5750 GI/2024

(3913)

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 37]

नई दिल् ली, जसतम् बर 15—जसतम् बर 21, 2024, िजनवार/भाद्र 24—भाद्र 30, 1946

No. 37]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 15— SEPTEMBER 21, 2024, SATURDAY/BHADRA 24– BHADRA 30, 1946

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

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

भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्राल

(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1776.—भारती ररिवव बैंक अजिजन म, 1934 (1934 का 2) की िारा 8 की उृ-िारा (1) के ण्ड

(घ)

द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग

करते रए

, केन्द्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री जववेक िोिी के स्ट् ान ृर श्री नागरािू

मदिराला (सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्राल , जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आिेिों तक

भारती ररिवव बैंक के केंद्री बोडव में जनिेिक के ृि ृर नाजमत करती िज

।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(i)/2022-बीओ-I]

संि कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-30092024-257569

CG-DL-W-30092024-257569

3914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 21, 2024/BHADRA 30, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2024

S.O. 1776.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Reserve

Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Nagaraju Maddirala (Secretary,

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as Director on the Central Board of

Reserve Bank of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Vivek Joshi

[eF. No. 6/2(i)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 1777.—भारती स्ट्टेट बैंक अजिजन म, 1955 (1955 का 23) की िारा

के ण्ड

)

ड

द्वारा प्रित्त

िजक्त ों का

प्र ोग करते रए, केन्द्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री जववेक िोिी के स्ट् ान ृर श्री नागरािू मदिराला (सजचव,

भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्राल , जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आिेिों तक भारती स्ट्टेट बैंक के

केंद्री जनिेिक मंडल में जनिेिक के ृि ृर नाजमत करती िज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(ii)/2022-बीओ-I]

संि कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th August, 2024

S.O. 1777.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of section 19 of the State Bank of India Act,

1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Nagaraju Maddirala (Secretary, Government of

India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as Director on the Central Board of Directors of State

Bank of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Vivek Joshi

[eF. No. 6/2(ii)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

(व्य जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 17 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1778.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिन के जलए प्र ोग) जन मावली,

1976 के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (2) एवं (4) के अनुसरण में, भारती ले ाृरीक्षा और ले ा जवभाग के अिीन

मिाले ाकार (ले ाृरीक्षा) का का ावल , तेलंगाना, िजिराबाि, जिसमें अस्ट् सी प्रजतित कमवचारर ों ने ंिंिी का का वसािक

ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[फा. सं. ए-12034/01/2024-ईिी]

रामेश् वर कुमार, अवर सजचव

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 17th September, 2024

S.O. 1778.—In pursuance of sub-rule (2) and (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official

purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Office of the Accountant General

(Audit), Telangana, Hyderabad under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department wherein eighty per cent of the staff

have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. A-12034/01/2024-EG]

RAMESHWAR KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 21, 2024/भाद्र 30, 1946

3915

जविेि मंत्राल

(सीृीवी प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1779.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा,सरकार, भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, सेंट ृीटसवबगव, मे^ेँ श्री अजनल ंसंि,आिुजलजृक,को जसतम्बर 11,

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

[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2024(30)]

एस. आर. एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-l)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2024

S.O. 1779.—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 Anil Singh,

Stenographer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Consulate General of India, Saint Petersburg, to perform the

consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from September 11, 2024.

[F. No.T-4330/01/2024(30)]

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

Je और रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1780.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj सुििवन फजजसजलटीि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

नं. II] नई दिल्ली ds iapkV

(आई डी नम्बर 03/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y-20013/01/2024-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2024

S.O. 1780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 03/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court N0.II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Sudershan Facilities Pvt.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05/09/2024.

[No. L-20013/01/2024 – IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

3916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 21, 2024/BHADRA 30, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW

DELHI

I.D. No. 03/2019

Sh. Amar Kumar, S/o Sh. Khubari Das,

R/o B- 177, Gotampuri, Phase-II,

New Delhi- 110076, ...

Claimant/Workman

Versus

M/s Sudharshan Facility Pvt. Ltd.,

18, Local Shopping Centre, 2^nd Floor,

Mandangir, Delhi-110062

The Director, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS),

Ansari Nagar, New Delhi- 110023 .…Managements/Respondents

AWARD

The appropriate government through Rajendra Joshi, Deputy Director has sent the reference refer dated

17.12.2018 to this tribunal for adjudication with the following words.

“Whether the termination of Sh. Amar Kumar Insa working as Safai Karamchari by the management of

M/s Sudershan Facilities Pvt. Ltd. (Contractor) who is providing the sanitation/ housekeeping services to

AIIMS (Principal Employer) w.e.f 27.07.2017 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?”

Claimant claimed to have working as Sanitation Assistant in A.I.I.M.S for the last more than 04 years and

attached to M/s Sudershan Facilities Pvt. Ltd. The company rendered/provides services of housekeeping and

sanitation etc. to the principle employer All India Institute of Medical Sciences, a government of India hospital at

New Delhi. It is his case that since May, 2017 he was being harassed by the management of this company and it was

not allowing him to work regularly without any reasons. He was mentally tortured by the then manager of the

company on 05.08.2017 and refused to give the duty to him. No termination letter or dismissal letter was ever issued

by the company. Vide letter dated 12.08.2017 a legal notice was served to the company through his counsel, asking

the reason for his removal from the employment. Reply was received to the applicant stating that there was complaint

against the claimant. He has raised the industrial dispute and filed the complaint before the Labour Commissioner,

Govt. of NCTD. However, it has referred the dispute to the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) Jeevan Deep

Building, Parliament Street. Conciliation failed. Hence, the present dispute.

Respondent-1 M/s Sudershan Facilities Pvt. Ltd. has filed the reply. It has taken several preliminary

objections, he had denied the averment made by the claimant. However it is admitted by the respondent that the

claimant has been working in some other organization. He submits that applicant always insisted to join duty at

AIIMS that too night shift, while he was offered duty at other place. He submits, claim be dismissed. Rejoinder has

been filed by workman. Management-2 has not contested the case, however counsel of the management-1 i.e. AIIMS

has appeared at the time of final argument.

From the pleading of the parties following issues have been framed vide order dated 09.07.2019.

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

2. Whether the service of the workman was terminated illegally, if so by whom.

3. Whether the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages, and other consequential

benefits.

4. To what relief the parties are entitled to.\

In support of his claim, workman has tendered the affidavit in evidence. He had reiterated the facts mentioned

in his claim regarding the fact that he was in the employment of the principle employer AIIMS for the last four years

from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 05.08.2017. He was on the post of Sanitation Assistant looking

housekeeping reporting to the manager of the respondent company. He finally was refused duty by the management

company. AIIMS New Delhi is equally responsible for his illegal termination. He had relied upon two documents i.e.

Annexure-1 i.e. legal notice dated 12.06.2017 addressed to Vasundhra Ji, Director M/s Sudharshan Facilities Pvt.

Ltd. New Delhi. The second document which the workman has relied is the reply filed by the Sudharshan Facilities

Pvt. Ltd.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 21, 2024/भाद्र 30, 1946

3917

Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act define the workman, it reads as under:

“Workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an

industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection

with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge, or retrenchment has led to that

dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i)

who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950)

or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii)

who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii)

who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv)

who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand

rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties, attached to the office o

by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]

Section 2 (j, k& oo) of the I.D Act define the industry and industrial disputes

respectively. It reads as under:

[(j)]

“industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and

includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of

workmen;

(k)

“industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between

employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the

employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of

any person;

(oo)

“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not

include-

(a)

Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

[(bb)]

termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract

being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c)

termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;

Workman/claimant is required to brings its case within the four corner of the above said definition of

workmen industry and industrial dispute.

Now come to the case in hand. Claimant has claimed to have been working in AIIMS through respondent-1,

the contractor M/s Sudharshan Facility Pvt. Ltd. as Sanitation Assistant. He had led the evidence also to the effect

that he has been working with respondent-1 as Sanitation Assistant. In the evidence he did not seek any relief against

the respondent-2. His case is that his services has been terminated by the respondent-1 from 05.08.2017 as he was not

given any duty. The above testimony of the workman remains unchallenged, unrebuted and uncontroverted.

He had proved from the above said testimony that he is a workman and he worked with M/s Sudharshan

Facility Pvt. Ltd. who used to offer services to the government institution, therefore, the respondent-2 is an industry.

His further contention is that his services has been terminated without any rhyme and reason, therefore, industrial

disputes has been arisen.

Facts culled from the evidence, which the workman has led is that his services has been terminated. He has

relied upon the document Ex. WW1/2 that is reply filed by M/s Sudharshan Facility Pvt. Ltd. in respect of his notice

whereby he has admitted that the workman was his employee. Respondent-2 has not led any evidence contrary to the

fact deposed by the workman nor he had cross-examined the workman contradicting him or impeach his creditability.

From the above discussion, workman has proved that he had worked as workman with respondent-2 and his

services have been terminated illegally as no notice pay for retrenchment compensation as either been offered or

given. Not only he had proved that his petition is maintainable but also he had proved that his services have been

terminated illegally, therefore, issued no.-1&2 has been answered accordingly.

3918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 21, 2024/BHADRA 30, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ISSUE No. 3 & 4: What relief, the workman is entitled and be given.

Workman claims that he be given reinstatement of service with full back wages with respondent-2 since the

date of his termination, he is jobless. He has two kids depending upon him and he has been undergoing with financial

crisis. The testimony of this witness is unchallenged as the management-1 had not cross-examined him that he has

been doing job, therefore, there is no doubt left in the mind of the court/tribunal that the workman has got any job.

Admittedly the workman had worked for four year with respondent-1. Normally when the workman services

were terminated, naturally reinstatement with full back wages would follow. However, in recent past there has been a

shift in the legal position and long line of cases decided by the constitutional court that relief of reinstatement with full

back wages is not automatic and may be fully inappropriate where the workman worked only for a year or two.

However, herein present case respondent-1 the employer has not contested the case with strength. He had only made

lip services by filing the written statement.

In these circumstances, when the workman age is only 26 year and he had served four year with the

respondent-1 having two kids for look after, relief of reinstatement with full back wages is appropriately relief.

Hence, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages from the respondent-1. As no relief has been

sought from the respondent-2 therefore, award cannot be passed against the respondent-2. Award is passed

accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17

of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room

Date 14^th, June, 2024

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1781.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa

-सि-

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2024

S.O. 1781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 69/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05/09/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 69/2020

Ref. No. D-885/AB/2020/47/IRDDN dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020

BETWEEN

Shri Liladhar, S/o Shri Lochan, Village-Sarau, Post-Batlaiya, PS-Bhamaura, Tehsil-Aonla, Distt.-

Bareilly(UP).

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 21, 2024/भाद्र 30, 1946

3919

Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative) M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P.No. 315, Katia Tolla,

Shahajanpur (UP).

AND

The General Manager (Principal Employer) Food Corporation of India, Regional office, T.C.3, V-

Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow(UP).

The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority), Food Corporation of India (FCI), Distt. Office,

Shahjahanpur (UP).

AWARD

By order No. D-885/AB/2020/47/IRDDN dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020 the present industrial dispute has

been referred for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with

following schedule:

“Whether the termination of the service of Shri Liladhar S/o Sri Lochan, who was engaged in Roja

Depot of FCI, Shahajanpur, (UP) by M/s Keshav Singh, Contractor of FCI, the period 04.08.2008 to

23.04.2010 is proper and justified.

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

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 69/2020 has been registered on 29.10.2020.

On 21.12.2020 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit.

Facts stated in the claim petition are in brief that claimant was initially appointed with the respondent; however

without following the provision of retrenchment as provided under section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) his services were dispensed on 24.04.2020.

On behalf of the respondent statement of defense filed on 21.12.2022 in which preliminary objection also taken by the

respondent.

After filing of the written statement by respondent, in spite of opportunities given to workman, he neither filed

rejoinder nor evidence in support of his case on affidavit, which is evident from the orders passed (relevant) in the

present case quoted as under:

“11.05.2023

Matter taken up in revised list.

Mo. Ovais, holding brief of Sri Dhirener Singh for FCI.

WS filed, taken on record. Respondent is directed to send copy of WS to claimant & file proof thereof by next

date of listing. List on 04.08.2023 for rejoinder.

(Ρ.Ο.)

04.08.2023.

Matter taken up in revised list. Sri A.P. Singh, holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Singh for FCI. None for

claimant.

As prayed matter is adjourned to comply order dt. 11.05.2023, rejoinder if any filed by next date. List on

31.10.2023

(Ρ.O.)

31.10.2023

Present Sri Dhirendra Singh for respondent. None for claimant.

Sri Dhirendra Singh filed proof (postal receipt) in respect of sending copy of written statement to the

workman, taken on record.

Last opportunity is granted for rejoinder.

List on 29.01.2024.

(P.O.)

09.04.2024

Taken up in revised list.

3920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 21, 2024/BHADRA 30, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

None for claimant. Sri Dhirender Singh for OP.

Opportunity to file rejoinder is closed.

List on 04.06.2024 for ex-parte hearing. Notice to claimant.

(P.O.)”

Accordingly heard learned counsel for respondent and gone through the records.

In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his case on

affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble

High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

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

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

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

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

the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to

appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government

cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

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

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

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

Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors.

1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of

any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court

against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at

all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making

the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

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

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

under:

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

shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead

evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence

either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has

to be dismissed.”

As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be

dismissed.

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

Award as above.

Lucknow.

06^th June, 2024

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1782.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa

सि -

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : जसतम् बर 21, 2024/भाद्र 30, 1946

3921

New Delhi, the 11th September, 2024

S.O. 1782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 71/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05/09/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024–IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 71/2020

Ref. No. D-870/AB/2020/59/IRDDN dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020

BETWEEN

Shri Santram, S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Village & Post-Padri, PS & Tehsil-Puvayan, Distt.-

Shahjahanpur(UP).

Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative) M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P.No. 315, Katia Tolla,

Shahajanpur (UP).

AND

The General Manager (Principal Employer) Food Corporation of India, Regional office, T.C.3, V-

Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow(UP).

The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority), Food Corporation of India (FCI), Distt. Office,

Shahjahanpur (UP).

AWARD

By order No. D-870/AB/2020/59/IRDDN dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020 the present industrial dispute has been

referred for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-

section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following

schedule:

“Whether the termination of the service of Shri Santram S/o Shri Sohan Lal, who was engaged in Roja Depot

of FCI, Shahajanpur, (UP) by M/s Keshav Singh, Contractor of FCI, the period 09.08.2008 to 23.04.2010 is

proper and justified.

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

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 71/2020 has been registered on 29.10.2020.

On 21.12.2020 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit.

Facts stated in the claim petition are in brief that claimant was initially appointed with the respondent; however

without following the provision of retrenchment as provided under section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) his services were dispensed on 24.04.2020.

On behalf of the respondent statement of defense filed on 21.12.2022 in which preliminary objection also taken by the

respondent.

After filing of the written statement by respondent, in spite of opportunities given to workman, he neither filed

rejoinder nor evidence in support of his case on affidavit, which is evident from the orders passed (relevant) in the

present case quoted as under:

3922