAI and M/s. Hitech Computer Services came to an end w.e.f. 18-09-2000. That the

Central Govt. also issued a notification on 04-07-2001 prohibiting employment contract labour in the field of

computer operation. Therefore, the employees of the contractor are not entitled to claim regularisation and prayed for

dismissal of the reference.

The record shows the union has examined one Sri Biplab Kumar Bagchi, sometime in the year 2004 but has

failed to produce him for his further examination and cross examination by the management of AAI. Then, it has filed

evidence in chief on affidavit of one Sri Prasanna Kumar Dalai, one of the workmen and who too was partly

examined on 02-01-2023 and 25-01-2023 and thereafter union has failed to produce him for his further examination

and face cross examination. Therefore, the incomplete evidence of both the witnesses examined by union are of no

value in the eye of law and as such their evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

Be that as it may, prima facie it is seen the person whose cause have been espoused by the union were

admittedly engaged by M/s. Hitech Computer Services, one of the contractors of the AAI and whose contract was

terminated by AAI w.e.f. 18-09-2000 as per documents filed by the management of AAI. Therefore, they being

employed by the contractors of AAI, it can be safely said that there exists no relationship of employer and employee

between them and AAI. Consequently, there cannot be any industrial dispute between the employees of the contractor

and the principal employer.

Further, nothing has come on record to prove and show that those eleven alleged contractor’s workmen used

to work under the direct control and supervision of AAI or AAI was their disciplinary authority and not M/s. Hitech

Computer Services or they were paid salary/ wages by AAI or that their P.F. A/c. was maintained by AAI. Therefore,

they being direct employees of M/s. Hitech Computer Services, a contractor of AAI, it can be presumed that they

were well aware of the facts, their deployment by their employer at AAI was tenure basis and for limited period i.e.

only for the contract period and not permanent. Therefore, they being the employees of M/s. Hitech Computer

Services, they can seek relief only from their direct employer and not from AAI on the termination of the contract

between their employer and AAI. They cannot seek regularisation in the establishment of principal employer/ AAI on

the expiry of the contract between their employer and the principal employer as principal employer being a Govt.

organisation has to follow its own prescribed recruitment rules and regulation for appointment of technical expert

(computer) for running its Cargo Division at International Airport. That all citizens of India should be provided with

opportunity of employment in a Govt. organisation that too after publication of notification of sanctioned vacancy.

That recruitment has to be made from amongst the eligible candidates having required qualification and those who are

successful in clearing both written test and interview. There cannot be any engagement from back door process. If

3392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AAI had engaged those persons directly on contractual basis and had they worked for years together in doing perineal

or integral nature of job of AAI, then question of regularisation may arise, but in the present case they being direct

employees of the contractor of AAI, their remedy lies with the contractor and not with the AAI.

Further, from the gazette notification dt. 04-07-2001, it appears the Central Govt. has prohibited employment

of contract labour in the works of computer operation in the establishment of Airport Authority of India, Air Cargo

Complex (Export & Import), International Airport Division at International Airports, Kolkata and Chennai w.e.f. the

date of publication of the notification in the official gazette.

In view of the above, this Tribunal holds the dispute raised by the Employees of M/s. Hitech Computer

Services for their regularisation in Airport Authority of India, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport,

Kolkata is not maintainable being speculative for wrongful gain.

Accordingly, Reference Case no. 18 of 2003 is dismissed and an award to that effect is passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA. Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1516.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससा मिािजि कोक जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और कच्छ लोकल मज़िूर संगठन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, पंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-53/2022) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ

था l

[सं.- एल -30011/20/2022-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 53/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s Mahashakti Coke Limited and Kutch Local Mazdoor Sangathan which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No L-30011/20/2022-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 10^th July, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 53 / 2022

M/s Mahashakti Coke Ltd.,

Mundra,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370425

............. First Party

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3393

V/s

The President,

Kutch Local Mazdoor Sangathan,

Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370205

..….….Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/20/2022-IR (M) dated 20.09.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Mahashakti Coke Ltd., Mundra, Kutch by not agreeing for joint

discussion/conciliation proceedings in respect of the Industrial Dispute bearing ID No. 300005794 dated

13.09.2021 raised by the unrecognized trade union namely Kutch Local Mazdoor Sangathan, Gandhidham, which

is claiming as the established union in the establishment of the management, is justified? If not, what relief the

trade union is entitled to and to what extent?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 03^rd October, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than one and half years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of

claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1517.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससा अल्राटेक सीमेंट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और कच्छ लोकल मज़िूर संगठन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, पंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-56/2022) को िैसा दक

था l

[सं. एल -29011/38/2022-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 56/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

3394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

relation to M/s UltraTech Cement Limited and Kutch Local Mazdoor Sangathan which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. L-29011/38/2022-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 10^th July, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 56 / 2022

M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd.,

Vill. – Vayor, Tal. – Abdasa,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370511

............. First Party

V/s

The President,

Kutch Local Mazdoor Sangathan,

Plot No. 8, Bhakti Nagar, Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370205

..….….Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause

(d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below

mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-29011/38/2022-IR (M) dated 31.10.2022 for adjudication

to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Ultratech Cement Limited, Vayor, Kutch by not considering the

demands of Kutch Local Mazdoor Sangathan, Gandhidham, vide letter dated 29/10/2021 in respect of unfair

labour practice and breach of labour laws by various contractors under the management of M/s Ultratech Cement

Limited, Vayor, Kutch including the termination of the services of workmen Shri Koli Dinesh Ismail and Shri

Abdulgani Urash MIyaji is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief these workmen and union are entitled

to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 15^th November, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than one and half years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of

claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 10, 2024/श्रावण 19, 1946

3395

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1518.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससा अल्राटेक सीमेंट जलजमटेड; मेससा इंजडयन इंफ़्रा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और कच्छ लोकल मज़िूर संगठन के

बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, पंचाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-

60/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -29011/40/2022-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1518.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 60/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s UltraTech Cement Limited; M/s Indian Infra and Kutch Local Mazdoor Sangathan which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. L-29011/40/2022-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 10^th July, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 60 / 2022

1. M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd.,

Vill. – Vayor, Tal. – Abdasa,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370511

2. M/s Indian Infra,

Vill. – Charpadi, Tal. – Abdasa,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370655

........ ..... First Party

V/s

3397

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 31 जुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1519.—औद्योगिक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस अल्राटेक सीमेंट गलगमटेड; मेससस एस. के. इंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और कच्छ लोकल मज़िूर

संिठन के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्िसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, अहमिाबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स

न.-61/2022) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया िया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -29011/41/2022-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अिर सगचि

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 61/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s UltraTech Cement Limited; M/s S. K. Enterprises and Kutch Local Mazdoor Sangathan which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. L-29011/41/2022-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 10^th July, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 61 / 2022

1. M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd.,

Vill. – Vayor, Tal. – Abdasa,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370511

2. M/s S. K. Enterprises,

C/o UTCL, Vayor, Abdasa Sewagram Cement Workers,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370655

........ .... First Party

V/s

The President,

Kutch Local Mazdoor Sangathan,

Plot No. 8, Bhakti Nagar, Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370205

..…. ….Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3398

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-29011/41/2022-IR (M) dated 04.11.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the contractor M/s S. K. Enterprise, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh under the management of

M/s Ultratech Cement Limited, Vayor, Kutch by not considering the demand of Kutch Local Mazdoor

Sangathan, Gandhidham, in respect of reinstatement in continuous service with full back wages with

consequential benefits of Shri Dinesh Koli, Workman is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 01^st December, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than one and half years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of

claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 31 जुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1520.—औद्योगिक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेससस

गमश्रीलाल माइंस (पी) गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और सुककंिा उपात्यका माइंस िकससस यूगनयन के बीच अनुबंि में

गनर्िसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, भुिनेश्वर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.-39/2021) को जैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया िया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -29011/13/2021-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अिर सगचि

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 39/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s Mishrilal Mines (P) Ltd. and Sukinda Upatyaka Mines Workers Union which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. L-29011/13/2021-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,

Bhubaneswar.

3399

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 39/2021

Date of Passing Order – 21^st June, 2024

Between :-

The Chief Executive Officer,

M/s. Mishrilal Mines (P) Ltd.,

27A, Camac Street, Kolkatta – 700 016

…

1^st Party-Management.

(And)

General Secretary,

SukindaUpatyaka Mines Workers Union,

Saruabil, P.O. Kanasa, Via – Sukinda,

Jajpur (Orissa) – 755 028.

…

2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-Management.

None.

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union.

O R D E R

In the present case, a reference was received from the Section Officer to the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-29011/13/2021 – IR(M), dated 26.07.2021 under clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a

dispute, under the following schedule:-

“Whether the demand of SukindaUptyaka Mines Workers Union (SUMWU) vide letter dated

27.02.2020 to the management of M/s. Mishrilal Mines (P) Ltd., for 10% annual increment to

11 workmen of Saruabil Chromite Mines (List enclosed) on the basis of statutory minimum wages w.e.f.

01.08.2018 as per memorandum of settlement dated 11.08.2018 Act is proper, legal and justified? If yes,

what relief the workmen are entitled to? What directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?

In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New

Delhi commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of

such statement of claim to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2^nd Party-Union.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2^nd Party-Union on 20.12.2021 and on dated

02.05.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2^nd Party-Union,

referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the

period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served

upon the 2^nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2^nd Party-Union opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2^nd Party-Union is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the 2^nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its

cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.

In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.

Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for publication.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3400

नई दिल्ली, 31 जुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 1521.—औद्योगिक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेससस

नालको कॉपोरेट ऑदफस; मेससस एम एंड आर कॉम्प्लेक्स के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और नालको मज़िूर संघ के बीच

अनुबंि में गनर्िसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, भुिनेश्वर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.-73/2021) को जैसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया िया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.07.2024 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल -43011/4/2021-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अिर सगचि

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024

S.O. 1521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 73/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s

NALCO Corporate Office; M/s M&R Complex and NALCO Mazdoor Sangh which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 31.07.2024.

[No. L-43011/4/2021-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 73/2021

Date of Passing Order – 21^st June, 2024

Between :-

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. NALCO Corporate Office,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 023.

The Executive Director,

M/s. M & R Complex, P.O. Damanjodi,

Koraput (Orissa) – 763 008.

…

1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

General Secretary,

NALCO MazdoorSangh,

Qrs. No. T/61, Sector-1,

Damanjodi, Koraput – 763 008.

…

2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-Managements.

None.

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union.

3401

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

O R D E R

In the present case, a reference was received from the Section Officer to the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-43011/4/2021 – IR(M), dated 16.11.2021 under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute,

under the following schedule:-

“Whether NALCO MazdoorSangh, being an unrecognized union have the locus-standi to raise the

Industrial Dispute against the management of NALCO? Whether raising such issue which is already

settled through Long Term Wage Settlement with the Recognized Trade Unions, is legal and justified?

If yes, as to what relief the affected Workmen are entitled to?”

In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New

Delhi commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of

such statement of claim to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2^ndparty-Union.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2^nd Party-Union on 20.12.2021, 29.06.2022 and on

dated 02.05.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2^nd Party-

Union, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above

notices were served upon the 2^nd Party Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2^nd Party-Union opted to abstain away

from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2^nd Party-Union is not

interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the 2^nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its

cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.

In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.

Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for publication.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1522.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

;wdks बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a02/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. 39025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-31]

सलोनी] उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2024

S.O. 1522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.02/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2024- IR(B-II)-31]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

CGIT-02 OF 2015

Shri Hansraj Koley

…….. Applicant/Employee

Versus

Director, UCO, RSETI …

Opp. Parties & Chairman-cum-Managing

Director, UCO Bank.

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3402

Appearance

On behalf of the Applicant : Mr. Chira Ranjan Kanjilal, Authorised Representative.

On behalf of Opp. Parties

: Mr. Sourjya Roy, Ld. Advocate.

Date: 10^th June, 2024

A W A R D.

This false case projects, the desperation of an unemployed youth of the country and how he tried to encash or

manipulate an event of his engagement as a guest faculty, to get regular employment in a bank, to ensure his future

and secure a stable life without undergoing the rigours of regular recruitment process.

That Sri Hansraj Koley invoked the jurisdiction of this Industrial Tribunal, by filing an application u/s 2-A of

the I. D. Act, alleging illegal dismissal or retrenchment or termination from the service by the bank.

Going through the petition u/s 2A of the I.D. Act, the basis of the present case, the claimant has alleged that

he was working for the Director, UCO RSETI, Hooghly and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, UCO Bank as a

workman since 21-03-2011 to do the job of the Institute under the control and supervision of the Director and other

concerned officials and for different sorts of banking works as needed and required and for which he has received

several appreciation certificates. His last drawn salary was Rs.5, 500/- per month. The employer, the management of

the bank without any information, without any prior notice verbally informed him that his service was no more

required on and from 21-11-2012. Thus, he alleged that under the veil of refusal of employment, the management of

the bank terminated him from the service.

He made several representations before the authorities of the management of the bank against such illegal

termination but of no effect. Finding no other alternative, he lodged a complaint to that effect before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata through letter dt.14-10-2015, but who too could not settle the dispute and as

such after obtaining a certificate from the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata has to come before this

Tribunal for justice and relief. Thus, he has alleged that his termination from the service as a workman by the bank to

be illegal and prayed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

Such application of the workman has been contested by the bank by filing written statement from where it is

seen that UCO Bank never engaged the applicant to work either in any of the branches of UCO Bank or at its training

institute at Hooghly at any point of time.

That UCO Bank has a Rural Development and Self Employment Training Institute at Hooghly, to impart

training to unemployed rural BPL/ APL youth for self-employment as well as wage employment. That such

institution had requested the applicant to take the session as per specified session plan on 24-03-2012 and for which

the applicant was paid a token honorarium/ conveyance expenses. Thereafter, the bank never requested the applicant

for imparting any training to unemployed youth.

It has also been alleged by the bank that applicant made several requests before the concerned authority of

the bank to allow him to conduct awareness camps as he was receiving several proposals from different Gram

Panchayats to conduct awareness camps which the bank declined. Then the applicant started making claim that he has

not been paid for the job rendered by him for the RSETI, Hooghly on different dates and also lodged a complaint

before the Finance Minister of Govt. of West Bengal. It has alleged that it never engaged concerned workman at any

capacity to work in the bank or to work at its training institute at Hooghly and question of terminating the applicant

from the service of the bank does not arise. In fact there is no relationship of employer and employee between the

bank and the applicant. That there cannot be any industrial dispute between the bank and the applicant. That this

Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the applicant u/s 2A(2) of the I. D. Act. It has also been

alleged that the applicant in order to make some unlawful gain has filed the present application by suppressing

material facts. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the application u/s 2A(2) of the I. D. Act.

Record shows the workman has examined himself as W.W.1. That he has produced the following

documents:-

1. Copy of applicant’s petition dt. 07-03-2014 filed before the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Kolkata

and which has been marked as Exb. W-1.

2. Copy of letter of UCO RSETI, Hooghly dt.30-01-2012 to Employment Exchange, Arambagh, Hooghly and

which has been marked as Exb. W-2.

3. Copy of letter dt.24-03-2012 addressed to the Applicant by UCO-RSETI, Hooghly and which has been

marked as Exb. W-3.

3403

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the other hand the Bank has examined Sri Tarun Kanti Ghosh, Director of UCO RSETI, Hooghly as

M.W.1. From the side of the management following documents have been exhibited:-

1. Copy of letter of UCO RSETI, Hooghly dt.30-01-2012 addressed to Employment Exchange, Arambagh,

Hooghly and which has been marked as M-1.

2. Copy of applicant’s letter dt.20-11-2012 addressed to the Director, UCO- RSETI, Hooghly and which has

been marked as M-2.

3. Copy of letter dt.17-08-2013 of Dy. General Manager, Agril & Rural Business Department of UCO Bank to

the Dy. Secretary to the Government of Bengal and which has been marked as Exb. M -3.

4. Copy of memo of settlement of Industrial Dispute under Section 2A of the Act, 1947 between the

management of RSETI under control of UCO Bank, Kolkata and Sri Hansraj Koley, before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (C), Kolkata /Conciliation Officer arrived u/s 12(3) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 on

17^th June, 2014 and which has been marked as Exb. M-4.

The workman has filed written notes of argument and cited following decisions :-

1. Madhya Pradesh Bank Karmachari Sangh (M.P) –vs- Syndicate Bank & Anrs. 1996 LAB L 1161,

2. State Bank of India –vs- N. Sundaramoney 1996 LLJ Page 478,

3. D. K. Yadav –vs- M/s. J.M. A. Industries Ltd., 1993 (67) FLR, 111 and

4. Bank of Baroda –vs- Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari (2005) II CLR 279.

The bank too has filed written notes of argument and citited following decisions :-

1. Secretary, State of Karnanta & Ors. –vs- Umadevi (3)& Anrs. (2006) 4 SCC 1,

2. Renu & Ors. –vs- District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi & Anrs. (2014) 14 SCC 50,

3. Balwant Rai Saluja and Anrs. –vs- Air India Ltd. & Ors., (2014) SCC 407 and

4. National Engineering Industries Ltd. –vs- State of Rajasthan & OPrs. (2000) 1 SCC 371.

Gone through the above cited decisions and find facts and circumstances of the present case entirely different

from those cited decisions. Therefore, I am not inclined to discuss the cases referred above for deciding the present

case. More so, it is settled law each case has to be decided on its own merit as facts and circumstances of each case

defers from others and Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how fact situation of case

before it fits in with fact situation of decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be

read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of statute and that too taken out of their context. They must be read in

context in which they appear to have been stated. Disposal of case by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not

proper because one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.

Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice.

Be that as it may, that for proper determination of the present dispute, it is necessary to discuss the functions

of “RSETI” and to find out whether the applicant was indeed engaged not only as a Guest Faculty but also to do

miscellaneous job by the UCO Bank at its training institute.

From the materials on record it appears UCO Bank has Rural Development and Self Employment Training

Institute at Mankundu, Hooghly to promote, manage and impart necessary skill training and skill up gradation of the

rural BPL youth to mitigate the unemployment problem with active cooperation from state governments. Training

programme is decided by the institute, based on the local resources, situation and potential demands for the products/

services. Generally, it impart two sets of training, one basic orientation programme course for SGSY SHGs and other

is Skill development programmes for micro enterprise and wage employment/placemen. That soft skill training shall

be an integral part of all the training programmes.

Exb. M-1 and Exb. W-2 happen to be the same set of documents and from where it is seen that as per the

request of the Employment Exchange office, Arambagh, Hooghly, the bank had decided to organise a self-

employment Awareness-cum-Motivational Programme at the office premises of the Employment Exchange from1st

February to 3^rd February, 2012. Further, from such letter it appears that bank had sent the study materials and other

necessary accessories for organising such awareness camps in the office premises of Employment Exchange,

Arambagh, Hooghly through Mr. Hansraj Koley and sought permission to allow Mr. Koley to install the banner and

to arrange other necessary inputs to the office of the Employment Exchange, Arambagh, Hooghly.

Prima facie the above exhibited document does not speak that Sri Hansraj Koley, was directed to attend the

awareness-cum-motivational programme from 01-02-2012 to 03-02-2012, in the office premises of Employment

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3404

Exchange, Arambagh, Hooghly as a Guest Faculty rather it is seen that he was to deliver materials for such

programme and to install banners, festoons and make arrangement for necessary inputs.

However, UCO Bank, in Exb. M-3, a letter addressed to the Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal dt.

17-08-2013 by the Dy. General Manager, Agri & Rural Business Department, has admitted that Mr. Koley was

consulted by the institute to impart training as a guest faculty and duly paid his honorarium by obtaining receipt dt.

03-02-2012 and 28-03-2012. Exb.W-3 another letter dt.24-03-2012 of Director, RSETI, Hooghly, to the applicant

prima facie shows that he was to act as a faculty support on entrepreneur motivational programme on payment of

token honorarium / conveyance expenses. Thus, from the above mentioned two exhibited documents it is seen that

applicant was either engaged to work as a Guest Faculty or as a Faculty Support by the RSETI UCO Bank, Hooghly.

But, the applicant in his evidence recorded under oath on 04-01-2019, has stated that his educational qualification is

class XII passed or to be Higher Secondary Passed.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to understand what the term “Guest Faculty” denotes. Generally, Guest

Faculty means Guest Lecturer who is not a part of the permanent members of the faculty of any educational institute

but who are usually experts or professionals in particular field and are invited to share their knowledge, expertise, an

experience for a specified period of time.

So, question arises in the mind of the Tribunal, whether a person who is only class XII passed or to be

Higher Secondary Passed can be a Guest Faculty to impart training in a self-employment awareness-cum-motivational

programme organised by Rural Self-Employment Training Institute of UCO Bank?

From the website of RSETI, it is seen the purpose of RSETI is to impart basic orientation programme

courses for SGSY SHGs and Skill Development Programme for micro enterprises and wage employment and

placement. No documents have been furnished by the applicant to show though he may be class XII passed or to be

Higher Secondary Passed but he possesses extra qualification or diploma in the subject matter for which he was

engaged as a Guest Faculty of RSETI. In fact Exhibit-W2 and M-1 prove he was assigned by the bank to carry only

study materials, banners, festoons etc. which are necessary to organize Self Employment Awareness cum-

motivational programme and install those banners and festoons at the venue of the programme and nothing more.

Therefore, it is not known how the applicant was appointed as a guest faculty by UCO RSETI, Hooghly as alleged in

Exb. M-3.

The applicant in Exb. M-2 a letter addressed to the Director, UCO RSETI, Hooghly on 20-11-2012, has

alleged that he was appointed as a guest faculty by the institute and also to do office works and he was not paid

properly for the work done by him and requested to make necessary payment for works done by him for more than

one year.

But, he in his cross examination admitted that he has no documents except vouchers to prove his

appointment as a workman by the institute to do some other work apart from additional job of guest faculty or to

prove that he was paid monthly salary of Rs.5,500/- by the Director, RSETI through vouchers or to prove indeed he

was paid a sum of Rs.5,500/- per month by UCO Bank RSETI, Mankundu, Hooghly for working as a workman or the

job of guest faculty was his additional duty. Thus, he has failed to prove his engagement by bank as casual/temporary/

part time workman.

Be that as it may, Exb. M-4 Memorandum of Settlement dt.17-06-2014 shows that the dispute which the

applicant had raised before the Regional Labour Commissioner was amicably settled by executing a Memorandum of

Settlement between UCO Bank and the applicant Sri Hansraj Koley u/s 12 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 on 17-06-2014.

The terms of settlement read as follows : -

“1.0 It is agreed by the parties that Sh. Hansraj Koley may apply before the UCo Bank management in

prescribed manner for his employment against any regular vacancy, as and when the same will be notified by the

Bank management.

2.1 It is agreed that the UCo Bank management shall pay a lumsum amount of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) only

towards full and final settlement of all outstanding dues raised by Sh. Hansraj Koley.

1.2 Sh. Hansraj Koley is agreed to receive Rs.2,000/- only towards full and final settlement of his pending dues

against the management of UCo. Bank, Kolkata.

1.3 It is agreed that management of UCo Bank shall pay the agreed amount i.e. Rs.2,000/- within a period of 30

days.

1.4 It is agreed by both the parties that by this settlement the dispute raised by Sh. Hansraj Koley is fully and

finally settled, which is consider fair and reasonable.

The above terms and conditions of settlement ipso facto prove that the applicant Mr. Hansraj Koley was not

an employee of UCO Bank or of its training institute at any point of time and which proves there exists no

3405

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

relationship of employer and employee between UCO Bank and Sri Hansraj Koley. Since there exists no relationship

of employer and employee between UCO Bank and Sri Hansraj Kokey, then question of existence of industrial

dispute between them too does not arise. Since Sri Hansraj Koley was not an employee of the bank in any capacity or

in any category then question of retrenchment or dismissal by the bank too does not arise. That apart, settlement of

dispute on payment of dues of Rs.2,000/- itself proves or an inference can be drawn that Sri Hansraj Koley was paid

his due for working either as a guest faculty or faculty support by RSETI, UCO Bank, Hooghly.

For the sake of argument even if we assume Sri Hansraj Koley was an employee of RSETI, UCO Bank,

Hooghly, then in view of provisions of section 18 (3) of the I.D.Act, 1947 he is bound by the settlement executed

between him and the management of bank before the Labour Commissioner during the conciliation proceeding and he

cannot wriggle out from such settlement and barred from raising any dispute on any of the issues which have already

been settled. Thus, it is seen that Sri Hansraj Koley after execution of settlement on 17-06-2014 has filed the present

application u/s 2-A (2) of the I.D. Act claiming himself to be a illegally retrenched employee of RSETI, UCO Bank,

Hooghly when Exb. M-4 itself proves that he was not an employee in any capacity either of the bank at its branches

or at its RSETI, Hooghly. This Tribunal finds the applicant has filed present false speculative case of retrenchment

against the management of UCO Bank in order to make some unlawful gain and that too knowing fully he was not an

employee of the bank or being engaged by the bank as a casual /temporary/ part time subordinate staff and that too

after getting his dispute regarding non-payment of his honorarium of Rs.2,000/- settled on 17-06-2014.

Therefore, the application u/s 2A (2) of the I.D.Act, 1947 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, CGIT

02/2015 is dismissed an award to that effect is passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1523.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

कोलकाता पोटस रस्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a62/2014)izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. 32011/01/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी] उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2024

S.O. 1523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.62/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kolkata Port Trust and their

workmen.

[No. L-32011/01/2014- IR(B.II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 62 OF 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

The Chairman, Kolkata Port Trust

Versus

The General Secretary, Haldia Port & Dock Employees Association.

Appearance:

On behalf of the Kolkata Port Trust: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Workmen/Union : Mr. Lakshman Ch. Haldar, Ld. Advocate.

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3406

Dated: 18^thJune, 2024

A W A R D

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-32011/01/2014-

IR (B-II) dated 21-08-2014 in exercise of the power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of Kolkata Port Trust is justified in terminating the service of 3

no. of workmen namely Sri Manabendra Pramanik, Cook, Smt. Narayani Bauri, Sweeper and Sri Khokan Bauri,

Servant is legal and/or justified?

(2) Whether the action of the management in denying the terminal benefits to the above workmen is legal

and/or justified? What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

The facts giving rise to the above disputes are that management of Kolkata Port Trust, had engaged casual

daily Cook, Sweeper and Servant to render their service to Station In-charge, Vessel Traffic Management System

Roychowk Syledis Station and other visiting officials. That they were paid wages by Kolkata Port Trust through

vouchers. That they used to work directly under the administration and control of Kolkata Port Trust. Roychowk

Syledis Station has been closed down from January, 2012 and on the closure of the station those three workmen were

denied employment w.e.f. 17-01-2012. That they have not been paid any retrenchment compensation or deputed them

to other sites or office of Kolkata Port Trust. Therefore, it has been alleged that those three workmen have been

illegally retrenched from the service. Therefore, they have prayed for their reinstatement w.e.f. 17-01-2012 with

consequential relief.

The claim of the union has been contested by the management of Kolkata Port Trust and where it has

admitted that those three workmen were deployed at the Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station. They were

paid in appropriate manner in terms of hours of work rendered by them under Minimum Wages Act. They used to

discharge their duty at the discretion of the Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station to serve the officials who

posted/visited Roychowk Syledis Station.

After commencement of functioning of Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) the functioning of

Roychowk Syledis Station has been closed down and vacant possession of the same was handed over to the Estate

Department of Kolkata Port Trust on 27-01-2012. That Roychowk Syledis Station has been handed over to M/s.

Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers, under the Ministry of Defence. That on closure or non-existence of

Roychowk Syledis Station there was/is no requirement to engage those three workmen for any purpose. More so,

Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station primarily engaged them to do domestic work on his exclusively

personal capacity and discretion. Those three persons had no connection with Kolkata Port Trust either through any

contract or appointment. They cannot be considered to be employees of Kolkata Port Trust. That there exists no

relationship of employer – employee between those three workmen and the management of Kolkata Port Trust and as

such no industrial dispute lies. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference.

Record shows the workmen have examined Sri Manabendra Pramanik, one of the workmen as W.W.1 and

Sri Ashok Kumar Manna, Joint Secretary, Haldia Port and Dock Employees Associations as W.W. 2. The Union has

filed following documents in support of its case and claim:-

Copy of letter dt.25-11-2011 of Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Kharagpur addressed to the

concerned union where it has been stated that those three workmen engaged at various Syledis/VTMS Stations under

Department of Chief Hydraulic Engineer of Kolkata Port Trust are workers under the administration and control of

Kolkata Port Trust and not under Haldia Dock Complex and which has been marked as Exhibit-W-1,

Copy of letters dt.20-08-2012 and 17-01-2012 of the Union to the A.L.C. (Central) and which have been

marked as Exb. W-2 and W-2/A,

Copy of A. L. C.’s letter dt.03-03-2014 to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,

in respect of failure of conciliation and for referring the dispute u/s 10(A) of the I. D. Act to which management has

expressed disagreement and which has been marked as Exb. W-3 and

Payment receipts in 14 pages and which have been marked as Exb. W-4 (collectively).

On the other hand management has examined Sri Vinay Sanjay Sule, Executive Engineer, Shyama Prasad

Mookerjee Port, Kolkata earlier known as Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata as M.W. 1.

3407

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The management has filed following documents:-

Note sheets from page no.11 to page no.15 and which has been marked as Exb. M-1 in connection of the

matter relating to those concerned three workmen,

Copy of handing over of Roychowk Syledis Station building to the Estate Department on 27-01-2012 along

with letter dt.30-01-2012 and which have been marked as Exb. M-2 and

Note Sheet of Kolkata Port Trust Wireless Service dt.03-08-2011 and which has been marked as Exb.M-3.

Gone through both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties from where it is seen that

Roychowk Syledis Station was under the control and administration of Kolkata Port Trust. The said Station has been

closed down in the month of January, 2012 and entire station premises has been handed over to the Estate Department

of Kolkata Port Trust on 27-01-2012 and there exists no such station at present. It is also admitted fact that there was

a post of Station-in-Charge at Roychowk Syledis Station.

However, contradictory and inconsistent evidence have come on record on the issue whether those three

concerned workmen were engaged to render their services as a full time cook, part time sweeper and part time servant

exclusively to the Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station or they were engaged to render their services to the

visiting officials also as alleged by M.W.1 and as projected in Exb. M-1 or whether those three persons were engaged

by the Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station in his personal capacity and in his discretion and not by Kolkata

Port Trust.

It is the case of the workmen that they have been employed by the Kolkata Port Trust and they were paid

wages by Kolkata Port Trust for rendering their services to Station-in-Charge of Roychowk Syledis Station.

It is true that W.W.1, the alleged cook Sri Manabendra Pramanik in his cross examination has stated that he

was not given any appointment letter but he was appointed as substitute of his father. Station-in-Charge in his own

capacity has appointed him and used to give salary of his father to him. His father was a daily rated worker and not a

permanent staff. His salary was not paid by Kolkata Port Trust but paid by Station-in-Charge. He could not avail any

leave and had to provide a substitute in case he had to take leave. That he and other two workmen were paid wages

through vouchers and produced those receipts which have been marked as Exb.W-4 (collectively).

The W.W.2, Joint Secretary of the concerned union stated that Sri Manabendra Pramanik joined as a Cook in

the year 2010 after the demise of his father. Sri Khokon Bauri joined as a servant in the year 2003 after the retirement

of his father and Smt. Narayani Bauri joined as a sweeper in the year 2002 directly. He further stated that those three

workmen were paid by Kolkata Port Trust through Station-in-Charge in cash. Sri Manabendra Pramanik was paid full

wages as he had to remain in the residence of Station-in-Charge for 24 hours. That Smt. Narayani Bauri and Sri

Khokon Bauri were paid half the wages of that of Sri Manabendra Pramanik as they used to render service only for

eight hours in a day. They were paid on monthly but at daily rate basis.

On the other hand M.W.1 has come up with a new case supported by Exb. M-1 and alleged those cook,

sweeper and servant were not engaged exclusively for Station-in-Charge but also to serve other visiting officials and

as such Kolkata Port Trust used to make payment to them through G-20. He has further stated that Station-in-Charge

were earlier paid allowances for engagement of a sweeper, cook and servant but who had expressed that such

allowances were reflected as his income and for which he had to bear additional income tax from his salary.

Therefore, the management of Kolkata Port Trust paid wages to those three concerned workmen through G-20.

It is settled law no party can be allowed to make out a new case at the time of trial and when the original

pleading of the party is totally silent about such fact or there is absence of nexus in between the averments made in

the original pleading and with the new facts brought at the time of trial.

Be that as it may, in view of new plea taken by the management a question arises in the mind of the Tribunal,

if those three workmen were to work not only for Station-in-Charge but also to serve the other visiting officials then it

is not known how the management of Kolkata Port Trust could pay domestic help allowances as a part of the salary of

Station-in-Charge and for which he was subjected to income tax. It is not known how the management of Kolkata

Port Trust could pay wages of its casual employees engaged to serve not exclusively Station-in-Charge but also other

officials of Kolkata Port Trust visiting Roychowk Syledis Station as a part and parcel of the salary of the Station-in-

Charge as allowances as sated by M.W.1.

Further, evidence of M.W.1 appears to be evasive as he could not say whether the Station-in-Charge of

Roychowk Syledis Station was provided with an official quarter or not or whether he had to remain in the Station for

24 hours or not or only during the specific duty hours or whether the Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station

used to remain alone in the Station or whether other officials too used to visit Roychowk Syledis Station.

Further, he has stated those three concerned workmen were not engaged by Kolkata Port Trust or through its

contractor rather they were engaged by Station-in-Charge who was vested with discretion power to engage casual

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3408

employees. That Station-in-Charge of Roychowk Syledis Station used to draw allowance and from which he used to

make payment to cook, sweeper, caretaker and servant engaged by him in official capacity but later when he found

that servant allowance which he had drawn was burden with additional income tax and as such instead of paying

servant allowance to him directly he was allowed to draw servant allowance through G-20 and make payment to those

persons whom he had employed to work as cook, sweeper, caretaker and servant and denied of making payment to

those three workmen by the management of Kolkata Port Trust.

However, during cross examination he has admitted that at present four Vessel Traffic Management System

are in operation in West Bengal namely Haldia, Sagar, Freserganj and Dadanpatra. That as per requirement of such

VTMS stations, Kolkata Port Trust has provided contractors employees such as sweeper, cook and servant to those

four VTMS stations. He has further stated that at present casual employees are engaged in those operational four

VTMS through tender process or through contractors.

Therefore, in view of such statement made by M.W.1 in cross examination it appears that Station-in-Charge

of VTMS Station at Roychowk Syledis Station too was provided with casual workmen in the capacity of cook,

sweeper and servant and for that reason Kolkata Port Trust used to make payment to those casual employees engaged

for rendering personal services to the Station-in-Charge through G-20.

It is a matter of common knowledge that if the post of Station-in-Charge is entitled to draw servant

allowance, then as per provision of section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 such allowance is an exempted

allowance as section 10(14) provides exemption of expenses incurred due to employer’s business provided such

expenses are spent only for given purpose. Therefore, question of burdening Station-in-Charge with additional income

tax for drawing domestic help allowance does not arise. Further, drawing wages of departmental casual workmen as a

part of salary of Station-in-Charge sound weird and unknown.

In the present case it has come on record that casual cook, sweeper and servant were provided by the Kolkata

Port Trust to the Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station, perhaps by virtue of his post or as provided by

Kolkata Port Trust as his service condition.

Nonetheless, M.W.1 admitted that those three concerned workmen were paid by Kolkata Port Trust through

G-20. If they were not employed directly by Kolkata Port Trust either as a temporary or daily or casual workmen then

the question of payment of wages to them by Kolkata Port Trust through G-20 too does not arise. Payment of wages

to those three casual workmen through G-20, itself prove that they were indeed engaged by Kolkata Port Trust and

not by Station-in-Charge in his personal capacity as alleged. Such payment itself proves existence of relationship of

employer and employee between Kolkata Port Trust and those three workmen.

Further, Exb.W-4 (collectively), the payment receipts for the period from March, 2010 to February,2011

bearing seal and signature of Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syeldis Station, Kolkata Port Trust Hydraulic Study

Department ipso facto prove that Sri Manabendra Pramanik was paid full wages for working as a cook. That Sri

Khokon Bauri and Smt. Narayani Bauri were paid half wages for working as a servant and sweeper. That they were

engaged for the entire month without any break or holidays.

Thus, those payment receipts prima facie show that three workmen had put continuous services for more

than 240 days in a calendar year either as a permanent casual or part time casual and they were not engaged by the

Station-in-Charge in his personal capacity to render personal service to him.

Exhibit-M-1 also corroborates that Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station was provided with full time

cook, part time servant and part time sweeper in his station and the same mode of payment to be followed in other

four VTMS Haldia, Sagar, Freserganj and Dadanpatra.

It is very interesting to note that Exhibit-M-1 Note Sheet dt.12-04-2011 to 15-07-2011 is manufactured for

the purpose of this case as Exb.W-4 (collectively) dt. March, 2010 to February, 2011 belie the contents of Exb.M-1.

Further, Exb.W-4 (collectively) prima facie prove that Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station used to make

payment of wages to those three persons not in his personal capacity but in his official capacity as Officer-in-Charge.

The management has failed to produce salary register of Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station to prove that

earlier allowances was paid to the Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station in his salary for making payment of

wages to departmental cook, sweeper and servant engaged not for his personal use but for use of the entire station and

such allowances had become additional burden to his income tax. Therefore, the management decided to make

payment to those casual employees engaged by Station-in-Charge, Roychowk Syledis Station through G-20.

Therefore, in view of the above, the concerned three workmen having rendered their services for more than

240 days in a year as a cook, sweeper and servant at Roychowk Syledis Station from the month of March, 2010 to

February, 2011 and that too without any break deemed to be in continuous service u/s 25-B of the I.D. Act, for the

purpose of chapter VA which deals with lay off and retrenchment. Thus, in view of provision of Section 25-F of I.D.

Act, Kolkata Port Trust cannot retrench them without giving them one month’s notice in writing indicating the reason

3409

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or they have been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice. Further, Kolkata Port Trust has to pay at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be

equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months.

In the present case there is no compliance of provisions of 25-F by Kolkata Port Trust at the time of the

retrenchment of those three casual concerned workmen from the service as a full time cook, part time servant and part

time sweeper when it closed or shut down its Roychowk Syledis Station in the month of January, 2012.

Therefore, Kolkata Port Trust is directed to make payment of a lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakh) only to each of the concerned workman.

Accordingly Reference No.62 of 2014 is disposed of and award is passed to that effect.

K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1524.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

कोलकाता पोटस रस्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a67/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-32012/01/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2024

S.O. 1524.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.67/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kolkata Port Trust and their

workmen.

[No. L-32012/01/2014-IR(B.II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 67 OF 2014

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Kolkata Port Trust & M/s. Bengal Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd.

Versus

Their Workmen Sri Biswanath Das & Md. Salauddin

Appearance:

On behalf of Kolkata Port Trust: Mr.Alok Banerjee and Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena, Ld. Advocates.

On behalf of M/s. Bengal Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd. : Absent.

On behalf of the Workmen. : Absent.

Dated: 12th June, 2024

A W A R D

The workmen who have raised the present dispute are found absent when the matter is called. None appears

from the side of the workmen.

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3410

Today has been fixed evidence from the workmen. Record shows workmen have stopped pursuing with the

matter from 01-05-2024 when they have been instructed to file the evidence in chief supported by an affidavit and in

proper form, when it was detected the evidence in chief of workman Sri Biswanath Das, who was examined as W.W.

1 in part had to be expunged on 05-06-2023 on detecting that his such evidence in chief was not in proper form or

being supported by an affidavit though it reads evidence in chief on affidavit.

Further, record shows the case has been fixed for adducing evidence from the side of the workmen since 20-

03-2020 and their failure to adduce evidence even after lapse of more than four years an inference can be drawn that

they are no more interested to proceed with the hearing of the case or pursue with the dispute raised by them.

Be that as it may, by order No. L-32012/01/2014 IR(B-II) dated 10-10-2014, the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour in exercise of power conferred under section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has

referred the following issues for determination by this Tribunal :-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Bengal Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd., is justified in

denying reinstatement in service to Sri Biswanath Das & Md. Salauddin without allowing termination benefits under

Section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947 is legal and or justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The workmen in their claim statement have alleged they were appointed as security guards by Kolkata Port

Trust on the basis of an agreement of contract in a fixed consolidated remuneration of Rs.9,100/- per month with a

unfurnished accommodation on payment of applicable license fee/ rent. That they had to work on shift duty with a 15

days leave in a year and further sick leave of 10 days. They were paid uniform allowance of Rs.120/- per month. They

were provided with free medical facilities in the Centenary Hospital of KPT. The service of the workmen is subject to

termination on 24 hours’ notice provided the performance is unsatisfactory and consider to be detrimental to the

interest of the Kolkata Port Trust. That they worked for more than ten years and their attendance was maintained by

KPT (the exact copy of Exb.W-1 though expunged).

It has been alleged that KPT all on a sudden engaged M/s. Bengal Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd., (a

Govt.of West Bengal enterprise) and thereby terminated the service of the workmen from June, 2012 without

providing them wages for one month notice and retrenchment compensation as provided in section 25-F of the I.D.

Act, 1947. Thus, they have prayed for their reinstatement with back wages.

That Kolkata Port Trust too has filed its written statement where it has alleged that the Board of Trustees for

the Port of Kolkata entered into an agreement with Rajya Sainik Board on 30-04-2009 for providing security

personnel to its establishment for a period of three years w.e.f. May,2009 to 31^st January, 2013. That M/s. Bengal

Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd.,is a company run under the aegis of Rajya Sainik Board and who provided Ex-

Servicemen, Ex-Paramilitary Forces and Ex-Infantry Battalion personnel as security guards to its establishment in

terms of provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, EPF & MP Act, 1952, ESI Act, 1948 etc.

That those two workmen might had been employees of its contractor. They were never engaged by KPT

either on contract or as casual. That there exists no relationship of employer – employee between it and those

workmen and as such question of terminating them from the service by it does not arise and no relief can be sought

against KPT. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference and claim of those workmen.

Record shows M/s. Bengal Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd.,had put appearance but later failed to pursue

with the matter.

Perused the list of documents filed by those workmen along with their claim application. Apart from copy of

correspondence they had with the authority of KPT and Labour Commissioner no other documents are there to prove

that those two workmen were directly engaged by KPT by over passing its own recruitment rules and regulations in

respect of security guards on consolidated wage of Rs.9,100/- per month with quarter facility, free medical facility at

its hospital, uniform allowance of Rs.120/- per month and with leave facility of 15 days in a year and additional sick

leave of 10 days in a year.

They have filed a letter dt. 14-11-2012 of KPT regarding engagement of security guards on contract and

which was marked as Exb.W-1 before the evidence of W.W.1 was expunged.

It is the case of the workmen that they were terminated by KPT from the month of June, 2012 on

engagement of M/s. Bengal Sainik Purna Nivas Ltd. If that be so, this Tribunal does not find any connection between

Exb.W-1 dt. 14-11-2012 with the service of those workmen already terminated in the month of June, 2012.

In fact the documents filed by the management of KPT shows it had entered into an agreement with Rajya

Sainik Board/ M/s. Bengal Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd.,, a company under the aegis of RSB on 30-04-2009 for

supply of security guards for a period of three years w.e.f. 01-05-2009. Further, on expiry of such contract, the

Secretary of Rajya Sainik Board and its agency M/s. Bengal Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd., were directed to hand

3411

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

over 13 sites to the Port Security Organisation w.e.f. 07-12-2012. That there was handing over of those sites by

Bengal Sainik Punarvas to Inspector, Port Security Organisation on 07-12-2012.

Further, letter of those two workmen addressed to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata

dt.22-05-2013 filed by the management as Annexure-9 shows those two concerned workmen had admitted themselves

to be engaged as labourers by Md. Nizamuddin, a labour contractor of Kolkata Port Trust in the year 2010 till 2012

and they were not allowed to join their service by their employer Md. Nizamuddin.

The Annexure-9 the document of those two workmen and copy of which filed by the management ipso facto

prove the case of those two concerned workmen is totally false that they were directly engaged by Kolkata Port Trust

as security guards for more than 10 years under an agreement.

In fact, the Annexure-9 shows they were the employees of the Labour Contractor of KPT and engaged as

labourers and not security guards as alleged by them. Further, during their alleged employment as contractor’s labour

at KPT, the job of security guard was sourced out by KPT to Rajya Sainik Board/ M/s. Bengal Sainik Punarvas

Corporation Ltd., a company under the aegis of RSB on 30-04-2009 and for a period of three years w.e.f. May, 2009

and as per Annexure- 7 & 8 filed by the management the contract was till 7^th December, 2012.

Further, from the above documents it appear on expiry of the period of contract with Rajya Sainik Board/

M/s. Bengal Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd.,, the Port Security Organization had taken over the responsibility of

security department of KPT.

From Exb. W-1 an inference can be drawn that after taking over the entire security department from RSB,

the KPT had decided to engage security guards on contract basis by issuing Exb.W-1 on 14-11-2012.

So, it appears the concerned workmen in order to make wrongful gain of such letter dt. 14-11-2012 issued by

KPT has raised a false industrial dispute of retrenchment against KPT and that too from the job of security guards

after working for more than 10 years, when they in Annexure-9, their application dated 22-05-2013 addressed to

Regional Labour Commissioner (C) Kolkata had alleged being retrenched by their employer a labour contractor Md.

Nizamuddin from the month of June 2012.

In view of the above, this Tribunal fails to understand how Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Kolkata

could refer the present dispute for adjudication to an industrial tribunal when Annexure 9 prima facie prove non-

existence of an industrial dispute between KPT and those workmen or in between those workmen and M/s. Bengal

Sainik Punarvas Corporation Ltd.,, when there exist no employer - employee relationship between those alleged

workmen and those alleged employers.

Accordingly, the Reference No. 67 of 2014 being without any basis is liable to be dismissed and an award to that

effect is passed.

K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1525.—औद्योगिक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

हहंिुस्तान हजंक गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री िौरंिा चरन सा के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्िसष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, भुबनेश्वर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.- 09/2016) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया िया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 05.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

दिलीप कुमार, अिर सगचि

[सं. ,y-27012/19/2015- आईआर(एम)

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 09/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and Shri Gauranga Charan Sa which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 05.08.2024.

[No L-27012/19/2015-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3412

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 09/2016

L-27012/19/2015 -IR(M), dated 22.01.2016

Date of Passing Award – 21^st Day of February, 2024

Between:

The Vice President (HR),

Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,

Yashad Bhawan, Udaipur,

Rajasthan – 313004.

The Company Secretary,

Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,

Yashad Bhawan, Udaipur,

Rajasthan – 313004.

…

1^st Party-Management.

(And)

Shri Gauranga Charan Sa,

Via-Khutumunda, PO-Ujalpur,

P.S.-Lephripada, Dist-Sundargarh,

Odisha - 770011,

…

2^nd Party Workman

Appearances:

Shilpa Nair

,…

For the 1^st Party-

Deputy Manager (Legal)

Management No. 1&2

Shri Gauranga Charan Sa, …

For the 2^nd Party-Workman

A W A R D

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between

the employer in relation to the Management of the Sargipali mines of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Sundargarh, Odisha and

their workman Shri Gauranga Charan Sa, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide their Order No. L-27012/19/2015 –IR(M)

dated 22.01.2016 to this Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute as referred to has been mentioned under the schedule

of the order of reference which is quoted below.

“1. Whether the dismissal order passed by the Sr. Manager Mines, Sargipali holds good inspite of acquittal of

the workman in the criminal case by Hon’ble S.D.J.M. Sundargarh? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

2. Whether the workman is entitled to full VRS amount along with interest and pension? If not, what relief he is

entitled to?”

After the receipt of the order of reference, the matter was registered and necessary judicial proceedings were

held in the matter. The 2^nd Party-Workman filed his Statement of Claim and a copy of the same was duly served on

the 1^st Party-Managements No. 1 & 2.

The case of the workman as per his Statement of Claim in brief is as follows:

That he was working as a Mines Attendant A. In the Sargipali mines of Hindustan Zinc Ltd from 13.08.1982 to

06.12.2000 honestly and sincerely. On the complaints of one Shri Kishor Chandra Choudhury, a G.R. Case was

registered against him vide G.R. Case No. 639 of 2000 under the Sundargarh Police Station, Odisha and on the basis

3413

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the same the 1^st Party-Management had suspended him with Charge Sheet following Clause 17 (27) and 17 (32) of

the Standing Orders of the company. But basing upon the police report, the management discharged him from his

services with effect from 20.03.2002. Subsequently, he was acquitted from the G.R. Case by the orders of the Hon’ble

S.D.J.M., Sundargarh vide judgment/orders passed on 18.07.2006 and against this order of acquittal, the complainant

Shri Choudhury again moved the Hon’ble Orissa High Court for Criminal Revision vide Crl. Revision No. 920 / 2006

which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court on 07.12.2009. He had received on protest Rs. 3,08,881/- towards his

G.P.F. and Gratuity and Rs. 15,113/- towards his subsistence allowance and encashment of leave, but he has prayed

for the payment of VRS amount in full with interest and pension applicable to him alongwith his litigation cost etc.

The case of the 1^st Party Management No. 1 & 2 as per their joint Written Statement of is as follows:-

That the 2^nd Party-Workman preferred his claim after a gap of almost 14 (fourteen) years from the date of termination

of his services for which the present claim of the 2^nd Party-Workman is not maintainable being barred by limitation.

Further, the Hon’ble Orissa High Court have been pleased to dismiss the O.J.C. No. 13281 of 2000 preferred by the

2^nd Party-Workman before the Hon’ble Court to set aside the order of termination issued to him (workman) by the 1^st

Party-Management, on the grounds of the Management being a private company. The workman preferred the above

O.J.C. before the Hon’ble Court prior to approaching this Tribunal which amounts to the practice of forum shopping

on the part of the workman as well as prima facie, it is an abuse of process of courts. The 1^st Party-Managements have

prayed for dismissing the Claim Statement filed by the 2^nd Party-Workman contending that the same is barred by

limitation as well as violative of the principles of Res Judicata.

During the course of adjudication of this case both the parties have settled their disputes out of the court and

in consideration of the same the 1^st Party-Management had paid an amount of Rs. 5,78,553/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Three) only to the disputant workman in the shape of Demand Draft

drawn in ICICI Bank vide D.D. No. 567247 dated 22.01.2024 towards full and final settlement of the dispute.

Both the parties have filed their settlement in Form – H and prayed for closure of this dispute in the light of the

settlement arrived at between them. Considering the facts and circumstance and the submissions of the stake holders

of this case, the Tribunal is of the opinion that whatever dispute was existing between the 2^nd Party-Workmen and the

1^st Party-Managements, the same have already been settled and no further adjudication is required under the Act.

Hence this award is passed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the 2^nd Party-

Workman and the 1^st Party-Managements. The Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties in this case forms part

of the award. The reference is answered accordingly.

This is the award of this Tribunal.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

FORM-H

(See Rule-58)

I.D. CASE No. 9/2016

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

The Vice President (HR),

Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,

Yashad Bhawan, Udaipur,

Rajasthan - 313004

… 1^st Party Management

Versus

Shri Gouranga Charan Sa,

Via. Khutumunda, Po. Ujalpur,

Ps. Lephripada, Dist. Sundargarh,

Odisha, Pin – 770001

…2^nd Party Workman

1. Pursuant to a dispute raised by the 2^nd Party Workman after lapse of 14 years, reference was made as to the

sustainability of the order of discharge passed by Hindustan Zinc Limited, as per the recommendation of the

enquiry officer in a disciplinary proceeding.

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3414

2. Upon Hindustan Zinc Limited being notified, it participated in the proceedings before the CGIT, Bhubaneswar

in ID Case No.9 of 2016.

3. In course of the hearing a settlement has been arrived at between the parties to the effect that on payment of Rs.

5,78,553/- (Rupees Five Lakh, Seventy-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Fifty-Three) towards full and final claim

of the 2^nd Party Workman the ID Case No.9 of 2016 can be closed for all time to come.

4. The 1^st Party Management having agreed to such a settlement, has entered into the present settlement and the

consideration amount as about has been paid in the Court to the 2^nd Party Workman by the 1^st Party

Management by way of a Demand Draft, it bearing No. 567247, dated 22.01.2024 drawn in the Bank of ICICI,

in favour of the 2^nd Party Workman.

5. In view of the developments as above there subsists no claim of 2^nd Party Workman as against Hindustan Zinc

Limited and the present successor in interest either for the past, present or future.

6. Therefore, as per this settlement the proceeding comes to an end and necessary order to the effect may be passed

in the interest of justice.

1) Witness: The Vice- President(HR)

st Party Management in

I.D. Case No. 9 of 2016

Through its Authorized Signatory

(Ms. Shilpa Nair) Deputy Manager

(Legal), Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

Mr.Gouranga CharanSa

2^ndPartyWorkman in

I.D. Case No.9 of 2016

CGIT, Bhubaneswar

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1526.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

जिाहरलाल नेहरू पोटस रस्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 2 eqEcbZ ds iapkV (11/2018) izdkf”kr djrh Gsa

[सं. ,y-34025/03/2017- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Jawaharlal Nehru

Port Trust and their workmen.

[No. L-34025/03/2017- IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE

Presiding Officer

3415

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/11 of 2018

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST.

The Chairman,

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust,

Admn. Building, Sheva,

Navi Mumbai - 400707

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

The President,

JNPT Kamgar Ekta Sanghatana,

JNPT, Admn. Building,

Ground Floor, Sheva,

Navi Mumbai – 400707

APPEARANCES:

Party No. 1

Mr. L. L. D’Souza

Advocate

Party No. 2

Mr. J. H. Sawant

Advocate

AWARD

(Delivered on 05-06-2024)

This reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-34025/03/2017 – IR (B-II) dated 26.02.2018. The terms

of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust in imposing CCS Pension Rules 1972 on S/Shri Sachin

Kadu and Pritam Yadav Patil by halving their tenure on contract for the purpose of pensionary benefits as

against the ‘Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Employees Pension Regulations’, is justified? If not, to what relief

S/Shri Sachin Kadu and Pritam Yadav Patil are entitled ?”

The party no. 2 union has filed an application (Ex-9) praying for disposal of reference. Read application Ex-

9, signed by the counsel for the party no. 2 union Mr. Jai Prakash Sawant advocate. Perused the say given by the

counsel for the party no. 1 alongwith document placed on record with document at Ex-10. Heard the parties.

It is contended on behalf of the party no. 2 union that, the parties have settled their dispute amicably,

therefore the party no. 2 union does not want to proceed with the reference. This fact is also corroborated by the

document filed alongwith no objection for withdrawal Ex-10. In view of this, the reference is disposed of for want of

prosecution. The party no. 2 is not entitled for relief. No order as to cost.

An award be drawn accordingly.

ORDER

i. The Reference is answered in negative.

ii. The party no. 2 is not entitled for relief sought in reference.

iii. No order as to cost.

iv. The award be sent to the Government.

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3416

Date: 05-06-2024

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1527.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

e/; jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 2 eqEcbZ ds iapkV (32/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-198]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.32/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

2 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway

and their workmen.

[No L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-198]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE

Presiding Officer

APPLICATION.REFERENCE CGIT-2/32 of 2018

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY,

MUMBAI CST. , MUMBAI - 400001

AND

THEIR WORKMAN.

Shri Shaukat Fida Hussain, Room No. 4,

Phatan Masjid Compound, Delile Road,

B. M. Marg, Elphistone Road West,

Mumbai - 400013

APPEARANCES:

Party No. 1

Mr. B. K. Ashok

Advocate

Party No. 2

Mr. Iqbal Siddique

Advocate

AWARD

(Delivered on 05-06-2024)

This is an application filed under section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

The applicant/workman has filed an application Ex-6 praying for disposal of the reference as not pressed.

3417

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Read application Ex-6. Verified the applicant/workman in presence of his counsel. Perused the say given by the

counsel for the opponent today.

It appears that the applicant does not want to proceed with the case as the same is likely to be an obstacle in

clearance of his profile, therefore requested for withdrawal. The other side has given no objection for withdrawal. in

view of this, the application is disposed of as withdrawan. No order as to cost. The proceeding is closed.

ORDER

i. The application reference is answered in negative.

ii. The party no. 2 is not entitled for relief sought in reference.

iii. No order as to cost.

iv. The award be sent to the Government.

Date: 05-06-2024

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1528.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua II चंडीिढ़ ds iapkV (90/2011) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12012/67/2010- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.90/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.

II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda

and their workmen.

[No L-12012/67/2010- IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.90/2011

Registered on:-12.01.2011

Sh. D.S. Kant S/o Sh. Nanha Ram, H.No.1614/11, Near Water Tank, Nehru Colony, Rohtak(Haryana).

….…..Workman

Versus

The Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

..…Respondent/Management

AWARD

Passed on:-01.05.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-12012/67/2010-IR(B-II) Dated 09.12.2010, under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Deputy General Manager Bank of Baroda, New Delhi in

terminating the services of workman Sh. D.S. Kant S/o Sh. Nanha Ram w.e.f. 16.07.2008 is just, fair

and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3418

The case was fixed for arguments. On scrutiny of the order sheets, it is revealed that the workman has not

come present on 25.01.2023, 22.03,2023, 18.05.2023, 20.09.2023, 02.11.2023, 14.12.2023, 15.04.2024 and also on

29.04.2024 continuously. Several dates for arguments have been fixed by the Tribunal, which denotes that workman

is neither serious nor interested in disposal of the case on merit.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long nor he has argued the case and has left the case

unattended for a long time without any intimation, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No

Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference for the non-prosecution of the

workmen-union.

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

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1529.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मेससस कंटेनर कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंगडया गलगमटेड 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; ua. 1 दिल्ली ds iapkV (110/2015) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41012/09/2015- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.110/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. I Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Container

Corporation of India Limited and their workmen.

[No L-41012/09/2015- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.110/2015

Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma & 62 others,

C/o 1800/9, Govindpuri Extension,

Main Road, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

Claimant…

Versus

Sh. R.M.C. Srivastava, Sr. Manager/C&O,

M/s Container Corporation of India Limited,

Inland Container Depot.

Tughalakabad,

New Delhi-110020

3419

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Director, Sh. V.K. Mathur,

Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.,

Flat No. 412-A, Mansarovar, 90 Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019.

Managements…

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-41012/09/2015-IR(B-

I) dated 30.03.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication

of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of CONCORN in not regularizing the employment of 63 workmen

(Ashok Kumar Verma and others as per the list attached with Annexure A) engaged through a reportedly sham

and camouflage contractor namely M/s Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. is illegal and unjustified and whether

the said workmen are entitled to receive to pay at parity with regular employees of the management of

CONCOR form their respective date of appointment? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days

of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Claim statement filed, rebuttal written statement filed on behalf of the managements.

Rejoinder filed by the claimant and issues were framed. Case was listed for claimant evidence on

26.07.2018. After that, claimant evidence was not filed. And also not present the claimant, despite providing a

number of opportunities, claimant have not appeared to substantiate his claim.

Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no disputant award. No disputant

award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

Date: 14.05.2024

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1530.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (a30/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41011/31/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.30/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen

[No L-41011/31/2022-IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3420

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 12^th June, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 30 / 2022

The Sr. Commercial Officer,

Western Railway, Asarwa,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380016

The Chief Medical Supdt,

Western Railway, New Railway Colony, Sabarmati

Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380019

….… ….First Parties

V/s

The President,

Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..….… .Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause

(d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below

mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/31/2022-IR (B-I) dated 08.03.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Akhil Bharatiya Karamchari Mahasangh, Ahmedabad, against the management of Western

Railway, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, for giving a suitable job in place of Safaiwala to Tahir Khan, visually challenged

Safaiwala, under CHI, Kalupur is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21^th March, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party raising

the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of

receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered post by the

Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including claimants.

A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as

directed and expected by the Ministry.

In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

3421

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1531.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

iwoZ jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a28/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-199]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.28/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Eastern Railway and their

workmen.

[No L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-199]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 28 OF 2023

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah,

M/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and

M/s. Sarvodya Security Service.

Versus

General Secretary, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (H.O.) Contractors Workers Union.

Appearance :

On behalf of the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway: Mr. Bikramjit Bhattacharya, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the M/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.: Absent.

On Behalf of M/s. Sarvodya Security Service: Mr. Saryu Prasad Yadav, Advocate.

On behalf of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Contractors Workers Union: Absent.

Dated: 10th June, 2024

A W A R D

Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway and M/s. Sarvodya Security Service are represented by their

respective Ld. Counsels.

None appears from the side of M/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.

The union which has espoused the dispute is also found absent when the matter is called and fails to file

show cause.

Therefore, an inference can be drawn the union which has espoused the dispute is no more interested to

proceed with the dispute.

Be that as it may, by order No.Kol-700020/15/2023-Dy. CLC (C) dt. 31-10-2023 and in exercise of powers

conferred by Section 12 (5) read with section 10 (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central), Kolkata, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the demand raised by the union/workmen against the Management of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. &

Eastern Railway Sealdah Division and their contactor M/s. Sarvodya Security Services in terminating the workmen

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3422

without any notice and not paid any terminal benefits or any compensation is fair, legal and/or justified? If not, what

the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

Unfortunately, the union which has espoused such dispute has not put its appearance till date despite due

service of notice upon it. Thus, there is nothing in the record to decide the issue under reference. Accordingly,

Reference No. 28/2023 is dismissed and “No Dispute Award” is passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1532.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

प्रिासगनक कमांडेंट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a15/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-42011/86/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.15/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Administrative Commmandant

and their workmen

[No L-42011/86/2023- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 15 OF 2023

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

The Administrative

Commandant, Cantonment Cell, Bengdubi Cantonment, Darjeeling (W.B)

And

M/s. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Siliguri, Darjeeling (W.B)

Versus

Their Workmen

Appearance :

On behalf of the Management The Administrative Commandant, Bengdubi Cantonment, Darjeeling: Absent.

On behalf of the M/s. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Siliguri, Darjeeling (W.B):Absent.

On behalf of Union/Workmen

: Mr. , Ld. Advocate.

Dated: 3rd June, 2024

A W A R D

By order No. L-42011/86/2023 –IR(Du) dated 17-07-2023, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of power conferred u/s 10 (1) (d) and sub-section (2A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the

following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

3423

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of contractor (M/s. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Siliguri) and Principal Employer (Army Station

Head Quarter, Bengdubi) for non-payment of bonus for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22 to conservancy contractual

workers is proper, legal and justified? If not, what reliefs the disputant worker(s) are entitled to and what directions, if

any, are necessary in the matter?”

The parties to the reference are found absent when the matter is called.

The order of reference prima facie shows that Under Secretary to the Govt. Of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment has duly forwarded copy of order of reference dt.17-07-2023 to the Workmen who have espoused the

dispute and the Principal Employer, The Administrative Commandant, Cantonment Cell, Darjeeling, West Bengal,

Contractor employer M/s. Sunil Kumar Gupta and also to the Labour Commissioners on whose failure report the

present reference has arisen.

The record shows that M/s. Sri Sunil Kumar Gupta had put appearance on 28-08-2023 and thereafter it has

failed to appear and pursue with the hearing.

Notices sent to the workman Sri Ganesh Mallick, in the address mentioned in the order of reference, through

Speed Post and Registered Post have returned undelivered with postal endorsement ‘addressee left the address

without any intimation’.

The principal employer too has failed to appear despite due service of notice upon it.

Therefore, non-appearance of any of the parties to the reference a presumption can be drawn the either the

dispute relating to non-payment of bonus have already been amicably settled between those contractor employees and

their employers or that those contractor employees are no more interested to pursue with the dispute which was raised

by them before the Labour Commissioner.

That apart nothing is there in the record to adjudicate the issue under reference.

Therefore, in view of the above “No Dispute Award” is passed. Accordingly, Ref. No.15 of 2023 is

disposed of.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1533.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (a39/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41011/41/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.39/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen.

[No L-41011/41/2022- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3424

Ahmedabad

Dated 12^th June, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 39 / 2022

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Kothi Compound,

Rajkot- 360001

….… ….First Party

V/s

The President,

Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,

B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..… .….Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/41/2022-IR (B-I) dated 24.05.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh, Ahmedabad for compassionate allowance

and other dues to Shri Kalu Lalji, T/Maintainer who worked under SSE (PWay) Morbi in the management of

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Rajkot is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 06^th June, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party raising

the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days

of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)

Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed

and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 5 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1534.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if'pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (a28/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41011/28/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

3425

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.28/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railwaay and

their workmen.

[No L-41011/28/2022- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 12^th June, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 28 / 2022

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Asarwa,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380016

….… ….First Party

V/s

The President,

Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,

B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..…. .Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/28/2022-IR (B-I) dated 03.03.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of Railway Administration in re-fixing the pay of Smt. Ranjana D. Nagar, CRS at Rs. 5675/-

w.e.f. 19.09.2003 and inflicting recovery from her retirement dues is fair, legal & justified If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21^th March, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party raising

the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days

of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)

Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as

directed and expected by the Ministry.

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3426

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1535.—औद्योगिक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार अिीक्षक

डाकघर,कुरुक्षेत्र, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री पिन कुमार, कामिार, के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्िसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय-2, चंडीिढ़,पंचाट(संिभस संख्या 09/2022) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया िया

है,प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 05.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-42025/07/2024-आईआर(डीयू)

दिलीप कुमार, अिर सगचि

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024

S.O. 1535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

relation to The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurukshetra, and Shri Pawan Kumar, Worker, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.08.2024.

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

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.09/2022

Registered on:-05.05.2022

Pawan Kumar S/o late Gauri Shankar, R/o V&PO Guhna, District Kaithal.

…. … ..Workman

Versus

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurukshetra Division, Kurukshetra.

… ….Respondent/Management

AWARD

Passed on:-13.06.2024

The workman Pawan Kumar has filed the present claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(hereinafter called as ‘Act’) with the averment that he was engaged by the respondent as Gramin Dak

Sewak(hereinafter called as GDS) on 16.12.2011 and served till 31.01.2014 to the satisfaction of respondent. On

31.01.2014 he was not allowed to serve the respondent. The workman has completed more than 240 days in the

preceding year of 31.01.2014 and the management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G, 25-H and 25-N

of the Act and the action of the management in terminating the services of workman was illegal and void ab initio.

The workman is 70% disabled as declared by the Doctor(Annexure A-1) and 4% vacancies are reserved by the

Government for handicapped persons under Disability Act and the management has violated the provisions of

Disability Act by terminating the services of the workman. The workman has filed an application before the

3427

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Conciliation Officer-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) for his reinstatement(Annexure A-2) but

respondent has refused to re-employee him. Thereafter, applicant filed the present application. The action of the

management is illegal inasmuch as the same is in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G, 25-H and 25-N of

the Act. It is prayed that applicant be reinstated and arrears of pay and allowances(as wages) w.e.f. 1.2.2014 till date

along with interest @12% per annum be allowed to him.

Management filed its written statement, alleging therein that applicant was engaged as outsider as GDSMD

by the management on 16.12.2011 as a substitute arrangement after retirement of Mr. Gauri Shankar from the Branch

Post Office Padla(Kaithal) against vacant post and he worked till 31.01.2014. Padla Branch Post Office is a triple

handed office and after retirement of Gauri Shankar Mr. Chander Shakher GDSMD Padla(Kaithal MDG) worked

alone in combined duty since 19.10.2011 to 15.12.2011 and great difficulty was experienced in smooth operation of

public service on both the posts and therefore the competent authority issued an order vide Memo No.A/Padla dated

15.12.2011(Annexure R-1) for engagement of outsider as a stop gap arrangement by Mr. Chander Shekhar GDS

under the rules for performing the duty of Mail Deliverer in the delivery jurisdiction of Padla EDBO. The applicant

was engaged as an outsider as a stop gap arrangement to perform the duty as GDS MD in different spells and the

assigned duty was discharged by the applicant along with other outsiders. His engagement was not beyond 90 days in

a spell during his engagement from 16.12.2011 to 31.01.2014 as per provisions contained in Department of Post(GDS

Section) office letter number G.I. Dept. of Post, Lr. No.10-7/2001-PE-II, dated 15.03.2004(Annexure R-2) and office

memorandum number 17-31/2016-GDS dated 11.02.2022 which maintaining that no substitute against any vacant

GDS Post shall continue beyond 90 days and regular arrangement has to be made beyond 90 days except in

unavoidable reason(Annexure R-3). He was required to perform duty only for 3 hours in a day. He continued to work

in different spells from 16.12.2011 to 31.01.2014 as per details in Annexure R-4 as per information furnished by

Postal Department under RTI Act, 2005 dated 09.10.2014. The applicant was engaged as an outsider as substitute

arrangement and has not undergone any regular selection process and no provisional appointment letter was issued in

his favour. The applicant is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him.

It is pertinent to mention here that on 23.04.2024 the learned AR of workman and on 16.05.2024 the learned

AR of management had made a statement that they do not want to lead any evidence and they closed their evidence

vide their separate statements, which were recorded separately.

I have heard the learned ARs for both the parties.

In this case, admittedly, applicant has worked from 16.12.2011 to 31.01.2014 in different spells as is clear

from Annexure R-4 and as is also detailed in Para 2 sub-para a, b, c and d of the written statement filed by the

management. In fact as per procedure when any GDS retires or proceeded on leave then stopgap arrangement is

permitted by appointing any person by the GDS who proceeded on leave or who is working in place of retired person.

Substitute are not made by the department but by the GDSs.

In the present case on the retirement of Gauri Shankar Mr. Chander Shekhar GDS was looking after the work

of two GDSs and vide Annexure R-1 dated 15.12.2011, he was asked to make stopgap arrangement under the rule and

he appointed the applicant in place of Gauri Shankar till new incumbent joined as a stop gap arrangement as an

outsider and admittedly, the applicant PawAN Kumar worked in different spells as per Annexure R-4. The substitutes

are not engaged following the recruitment rule. The substitute works purely on temporary basis as outsider and no

service record is kept for substitutes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. Sinha vs. Union of India, AIR 1998, SC

2600, where it is observed that the Courts and Tribunals should not attempt to legislate on a subject which was not of

its business and neither the rule of statutory interpretation nor rules relating to interpretation of subordinate legislation

empower any judicial or quasi judicial body to apply the law to a situation or object which was not completed by the

legislature while making a Law or by the government while making the Rule. The Courts or Tribunals have no power

to override the provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration regarding the employment. In view of the above

discussion and legal proposition, provision regarding issuance of notice likewise in Section 25 of the ID Act is not

mandatory in dispute in case and in dispute in hand. Hence, to my mind, the workman being not an employee of the

management is neither required such type of notice nor compensation as required under Section 25 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal against the order of Central Administrative

Tribunal Calcutta Bench, regarding the entitlement of substitute Extra Departmental Agent(now GDS) has observed

in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Devika Guha and others J.T. 2000(7) Supreme Court, page 473 that

claim on behalf of the substitute ordinarily is not maintainable as there cannot be legal claim on the basis that they

have worked for 180 days or more continuously. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if they have

worked for a long time continuously, their cases could be appropriately considered by the Department for absorption.

Thus, it is up to the management to absorb the claimant looking his services rendered to the department. This Tribunal

is of the view that management will honour the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in letter and spirit if possible

in given circumstances.

3429

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

28-B, Narayan Park, B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..….….Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/03/2022-IR (B-I) dated 19.01.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad in not giving PPO,

Calculation Sheet and details of recovery in respect of Shri Khodaji Meruji Vadodiya, Sr. Point Man and not

paying his retrial dues correctly, is fair, legal & justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 27^th January, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same

which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been

elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1537.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (a07/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41011/10/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024

S.O. 1537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.07/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen

[No L-41011/10/2022- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3430

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 12^th June, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 07 / 2022

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Asarwa,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380016

...... ....... First Party

V/s

The Zonal Secretary,

Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,

B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..…. ….Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/10/2022-IR (B-I) dated 01.02.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Akhil Bhartiya Karmchari Mahasangh Ahmedabad in fixing the pay of Shri Mohit

Verma, CBS, Sabarmati (M.G) at Rs. 78000/- as on 05.07.2016 and counting the training period for the purpose

of fixation of pay under MACP is legal, fair & justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21^th February, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as

directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

3431

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 6 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1538.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (a06/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41011/09/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024

S.O. 1538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.06/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen.

[No L-41011/09/2022-IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 12^th June, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 06 / 2022

The Chief Workshop Manager,

Loco Carriage & Wagon Workshop,

Western Railway, Dahod(Gujarat)- 389151

.... ......... First Party

V/s

The Zonal Secretary,

Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,

B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..… .….Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/09/2022-IR (B-I) dated 01.02.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3432

“Whether the action of Chief Workshop Manager, Western Railway, Dahod in denying Compassionate

Appointment and settlement of dues to Shri Satish Kumar S/O Durgesh Brahmdev Pandey from the date of his

attaining the age of 18 years is fair, legal & justified? If not, what relief Mr. Satish Kumar Brahmdev Pandey is

entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21^th February, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as

directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1539.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (a09/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41011/16/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 1539.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.09/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen.

[No L-41011/16/2022- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 12^th June, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 09 / 2022

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Asarwa,

3433

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380016

............. First Party

V/s

The Zonal Secretary,

Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,

B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..….….Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/16/2022-IR (B-I) dated 03.02.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the industrial dispute raised by Akhil Bhartiya Karmchari Mahasangh Ahmedabad, over the issue of

deducting Rs. 77,944/- by the management of Western Railway, Ahmedabad from the retiral dues in respect of

Shri John Jivabhai Chistian, retd. Electrical Fitter, Diesel Shed, Vatva is fair, legal & justified? If yes, what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21^th February, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as

directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1540.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (a13/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41011/21/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024

S.O. 1540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.13/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen.

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3434

[No L-41011/21/2022- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 12^th June, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 13 / 2022

The Sr. Accounts Officer (W.S),

Western Railway, D-Cabin, Sabarmati

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380019

.......... ... First Party

V/s

The Zonal Secretary,

Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,

B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..…. .Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/21/2022-IR (B-I) dated 07.02.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Akhil Bhartiya Karmchari Mahasangh for grant of Compassionate Allowance to

Shri Shantilal J, Safaiwala under Chief Workshop Manager, Western Railway, Dahod w.e.f. 27.9.1995 and

arrears thereof, is fair, legal & justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21^th February, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as

directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3436

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/17/2022-IR (B-I) dated 03.02.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Akhil Bhartiya Karmchari Mahasangh to drop S.F. 5 dated 30.6.2020 issued to Shri

Sriniwas, helper by the Chief Workshop Manager, Western Railway, Railway Workshop, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad

is fair, legal & justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21^th February, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as

directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1542.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (a12/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41011/20/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024

S.O. 1542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.12/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen.

[No L-41011/20/2022- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 12^th June, 2024

3437

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference (CGITA) No. - 12 / 2022

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Asarwa, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380016

2. The Dy Chief Engineer (Construction),

Western Railway, Railway Station, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380009

3. The Dy Chief Engineer (Const.),

Western Railway, Surat (Gujarat)- 395003

........ ..... First Parties

V/s

The Zonal Secretary,

Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,

B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..… . ….Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/20/2022-IR (B-I) dated 07.02.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Akhil Bhartiya Karmchari Mahasang, Ahmedabad over the issue of non-payment of

Medical bill amounting to Rs. 389195/- and bonus alongwith accrued interest to Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta,

Retired Senior Divisional Engineer (Construction Mehsana) is fair, legal & justified? If yes, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21^th February, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as

directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3438

नई दिल्ली, 6 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1543.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV (a14/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-41011/22/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024

S.O. 1543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.14/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and

their workmen.

[No L-41011/22/2022-IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer (I/c),

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad

Dated 12^th June, 2024

Reference (CGITA) No. - 14 / 2022

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Asarwa,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380016

.... ......... First Party

V/s

The Zonal Secretary,

Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28-B, Narayan Park,

B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

..….… .Second Party

For the First Party

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the

Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the

below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/22/2022-IR (B-I) dated 07.02.2022 for

adjudication to this Tribunal.

3439

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Akhil Bhartiya Karmchari Mahasangh for grant of benefit of Old Pension Scheme to

Shri Babubhai Gandabhai S/O Gandabhai, Trackman, Chanasma under CPWI(S), Mehsana, is fair, legal &

justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21^th February, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party

raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within

15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes

(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through

registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties

including claimants.

2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as

directed and expected by the Ministry.

3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested

to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.

4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.

5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1544.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय कंटेनर गनिम गलगमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 fnYyh ds iapkV (a259/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-200]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024

S.O. 1544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.259/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No -1

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bhartiya Container Nigam

Limited and their workmen.

[No L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-200]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,

NEW DELHI.

DID No.259/2018

Shri Gulab Singh S/o Late Shri Bunni Lal,

Through C/o All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Registration No. 3025) Attack

170, Bal Mukund Nagar, Giri Nagar,

Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

Claimant…

Versus

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3440

Chief Manager,

Bhartiya Container Nigam Limited,

Address: C-3, Mathura Road, Opposite Road,

New Delhi-110076.

M/s 3455 Sanjay Rana Security Agency,

F-20, Manish Global Mall Sector-22, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110077.

Management…

AWARD

This is an application Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his

termination from the service on 16.01.2018 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and he be

reinstated with full back wages, it is the case of the applicant/workman that he has been working with the

management. He has not been provided any legal facilities. He was illegally terminated form his service on

16.01.2018 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic enquiry by the management. He has

initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he had filed the present claim petition.

Management No.2 is not appearing since long therefore they are proceeded ex-parte. However, Management

no.1 appeared and filed the rebuttal written statement. After that, none appeared on behalf of the claimant nor his A/R

appeared despite providing a number of opportunities, claimant have not appeared to substantiate his claim.

Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute

award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Date: 14.05.2024

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1545.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj केंद्रीय लोक निर्ााण निभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 fnYyh ds iapkV (a124/2017) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-201]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2024

S.O. 1545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.124/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. -1

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CPWD and their workmen.

[No L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-201]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

DID No.124/2017

Shri Sanjay Yadav S/o Sh. Nathi Singh, Lift Operator,

3441

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

C/o All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.),

House no. 482, Gali No. 13,

Balbir Nagar Extension,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032.

Claimant…

Versus

The Director General,

CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi.

The Executive Engineer,

ACD-4, CPWD, Vidyut Bhawan,

New Delhi.

M/s Akash Enterprises,

B-I, S-511, Frends Chamber, School Block,

Vikash Marg, Shakarpur,

New Delhi-110092.

Management…

AWARD

This is an application Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his

termination from the service on 16.01.2017 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and he be

reinstated with full back wages, it is the case of the applicant/workman that he has been working with the

management. He has not been provided any legal facilities. When the workman went to join his job he was illegally

terminated from his service on 16.01.2017 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic

enquiry by the management. He has initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he had filed the

present claim petition.

Management No.1 is not appearing since long therefore they are proceeded ex-parte. However, the

management no.2&3 has appeared and filed the written statement. Thereafter, rejoinder filed by the claimant and

issues were framed. Case was listed for claimant evidence on 08.02.2018. After that, claimant evidence also not

filed. Despite providing a number of opportunities, claimant have not appeared to substantiate his claim.

Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute

award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Date: 14.05.2024

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1546.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj ;wdks cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa

औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV (06 (C) of 2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12011/15/2019-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेिक

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2024

S.O. 1546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.06 ( C ) of 2019 ) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.

[No L-12011/15/2019-IR (B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3442

ANNEXURE

Before The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

Reference Case No.:- 06 (C) of 2019

Between the management of the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, 4^th Floor, Block ‘A’ Maurya Lok Complex,

Patna (Bihar)-800001 And Their workman Sri Pawan Kumar, Peon, represented through the State Secretary, UCO

Bank Employees Association, Bihar State Committee, 2^nd Floor, Saboo Chamber, Behind Hotel Republic, Exhibition

Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001.

For the management:-

Sri Praveen Kumar, Advocate.

For the workman:-

Sri B. Prasad, State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Bihar.

Present:-

Manoj Shankar

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

A W A R D

Patna, dt- 1^st July, 2024.

By the adjudication order no.- L-12011/15/2019-IR(B-II) New Delhi, dated- 26.06.2019 the Govt. of India

Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the

management of Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, 4^th Floor, Block ‘A’ Maurya Lok Complex, Patna (Bihar)-800001 And

Their workman Sri Pawan Kumar, Peon, represented through the State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association,

Bihar State Committee, 2^nd Floor, Saboo Chamber, Behind Hotel Republic, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001

for adjudication to this tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank to terminate the service of workman Sri Pawan Kumar, Peon,

Lakhi Sarai Branch w.e.f 01.01.2014 ( stated to be working from 2011 to 2013 ) was correct and valid? If not, what

relief the workman was entitled for?”

As per the statement of claim filed by the workman Pawan Kumar, his case is that he was orally appointed to

discharge the duty of a peon from 15.07.2011 at UCO Bank Lakhisarai Branch that was opened in the 2^nd week of

July,2011. It is also asserted that there was no peon in the said branch. It is further asserted that the workman used to

discharge his duties as opening the bank gate cleaning, sweeping the bank premises, putting the registers at the

counter of the staffs and some time he discharged the duties of distribution of Daks through peon book and posting of

mails at post office. He also discharged the duties of stitching vouchers and currency notes as per requirement, and

also did the hospitality work in the said branch. It is further asserted that the workman used to discharged his duties in

the said branch from 9.30 A.M to 5.30 P.M regularly and initially he was paid wages @ Rs. 40/- per day and which

was raised to Rs. 60/- per day. It is further asserted that the workman was paid wages through vouchers and he

worked in the said branch continuously from 15.07.2011 to 31.12.2013 but he was stopped from working on

01.01.2014 without giving any notice or retrenchment compensation, hence his termination is covered u/s 2 ( OO ) of

the I.D.Act. It is further asserted that workman approached to the management several times for his reinstatement but

his effort was of no avail. Finally workman raised the Industrial Dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner (

Central ) Pakur on 29.03.2016 that culminated in reference before this tribunal. It is further asserted that the workman

used to discharged the duties like a permanent staff but his termination violated the mandatory provisions section

25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and thus management resorted the unfair labour practice as per schedule- V

read with section 25(T) of the I.D.Act. The workman prays the following relief;

(i)

Reinstatement in the service of the bank as a peon with

back wages;

(ii)

Payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for contesting the dispute;

(iii)

Any other relief (S) as the tribunal deems fit and proper;

On the other hand the management filed written statement mentioning therein that the claim of the workman

is not maintainable before this tribunal as only the case of dismissal, discharge or termination can be filed by the

workman. No case of regularisation can be filed by the union as it has been done in the instant case. It is further

asserted that workman never authorised the State Secretary Sri. B. Prasad to represent him. It is further asserted that

this Industrial Tribunal is not CGIT for all purposes so no case can be filed or entertainable by this tribunal belonging

to Central Government unless it is notified as CGIT U/S-2A of the I.D.Act. It is further asserted that two relief for

3443

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

termination and regularisation can be claimed under one application u/s-2A of the I.D.Act. It is further asserted that

claim of the workman regarding his duties are totally incorrect. He was deputed cleaning of the premises only on as

and when required basis. It is further asserted that the fact is, Pawan Kumar was engaged in the month of July, 2011

only for 1 to 2 hours for the cleaning of the premises of Lakhisarai branch and he was working as casual part time

sweeper on the basis as and when required and absolutely not against vacant sanctioned post of sweeper. It is further

asserted that there is no provision of oral appointment in the management bank and Branch Manager has no power to

appoint any person orally. It is further asserted that the name of the workman was not sponsored by the employment

exchange. It is further asserted that the Branch Manager makes payment against the work taken from the Head meant

for cleaning and sweeping of the branch so there was no relationship of matter and servant between the bank and the

workman. It is further asserted that under the provision the duty is caste upon the workman to prove the 240 days

continuous working in twelve calendar months preceding his alleged termination. It is further asserted that the claim

of regularisation un this reference case is not maintainable. It is further asserted that Pawan Kumar was never

appointed by the bank following the procedure. He discharged the duties of sweeper, temporary peon or part time

sweeper at the said branch. He was never engaged on daily basis nor performed duties of temporary peon from 9.00

A.M to 5.30 P.M nor engaged by the competent authority. It is further asserted that the workman was not entitled for

the benefits u/s-2(OO) of the I.D.Act because he was not employee of the bank. Moreover, near sending the name to

Zonal Office does not create any right to the workman. It is further asserted that the management bank never violated

the provision of 25(F) and 25(T) of the I.D.Act as the workman was never in continuous service. Hence the action of

the management in terminating the workman is legal and justified and the prayer as made by the workman is fit to be

rejected.

On the basis of the rival contention the following issue are recasted for adjudication:-

(i)

“Whether the workman Pawan Kumar discharged his duties like a sub-staff continuously from 15.07.2011 to

31.12.2013 as claimed?”

(ii)“ Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank to terminate the service of workman Sri Pawan Kumar,

Peon, Lakhi Sarai Branch w.e.f 01.01.2014 ( stated to be working from 2011 to 2013 ) was correct and valid? If not,

what relief the workman was entitled for?”

In order to establish his claim the workman side examined just one witness namely Sri Pawan Kumar the

workman himself. Besides, oral evidence the workman side filed some documents i.e marked as:-

(i)

Ext.-W Payment voucher of dt- 07.07.2012.

(ii)

Ext.-W/1 Payment voucher of dt- 13.08.2012.

(iii)

Ext.-W/1-1 Payment voucher of dt- 02.09.2013.

(iv)

Ext.-W/2 Particulars of casual workers working as on 31.03.2012 in Lakhisarai Branch the name of

Pawan Kumar.

First of all W.W-1 Pawan Kumar is the workman himself who stated before this tribunal is that he was doing

the duties of a peon at Lakhisarai Branch of UCO Bank and he discharged his duties continuously in the said branch

from 15.07.2011 to 31.12.2013 and he further stated that the branch was open on 15.07.2011. This witness further

stated that he used to discharged the duties of cleaning of the bank premises, vouchers stitching work, hospitality

work and he was also sent to the SBI for clearing the cheques duly authorised by the Branch Manager. This witness

further stated that he used to discharged the duties from 9.00 A.M to 5.30 P.M and initially he was getting Rs. 40/- per

day wages and later on he was getting Rs. 60/- per day. This witness further stated that on tribunal question he never

made any written complaint regarding payment. This witness proved the payment vouchers that he received of dt-

07.07.2012, 13.08.2012 and 02.09.2013 as Ext.- W, W/1 W/1-1. This witness further stated that Branch Manager

A.K. Mehta has sent his name to the Zonal Office as a casual worker on 10.05.2013 and he has filed the photo copy of

the said details and proved the same as Ext.-W/2. This witness further stated that during his tenure of his working at

Lakhisarai from 2011 to 2013 there was no peon posted there. This witness further stated that he was doing his duties

like a permanent peon. This witness further stated that he neither get any notice nor any notice compensation before

his termination. On tribunal question this witness categorically stated that he never asked any compensation.

In cross examination this witness categorically stated in para-12 that he worked in Lakhisarai Branch of

UCO Bank from 15.07.2011 to 31.12.2013 but he did not received any appointment letter from the bank. This witness

categorically stated in para-14 of the cross-examination Sri B.P. Verma field officer has sent him to the bank for his

engagement there. This witness further admits that whatever he worked in the bank he received his payment. This

witness further denied he has filed this case under the disguise of union.

On the other hand management examined only one witness of namely Sri Santosh Kumar, Chief Manager, as

M.W-1 on 18.01.2023 who stated before this tribunal that he was Branch Manager of Lakhisarai Branch of UCO

Bank from 25.11.2013 to 09.11.2015. This witness further stated that Pawan Kumar discharged duties of and on he

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3444

never took his service as a daily wager during his tenure. This witness further stated that Branch Manager has no

power to appoint as a daily wage workman. This witness further stated that there was no permanent Part Time

Sweeper in the branch so some persons were called for the cleaning purposes. This witness further stated that Pawan

Kumar never discharged any work during his tenure in Lakhisarai Branch.

In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-8 that he never prepared any list of daily wage

workers and there is no list of work on there branch and this witness further stated that this is not fact he is not aware

the claim of the workman and he further admits that he is not aware whether any notice or compensation was given to

the workman prior to his termination.

It is argued by the representative of the workman that workman Pawan Kumar was engaged at Lakhisarai of

UCO Bank from 15.07.2011 and in the said month the said branch was opened. Workman discharged the duties like

of peon from 9.30 A.M to 5.30 P.M and he was paid wages initially Rs. 40/- per day and later on he started getting Rs.

60/- wages from the bank. It is further argued that workman continuously worked in the Lakhisarai Branch of the

UCO Bank from 15.07.2011 to 31.12.2013 and his name was also forwarded by the then Branch Manager to the

Zonal Office of the bank showing him as casual worker that is Ext.-W/2 but nothing has been taken up by the bank

management and he was stopped from the working in the said bank on 31.12.2013 without giving any notice or notice

pay. Accordingly his termination is covered U/S- 2(OO) of the I.D.Act,1947, moreover, workman worked 240 days in

a calendar year and as such he is entitled for regularisation of service after the reinstatement. It is further argued that

workman himself supported his claim in his evidence about his duties and payment. Management side could not

discard the version of workman as a management witness stated in cross-examination, he is not aware whether any

notice or retrenchment compensation was given to the workman preceding his termination. So management resorted

unfair labour practice by terminating the workman without any notice taking his continuous service for more than two

years. Hence the workman is entitled for the reinstatement in the service and further to regularise his service.

On the other hand it is argued from the representative for the management side the assertion made by the

workman regarding his working details in the Lakhisarai Branch of UCO Bank is totally false and incorrect. The facts

is that Pawan Kumar was engaged in the said branch on the basis of as and when required and his services was purely

need based. His engagement was not against any vacant sanctioned post of sweeper. It is further argued that it is the

settled principles of law that if regularisation means absorption in service, there must be sanctioned post against

which only such employee may be regularised. The facts is there was no sanctioned post at Lakhisarai Branch. No

proof in this case has been filed by the workman as per his claim. It is further argued that it is true that bank

formulatrd schedule for regularisation of casual worker but the instant workman could not fall in the list of suitable

candidates therefore, his claim could not be redressed. It is further argued that workman has filed I.D.Case No.- 06(C)

of 2016 earlier and later on when the management made objection on the maintainability of the I.D. Case as per the

order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in CWJC No.- 2053 of 2016 dt-22.11.2017 and confirmed in L.P.A

No.- 1822 of 2017 on 17.05.2018, the workman filed withdrawal petition and on that basis the said I.D.Case was

disposed off as not maintainable by this tribunal on 31.12.2018 but all these facts is not narrated by the workman in

his statement of claim hence workman did not come up with clean hand moreover, workman failed to disclose when

the dispute is raised for this reference case as this reference is referred to this tribunal in July 2019. It is further argued

that workman has completely failed to established his continuous working for morethan 240 days in a calendar year

by any oral or documentary evidence. Accordingly action of the management is legal and justified and the prayer

made by the workman is not sustainable at all.

10.

Considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and the material available on the record as

discussed above and the submissions as advanced on behalf of the both the sides this tribunal finds that the claim of

the Pawan Kumar is, he discharged his duties as a sub-staff at Lakhisarai branch of UCO Bank from 15.07.2011 to

31.12.2013 continuously. In this regard Pawan Kumar filed only three vouchers of dt- 07.07.2012, 13.08.2012 and

02.09.2013i.e Ext.-W/1 and W/1-1. These three vouchers do not show the payment received by the workman for how

many working days. Save and except the three vouchers workman has been totally failed to file any connecting

payment vouchers that could show he was working continuously from 15.07.2011 to 31.12.2013 is not at all

established. This tribunal further finds that the workman himself did not give any cogent evidence regarding he has

worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year in preceding his alleged termination date i.e

31.12.2013. As per section 25(B) of the I.D.Act, 1947 “ a workman shall be said to be in continuous service if he has

actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year of preceding the termination date but here in the instant case

workman has totally failed to established he has ever worked continuously 240 days by any cogent evidence or

documentary evidence hence his claim for reinstatement and regularisation is not at all sustainable. This tribunal

further finds that this reference case is received to this tribunal on 05.07.2019 on the basis of notification dt-

26.06.2019 issued by the Ministry of Labour, Central Government but workman side could not placed any cogent

evidence why this dispute is raised so late when the cause of action for raising dispute is after 31.12.2013 as per claim

of workman. This tribunal further finds that workman earlier filed a I.D. Case No.-06 (C) of 2016 that was disposed

on 24.12.2018 on the basis of withdrawal petition filed by workman in the light of judgement of the Hon’ble Patna

3445

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

High Court but this fact is never narrated by the workman either in his statement of claim or in his evidence before

this tribunal. This is clearly shows that workman side did not come up with clean hand.

11.

Thus on scrutinizing all the materials available on the record as discussed above,This tribunal finds and hold

that workman Pawan Kumar has been completely failed to establish, he was working continuously from 15.07.2011

to 31.12.2013 against the permanent post and also failed to establish he has worked more than 240 days continuously

in a calendar year preceding his alleged termination by any cogent oral or documentary evidence. Accordingly this is

the considered opinion of this tribunal, the workman is not entitled for any relief and the action of the management of

UCO Bank was correct and justified.This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अिस् त, 2024

का.आ. 1547.—औद्योगिक गििाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार.)

मेससस मुख्य पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल, डाक गिभाि,होिंिाबाि रोड,भोपाल (म.प्र.),प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री हेमंत

राठौर, कामिार, के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्िसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय, जबलपुर

पंचाट(संिभस संख्या CGIT/LC/R/70/2014) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया िया है,प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 07.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y-42012/99/2014-आईआर(डीयू)

दिलीप कुमार, अिर सगचि

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2024

S.O. 1547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/70/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to The Chief Post Master General, Postal Department, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.), and Shri

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

07.08.2024.

[No L-42012/99/2014-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/70/2014

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Hemant Rathore

C/o. Sh. Ram Nagwanshi

F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engineering

College, Ujjain (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The Chief Post Master General

Postal Department,

Dak Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal (M.P.)

[भाि II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अिस् त 10, 2024/श्रािण 19, 1946

3446

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 10^th day of July-2024.)

As per letter dated 05/08/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi as made this reference to

the Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per reference number L-

42012/99/2014/IR(DU) dt. 05/08/2014. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the action of management of Sr. Supdt. of Post Office Ujjain in termination the services of Shri

Hemant Rathore w.e.f. 25.09.2012 is justified ? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”

After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were

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

The case of the workman, in short is that the workman was appointed as Driver in place of the Driver

Ubaid Khan who superannuated on 30.06.2010. Before appointment, he was interviewed by the then Senior

Superintendent of Post Office Ujjain and joined on 07.07.2010. In the meanwhile the peon Jagdish Malviya was

transferred to City Post Office, hence the workman discharged the duty of a peon also with the job of driver and

worked continuously for 240 days and more in every year till 26.09.2012 without any notice or compensation. He

challenged his termination before the Regional Labour Commissioner Bhopal, he was paid bonus for 586 days he

worked from 07.07.2010 to 25.09.2012. After failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred to this Tribunal.

According to the workman, termination of his services is against 25-F of the Act. The workman has prayed that

holding the termination of his services against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and

benefits.

The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,

is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. Hence, there

is no question of his termination by management. It was prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit. He has filed and proved photocopy documents regarding

application dated 06.07.2010 filed for appointment certificate/report dated 30.12.2010, order of superintendent

deputing the workman in departmental exam as driver alongwith other employees of Post Office, original identity

card of the workman issued by Senior Superintendent Post Offices in which he has been mentioned as a driver, a

report of Senior Superintendent regarding the number of days the workman worked and bonus as well wages paid to

the workman by the management. The workman has been cross examined by the management on his affidavit.

Management has filed affidavit of its witnesses N. Morey, Sathyanarayan Kumawat and S.K. Thakrey. None for

workman turned up for cross examination of these witnesses.

I have heard argument of Shri Sudeep Bhargav learned Counsel for workman and Shri Manoj Singh learned

Counsel for management. I have gone through the record as well.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

The initial burden to prove its case is on the workman union. The workman has corroborated his allegations

in his statement of claim. In his cross examination he admits that he was not issued an appointment letter, his name

was not sponsored by Employment Exchange and that he did not appear in any test for his examination. He admits

that on his statement of days he worked and bonus paid there is not stamp or seal of the officer who has signed the

statement and has also stated that sometimes, the officers did not put their seal under their signatures. He has denied

that the identity card proved by him was issued on the occasions when he was required for duty. The identity card

shows that it contains the seal and signature of the workman and its validity is for the period 20.03.2012 to

19.03.2013. It shows that at least the workman was engaged as a driver by management. It has to be kept in mind that

management has taken a case that this workman was never employed by them in any capacity as it is evident from the

written statement of defense. The other document which is order dated 21.10.2011 issued by Senior Superintendent of

Post Offices in which he has been assigned duty as a driver alongwith other officials which are Assistant

Superintendent to Sub-Divisional Inspector to PRI to Office Assistants and MTS. Management nowhere denies this

order nor has denied that there was a departmental exam held on 06.11.2011. Another document proved by workman

which is a report for order to Post Master shows that the workman was appointed as a driver between 13.12.2010 to

16.12.2010 and 20.12.2010 to 30.12.2010. These documents, coupled with the statement of the workman on oath

corroborate his allegation that he was engaged, though not as a regular employee but on casual basis by the

management. The office order referred to above deputing the workman for departmental exam on 06.11.2011 supports

the case of the workman that he continued in employment of management till 2011. The statement regarding the

working days and bonus proved by the workman cannot be discarded only on the ground that it does not contain the

seal of the officer who has signed it because firstly, the case of the management that the workman was never

appointed by them in any capacity gets demolished by the above referred evidence/ documents and secondly, even the

3447

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 10, 2024/SHRAVANA 19, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

office order with respect to deputing the workman as driver in the departmental exam, referred to above also does not

contain seal of the officer who has signed this order.

Though the affidavits of management witnesses, in which they have echoed the case management that the

workman was never appointed in any capacity are uncross examined but in the light of the above discussed evidence,

this stand of management and its witnesses is held not reliable.

From the above discussion, the workman has discharged its initial burden that he was appointed by

management as casual worker and worked from 07.07.2010 to 25.09.2012, the burden lies on management to rebut

the evidence. From the statement of workman and the calculation sheet regarding dates and bonus as well wages paid

to the workman, referred to above, the case of the workman that he worked continuously for more than 240 days in

every year is held proved.

Since, there is nothing on record to show that the workman was given any notice or compensation before his

termination, the termination of his services by management is held not in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.

As regards the point as to what relief the workman is entitled, keeping in view his tenure with management,

also the fact that he was not appointed following recruitment process and that his engagement was of a casual daily

worker, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs in lieu of all his claims will meet the ends of justice in the case in

hand, to which the workman is held entitled.

Hence, holding the action of management of Senior Superintendent of Post Office Ujjain in

terminating the services of the workman Hemant Rathore w.e.f. 25.09.2012 unjustified in law, he is held

entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs only in lieu to all his claim to be payable to him by

management within 30 days from the date of notification of the award, failing which interest @ of 6% per

annum from the date of Award till payment.

DATE: 10/07/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

GORAKHA NATH

YADAVA

Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH

YADAVA

Date: 2024.08.21 15:23:47 +05'30'