7253 GI/2024
(4965)
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. 46]
नई दिल् ली, नवम् बर 17—नवम् बर 23, 2024, िजनवार/कार्तिक 26—अग्रिायण 2, 1946
No. 46]
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 17—NOVEMBER 23, 2024, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 26–AGRAHAYANA 2, 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)
पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2112.—साविजनक पररसर (अनजिकृत कब् िािाररयों की बेिखली) अजिजनयम 1971 ( 1971 का 40)
की िारा 3 द्वारा प्राजिकृत िजियों का प्रयोग तथा त्रालय भारत सरकार
भारत सरकार की दिनांक 13 जसतम्बर 2017
की अजिसूचना संख्या 25015/1/2007-ओ आर I का जततस्ट्थापन करते हुये भारत सरकार नीचे िी गई सारणी के (कलाम
2) मे अजिकाररयों को भारत सरकार के रािपजत्रत अजिकाररयों के समकछ िोने के नाते सम्पिा अजिकारी जनयुकत करती
िै। ये अजिकारी उक् त अजिजनयम में सम् पिा अजिकारी के जलए जनिािररत िजियों का प्रयोग उक् त सारणी के कालम 3 में
वर्णित साविजनक पररसरों के जलए सीजमत स्ट्थानीय छेत्राजिकार के अंतगति अपने कायिपालन के जलए करेंगे ।
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-28112024-258979
CG-DL-W-28112024-258979
4966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
सारणी
क्र. सं. यूजनट/कायािलय
का नाम
अजिकारी का पि
साविजनक पररसरों की श्रेजणयों तथा
स्ट् थानीय क्षेत्राजिकार की क्षेत्र सीमाएं
1
नई दिल् ली
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, स्ट् कोप
कॉम् प् लेक् स, कोर-2, 7, इंस्ट् टीट्यूिनल एररया,
लोिी रोड, नई दिल् ली- 110003
केन् रिाजसत प्रांत दिल् ली, तथा उत् तर
प्रिेि के नोएडा (नवीन ओखला
औद्योजगक जवकास प्राजिकरण) के
अंतगित
जस्ट्थत
इंजडयन
ऑयल
कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रिासजनक
जनयंत्रएा वाले साविजनक पररसर
2
गुवािाटी
ररफाइनरी
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, गुवािाटी
ररफाइनरी पी.ओ नूनमाटी, गुवािाटी -
781020
असम राज् य के अंिर तथा आसपास
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के
प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण वाले साविजनक
पररसर
3
बरौनी
ररफाइनरी
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, बरौनी
ररफाइनरी ,डाकघर बरौनी ररफाइनरी जिला
बेगुसराय, जबिार – 8611164
जबिार राज् य के अंिर तथा आसपास
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के
प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण वाले साविजनक
पररसर
4
गुिरात
ररफाइनरी
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, गुिरात
ररफाइनरी, डाकघर िवािर नगर, जिला
वडोिरा, गुिरात 391320
गुिरात राज् य के अंिर तथा आसपास
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के
प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण वाले साविजनक
पररसर
5
िजल्िया
ररफाइनरी
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, िजल्िया
ररफाइनरी, जिला जमिनापुर, पजिमी बंगाल-
721606
पजिम बंगाल राज् य के अंिर तथा
आसपास इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन
जलजमटेड के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण वाले
साविजनक पररसर .
6
मथुरा
ररफाइनरी
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, मथुरा
ररफाइनरी, मथुरा – 281005 (उत् तर प्रिेि)
नवीन ओखला औद्योजगक जवकास
प्राजिकरण नोएडा को छोड़ कर उत् तर
प्रिेि राज् य के अंिर तथा आसपास
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के
प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण वाले साविजनक
पररसर
7
पानीपत
ररफाइनरी
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, पानीपत
ररफाइनरी, िररयाणा-132140
िररयाणा
राज् य
के
अंिर
तथा
आसपास इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन
जलजमटेड के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण वाले
साविजनक पररसर
8
असम ऑयल
जडवीिन
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
असम राज् य के अंिर तथा आसपास
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4967
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, जडगबोई
ररफाइनरी, जडगबोई – 786171 (असम)
असम ऑयल जडवीिन के प्रिासजनक
जनयंत्रण वाले साविजनक पररसर
9
पारािीप
ररफाइनरी
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड पारािीप
ररफाइनरी, डाकघर: जिमानी, बाया- कुिांग,
िगतससंिपुर, ओजडिा- 754141
ओजडिा राज् य के अंिर तथा आसपास
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के
प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण वाले साविजनक
पररसर
10
बौंगाईगांव
ररफाइनरी
मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी सेवाएं) / मिाप्रबंिक
(मानव संसािन) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (कमिचारी
सेवाएं) / उप मिाप्रबंिक (मानव संसािन),
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, बौंगाईगांव
ररफाइनरी, पीओ िौलीगाओं, जिला बोंगाईगांव,
असम 783383
असम राज् य के अंिर तथा आसपास
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के
प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण वाले साविजनक
पररसर
[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/1/2017-ओआर-I/ई-8875]
ििी िेखर ससंि, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2024
S.O. 2112.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India
in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas F.No.R-25015/1/2007-OR dated 13th September 2017, the Central
Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the table below, being officer of equivalent rank
of Gazetted Officers of the Government, to be Estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the
powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of
their respective jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the
said table .
TABLE
Sl.
No.
Name of the
Unit/Office
Designation of the Officer
Categories of public premises and
local limits of jurisdiction
1.
New Delhi
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd., Refineries HQ, Core-2, Scope
Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New
Delhi-110003
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. within the Union
Territory of Delhi and New Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority
(NOIDA) of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2.
Guwahati
Refinery
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd., Guwahati Refinery, P.O.
Noonmati, Guwahati – 781 020
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. within the State of
Assam.
3.
Barauni
Refinery
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. within the State of
4968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd., Barauni Refinery, P.O. Barauni
Refinery, Distt. Begusarai, Bihar – 861114.
Bihar.
4.
Gujarat
Refinery
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery, P.O. Jawahar
Nagar, Distt. Vadodara, Gujarat - 391320
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. within the State of
Gujarat.
5.
Haldia
Refinery
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation
Ltd.,
Haldia
Refinery,
Distt.
Midnapur, West Bengal – 721 606
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. within the State of
West Bengal.
6.
Mathura
Refinery
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation
Ltd.,
Mathura
Refinery,
P.O.
Mathura Refinery, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh -
281005
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. within the State of
Uttar Pradesh except for the New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority (NOIDA) area.
7.
Panipat
Refinery
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd., Panipat Refinery, P.O. Panipat
Refinery, Panipat, Haryana – 132 140.
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. within the State of
Haryana.
8.
Assam Oil
Division
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd., Assam Oil Division, Digboi
Refinery, Digboi – 786171
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Assam Oil
Division of Indian Oil Corporation
Limited within the State of Assam.
9.
Paradip
Refinery
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation
Ltd.,
Paradip
Refinery,
P.O.:
Jhimani,
Via-Kujang,
Distt.
Jagatsinghpur,
Odisha – 754 141.
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. within the State of
Odisha.
10.
Bongaigaon
Refinery
General Manager (Employee Services) / General
Manager (Human Resource) / Dy. General
Manager (Employee Services) / Dy. General
Manager
(Human
Resource),
Indian
Oil
Corporation
Ltd.,
Bongaigaon
Refinery,
PO:Dhaligaon,
Distt
Bongaigaon
783385
(Assam)
India
Public
premises
under
the
administrative control of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. within the State of
Assam.
[F. No. R-11025(15)/1/2017-OR-I/E-8875]
SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4969
श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 21 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 2113.—रा.भा.नी: केंर सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976
(यथा संिोजित, 1987) के जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय के प्रिासकीय
जनयंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलजखत कायािलयों को, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमिचाररयों ने जिन्िी का कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर
जलया िै, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै:
1. कमिचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम जचदकत्सा मिाजवद्यालय एवं अस्ट्पताल, फरीिाबाि (िररयाणा)
2. कमिचारी राज्य बीमा जनगम उप क्षेत्रीय कायािलय, जतरुपजत
[सं. ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी.]
नागेि कुमार ससंि, उप मिाजनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 21st October, 2024
S.O. 2113.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired
working knowledge of Hindi:—
1. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Medical College and Hospital, Faridabad (Haryana)
2. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Sub Regional Office, Tirupati
[No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN]
NAGESH KUMAR SINGH, Dy. Director General
नई दिल्ली, 30 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 2114.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार मेससस
जेएएस टोल रोड कंपिी गलगमटेड, िेलमंिला, बैंिलोर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री एच. टी. देिराज
िाइक,कामिार, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय,बैंिलोर, पंचाट(संदर्स
संख्या 32/2018)को जैसा कक अिुलग्नक में कदखाया िया है,प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
30.10.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2024-187-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 30th October, 2024
S.O. 2114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s. JAS Toll Road Compnay Limited, Nelamangala, Bangalore, and Shri H.T.Devaraja Naik, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.10.2024
[No. L-42025-07-2024-187-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
4970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD
DATED
: 3RD OCTOBER 2024
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
I D No. 32/2018
I Party
II Party
Sri H T Devaraja Naik,
S/o Hanumantha Naik,
Muddapura, Holalkere Taluk,
Hosadurga Road and Post,
CHITRADURGA POST.
The Management of
M/s. JAS Toll Road Compnay Limited,
Kulemepalya, NH-4, Opp. KBDL,
Nelamangala,
Bangalore – 562 123.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. N Prathap Simha
President
II Party :
Sh. Vaidyanathan R
Advocate
1. The petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes
(Amendment) Act, 2010 challenging the Termination order dated 10.10.2017 from service by the 2nd Party.
2. After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties and both appeared. Though several
opportunities were given to the 2nd Party but they did not file their counter statement and the matter came to
be posted for Evidence of 1st Party. Petitioner was accorded sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in
support of his claim but he failed to do so. The opportunity of Petitioner to adduce Evidence closed. Perused
the record. The claim of the Petitioner is not substantiated by any evidence.
3. Therefore, in view of the above, "No Claim" Award is passed and the Petition stands dismissed.
Transmit.
AWARD
No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2115.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa
– सह –
] जबलपुर dsiapkV (एलसी-आर/
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/88/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/66/2018) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4971
between the Management of S.E.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
4/11/2024.
[No. L-22012/88/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/66/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Vice President / J.C.C.
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (H.M.S.)
Raj Nagar OCP, SECL, Sector-C Colony
Qtr. No. M/92, PO: Dola,
Distt.- Anuppur (M.P.) - 484224
Workman
Versus
Sub-Regional Manager
Raj Nagar OCM, Hasdeo Area
SECL, PO: Raj Nagar,
Distt.- Anuppur (M.P.) - 484224
Management
(J U D G M E N T)
(Passed on this 11th day of October-2024)
As per letter dated 13/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made
to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/88/2018/IR(CM-II)
dt. 13/11/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“
”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. Parties
appeared. The workman union filed their Statement of Claims. Management preferred not to file any written
statement of defense.
According to the workman union, the workman Jay Govind Mall was posted alongwith 13 other co-
workers as EP Fitter, Grade-B in Raj Nagar Open Coast Mines. They had worked overtime between July 2012 to
February 2017 under the direction of management, details furnished in the documents filed with statement of claim. It
is the case of workman union that, they are entitled to be paid overtime wages, but management has not paid them
overtime wages, they raised dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Shahdol, hence this reference. The union
has demanded that, holding the workman who worked overtime, entitled to overtime wages, the management be
directed to pay them overtime accordingly.
As stated above, no written statement of defense has been filed by management.
4972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Since, the dispute is only law point, whether the workman is entitled to overtime wage, when he worked
overtime under direction of management, hence no evidence on facts is required, though workman side has filed
affidavit of workman Jay Govind Mall, who is the union representative, this affidavit is uncontroverted.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel from both the side and have gone through the record. It is not
disputed that when a person works overtime under direction of management as per Rule 60 (1) of Mines Rules, 1995
and Clause 17 of the Standing Order applicable to the establishment, naturally the workmen are entitled to overtime
wages, if they have worked overtime under the direction of management. Their overtime wages may be computed on
the basis of records undoubtedly available with the management, photocopies filed in the case in hand.
In the light of above discussion, the reference stands answered accordingly.
DATE:- 11/10/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2116.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj कृष्णासपंग अलॉयि जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
– सह –
] जबलपुर dsiapkV (एलसी-
आर/
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/-R/36/2022) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of Krishnaping Alloys Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024
[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/36/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Keshav Pawar,
Palaspani, Kachidhana,
Rampeth, Tehsil : Sausar,
Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Krishnaping Alloyes Limited,
Palaspani Manganese Mine,
Rampeth, Tehsil: Sausar,
Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)
Management
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4973
AWARD
(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)
Vide communication reference number J-1(5-6)/2022-IR dated 29/06/2022; by the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi this reference is sent to the Tribunal under section-
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Is the Applicant Shri Keshav Pawar is workman or not; If yes, then his termination by the employer
M/s. Krishnapping Alloys Limited, Palaspani Manganese Mine, Rampeth, Tah- Sausar, Dist. Chhindwara
( Madhya Pradesh) is legal or not and what relief Shri Keshav Pawar is entitled for? ”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service
of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written
statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did
he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
DATE: 22/10/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2117.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj डब्ल्यू.सी.एल..ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa
– सह –
] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/01/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/43/2015) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of W.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024.
[No. L-22012/01/2015 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
DATE: 22/10/2024
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/43/2015
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Joint Mahamantri
Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC)
Shramik Shakti Bhawan, PO: Chandametta
Chhindwara (M.P.)
Workman
4974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
Chief General Manager
Western Coalfields Limited
Kanhan Area, PO: Dungaria
Tehsil – Junardev, Chhindwara (M.P.)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)
As per letter dated 11/05/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to
this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-22012/01/2015/IR(CM-II) dt. 11/05/2015.
The dispute under reference related to :-
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.
In short, the undisputed facts between the parties are that, the workman Yusuf Qureshi who was working in
the Umrer Area of management as EP Auto Electrician, was transferred on his request to Kanhan Area vide order of
management dated 20.04.2002 in the same cadre/post/scale, he was working before his transfer. He was placed in
Ghodawadi Colliery in underground duty by management vide order dated 27.05.2002 after joining in Kanhan Area.
According to the workman his salary was Rs. 216.78/- basic, which was reduced to Rs. 192/- basic, which is arbitrary
according to the workman union. Management has defended its this action on the ground, that a settlement between
management on one hand and representative of the workman union with the workman on the other hand on
18.07.2002. One of the terms and conditions of the agreement that the workman Auto Electric (Excavation) Category-
C would be posted in underground as Electric Fitter in Category-IV in mid point fixation i.e., Rs. 164.72/- per day of
NCWA-VI and the workman himself or through any union will not raise any dispute regarding his basic pay and
change of designation as stated above. The case of the workman is that, this agreement was got signed by him,
keeping him in dark about the contents and the nature of the agreement, whereas the case of the management is that,
the workman signed this agreement according to his freewill and there was no misrepresentation.
The workman union filed photocopy documents, which are transfer order and the settlement mentioned
above, which are admitted by management. Affidavit of the workman was also filed by union, but the workman never
appeared for cross examination. Management did not file any evidence.
I have heard argument of Shri Praveen Yadav learned Counsel for workman union and Shri Neeraj Kewat
learned Counsel for management. I have gone through the record as well.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the issue for determination is as follows :-
“Whether, the settlement dated 18.07.2002 between the management and workman union is binding
between the parties and whether it has been signed by the workman under misrepresentation by management with
respect to nature and contents of the agreement?”
The burden to prove that, the agreement was got signed by the management by not disclosing its nature and
content is on the workman union/workman. His affidavit as examination in chief cannot be read in his support,
because no opportunity of cross examination was available to management. There is no other evidence to corroborate
the case of the workman on this issue. Hence, in the light of above discussion holding the claim of the workman not
proved, the reference as answered as follows :-
AWARD
Holding the action of management in placing the workman Yusuf Qureshi as Electric Fitter,
Category-IV and fixing his basic pay Rs. 164.72/- per day on the basis of settlement between the parties dated
18.07.2002, just and legal, the workman is held entitled to no relief. No order as to cost.
DATE: 22/10/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4975
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2118.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एन.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
– सह –
] जबलपुर dsiapkV (एलसी-आर/
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/16/2023-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/26/2023) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of N.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024
[No. L-22012/16/2023–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/2023
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The Zonal Secretary,
Janata Mazdoor Sangh,
231, Ambedkar Nagar, Shakti Nagar,
Dist. Sonbhada (M.P.) – 231222
Workman
Versus
M/s Dilip Buildcon Limited,
Jayant Project, NCL, Post – Jayant
Dist. Singrauli (M.P.) – 486890
The General Manager,
Jayant Project, NCL,
Post – Jayant,
Dist. Singrauli, (M.P.) - 486890
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 24th day of October-2024.)
As per letter dated 21/02/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
22012/16/2023 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 21/02/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ क् या िोनल सजचव, िनता मििूर संघ द्वारा ठेका श्रजमकों की सेवा में िी िाने वाली सुजविाओं से संबंजित मांग
का मैससि दिलीप जबल् डकॉन जलजमटेड, ियंत पररयोिना, ससंगरौली एवं 01 अन्य से िावा न् यायोजचत िै? यदि िॉं, तो ठेका
श्रजमकों के सम् बन् ि में उक् त यूजनयन दकस अनुतोष की पात्र िै ? ”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service
of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written
statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
4976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did
he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
DATE: 24/10/2024
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2119.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
केंरीय लोक गिमासण गिर्ाि 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;
II
ds iapkV (a49/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12025/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (बी.-I) 233]
सलोिी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2119—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.49/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. - II
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work
Department and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1) -233]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 49/2023
Smt. Raj Kumari & 02 others,
Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,
CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,
Shop No-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
Versus
1. The Director General,
Central Public Work Department (CPWD)
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Executive Engineer,
CPWD Civil U Division,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003.
3. R.R. Realtors Engineer,
191, Goshmi Marg Nigam, M.C.D. School,
Khichdipur East, Delhi-110096.
AWARD
The appropriate government, Sh. D.K. Himanshu, under Secretary had sent reference referred dated
08.02.2023 to this tribunal for adjudication with the following words.
“Whether CPWD Karamchari Union, Haryana vide letter dated NIL i.r.o. Smt. Rajkumari and 02 others
against the management of CPWD, New Dlehi CPWD Civil U Division, New Delhi (principal employer)
and/or M/s R.R. Realtors, New Delhi (Contractor) has locus standi to raise industrial dispute under ID
Act, 1947?
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4977
If yes, whether demands raised by CPWD Karamchari Union, Haryana vide letter dated NIL i.r.o. Smt
Rajkumari and 02 others to the management of CPWD, New Delhi, CPWD Civil U Division, New Delhi
(principal employer) and/or M/s R.R. Realtors, New Delhi (contractor) for their regularization and to
terminate their services during the pendency of the matter are proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what
reliefs are the disputant entitled and what directions(s), if any, is necessary in the matter?”
Notices were issued to both the parties. AR for the management-1 & 2 have been appearing before this
tribunal. They have not come forward to file their claim statement before this tribunal, despite, providing a number of
opportunities. Claimant AR submits that claimants want to withdraw the case.
In view of the above submission made by AR of the claimant, claim stands dismissed as withdrawn. Award is
accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the
I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
Date 06th, August, 2024
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2120.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa
–
सि
–
] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान
/
)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2120.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 11/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024.
[No. L-22013/01/2024–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 05th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 11/2023
Between:
The President,
Singareni Coal Mines
karmika Sangh, H.O. 10-1-208,
Opp. IOB, Near Singareni Head Office,
Kothagudem, Telngana-507101.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Kothagudem Area-507101.
…Respondents
4978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.1/4/2023-B1 dated 19/04/2023 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
THE SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem Area denying
the dependent employment to Shri Maloth Veerulal, elder son of deceased ex-employee on account of non-
submission of application by his mother Smt. Maloth Goji within six months from the date he attains 18
years of age is justified or not? If not, to what relief the dependent Shri Maloth Veerulal is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 11/2023 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any
claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his
case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 5th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2121.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 2/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024.
[No. L-22013/01/2024–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4979
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 20th day of August, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.2/2017
Between:
Sri Shaik Yacoob Imran,
S/o Mohimuddin,
R/o Q.No.56, Power House Colony,
Godavarikhani.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chief General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
RG-I, Godavarikhani, Post: Godavarikhani,
Dist. Peddapalli.
2.
The Director, Personnel & Administrative Wing,
SC Company Ltd., Kothagudem
Post: Kothagudem
Dist: Khammam
3.
Chairman & Managing Director,
SC Company Ltds
Red Hills Singareni Bhavan,
Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.
…
.Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri S. Bhagwanth Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Shaik Yacoob Imran who worked as Deputy Manager (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 M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding dated 1.3.2013 of Respondent No.1 together with order of
abandonment dated 24.2.2014 by Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently
directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service, in any suitable employment in any office other than
dust infected areas, duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all
other attendant benefits etc., and also ordering the Respondent to refund the amount of Rs.1,31,954/- with interest.
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner/Employee is appointed as an employee in Respondent company as Junior Mining Engineer Trainee in
Respondent company under Apprenticeship Act. After successful completion of Training, the Petitioner was provided
as an under Manager" in RG -1 Godavarikhani on 2.7.2008 by the Chairman and Managing Director, SC company
Ltd., Red Hills, Singareni Bhavan, Hyderabad through Reference No CRP/PER/C15/1508. It is submitted that
service conditions of Petitioner are governed by various standing orders of Company. It is submitted that, the
Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Mining Engineer (Trainee) in the Respondent company on 3.10.2005 and
later on posted as under Manager at RG-1 Godavarikhani Area on 1.7.2008 and the Petitioner discharged his duties to
the fullest satisfaction of superiors till illegal struck of the name of Petitioner from the rolls of the company on
1.3.2013 without issuing any notice, any charge either absenteeism to duties without permission or sanction of leave.
It is submitted that Petitioner has put in 9 years of qualified service in Respondent company. It is submitted that the
Petitioner was foisted charge u/s 25:25 of standing orders of company. There is no termination order as the case of
Petitioner is nothing but "Termination simplicitor" without any enquiry as violation of provisions of section 25-F of
4980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I.D. Act. It is submitted that Petitioner was not paid salary in lieu of notice or compensation in lieu of termination. It
is submitted that the Petitioner used to get Rs.25,647/-pm as a basic salary from Respondent company. That the
Petitioner was examined in various Hospitals after completion of his Medical Examinations it was detected that the
Petitioner is suffering from "Monteux ie. Tuber Closes". The Doctor advised the Petitioner not to go into ‘Dust
Infected’ areas. It is submitted that the Petitioner used to absent for his duties as it is beyond control of the Petitioner.
As the Petitioner taking treatment in various Hospitals, which includes even in Company hospital as out patient. It is
submitted that the Petitioner went to attend duty on 16.10.2013 in first Respondent central at OCP RG -1 after
recovering from ill health, the first Respondent did not allow him to join into service and directed the Petitioner by
2nd Respondent to report duty on or before 31.10.2013 through letter No.CRP/PER/C/014/2347 dated 16.10.2013 and
the 2nd Respondent came to the conclusion, that, the Petitioner has abandoned from "service" which is far from truth.
That, there is no removal order of Respondent No. 1. The removal is totally illegal, arbitrary and against to the
principals of natural Justice. Subsequently Petitioner was given final opportunity to join into service, by issuing letter
dated 24.2.2014, which itself is self contrary to their own stand and on the other hand they initiated recovery of
amount of Rs 1,31,954/- from the possession of Petitioner is to harass and the delinquent paid the amount by
disposing ornaments of his wife which is indiscriminate to make as " welfare state" by the company. That, the
Petitioner was not paid salary in lieu of notice and also three months salary. The Petitioner prays the Hon'ble court to
decide the validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. The Petitioner belongs to an executive cadre should
be given a reasonable and fair opportunity to contest the matter. It is submitted that no enquiry was conducted except
termination that too termination simplicitor. The Petitioner is a Mining Engineer, he comes under the definition of
"Workmen" under ID Act. The Petitioner has no power to remove any person for any kind of misconduct, no power
of administrative control over his employee. Hence the Petitioner is a workman in-terms of Sec.2(s) of ID Act. It is
submitted that the Petitioner sent demand letter to consider him for employment, by revoking oral removal order
which was not served and subsequently issued a notice of abandonment by second Respondent. Hence, prayed to set
aside the oral removal order dated 1.3.2013 of Respondent No.1 together with order of abandonment dated 24.2.2014
duly granting all attendant benefits etc..
3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
At the outset it is submitted that the Petitioner is not a workman within the definition of Section2(s) of I.D.Act.
Section 2(S) of ID Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
Sec.2(s)"workman" means
any person (including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be
express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does
not include any such person (s) 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 one thousand six
hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by
reason of the powers vested in him, function mainly of a managerial nature.
It is submitted that the Petitioner was an ex-Deputy Manager, an executive cadre employee of the Respondent
Company, and not a workman as defined in 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence he is not governed by the
Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above, this Petition is not maintainable and may be dismissed. It is submitted
that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Mining Engineer Trainee (UMET) vide Office Order
No.CRP/PER/R/POA/57/57/183, dated 14.09.2005 of General Manager (Personnel) and office Order
No.CRP/HRD/JMET/3226, dated 04.10.2008 of General Manager (HRD). It is submitted that subsequently he was
selected and appointed as Mining Graduate Trainee (MGT) in Executive Grade (E-1) on 12.06.2006 vide Office
Order No.CRP/PER/R/DOA/01/127, dated 03.04.2006 of Chief General Manager (Personnel) and Letter
No.CRP/PER/R/01/01/428, dated 28.04.2006. The Petitioner was drafted as Under Manager in E-2 Grade on
01.07.2008 and as Deputy Manager in E-3 Grade on 01.04.2011. The Petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent
from duty without prior permission or intimation with effect from 01.03.2013. It is submitted that rhe Project Officer
of Medipalli Open Cast Project of the Respondent Company sent two letters to the Petitioner on 03.03.2013 and
22.05.2013 by post to the address available on the Office records with an advice to report for duty immediately but
the Petitioner neither reported for duty nor communicated anything about his absence. Since the Petitioner remained
unauthorizedly absent from duty from 01.03.2013 to 24.02.2014, his name was removed from the rolls of the
Respondent Company with effect from 01.03.2013 vide Letter No.CRP/PER/C/0 14/434, dated 24.02.2014 as per the
terms and conditions of his appointment and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Respondent Company. It is
submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that he was foisted with charge U/s 25.25 of Company's Standing
Orders is incorrect and not true. The Petitioner was an executive of the Respondent Company and not by the Standing
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4981
Orders of the Company and also Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that since the Petitioner remained
unauthorisedly absent from duty without intimation or permission, as such his name was removed from the rolls from
the date of his absence i.e. 01.03.2013 vide order No.CRP/PER/C/014/434, dated 24.02.2014. As per the terms and
conditions of his appointment and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA) rules of the executives of the
Respondent Company, if an employee/executive abandoned the employment on his own accord without 3 months
notice, he is liable to pay 3 months notice wages/pay. As such a notice was served on him to the known address to pay
the notice wages/pay by Register Post with Acknowledgement due. However, the said notice was returned by the
Postal authorities with an endorsement of "No such person" at the address sent vide Letter No. CRP/PER/C/014/2347,
dated 16.10.2013 and CRP/PER/C/014/434, dated 24.02.2014. It is further submitted that there upon, the Respondent
Company filed O.S.No.58 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kothagudem. On the
above, the Hon'ble Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem served notices. However, the Petitioner has not
responded to the Court Notices also. Hence, the Hon'ble Court passed Decree dated 31.7.2015 for a sum of
Rs.1,31,954/- with costs and interest @12% on Rs.1,31,954/- per annum from the date of filing of Suit till the date of
decree, and thereafter @6% per annum on Rs.1,31,954/- from the date of decree till finalization. Therefore, prayed
to dismiss the claim petition.
4.
Heard counsels of both parties and perused written arguments filed by both parties.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of both parties and arguments advanced, the following points emerge for
determination:-
I.
Whether Petitioner is workman as defined under section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947?
II.
Whether the action of Respondent management in terminating the services of the Petitioner vide
oral order dated 1.3.2013 and order of abandonment No.CRP/PER/C/014/434 dated 24.2.2014 is
legal and justified?
III.
To what relief, if any, the Petitioner is entitled for?
6.
As regards oral evidence, Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 in evidence and also filed documentary
evidence which has been exhibited, Ex. W1 to W17. Whereas on the other hand, Respondent has examined MW1 in
support of his contentions and has also filed the documents Ex.M1 to M8. Petitioner has also filed written
arguments.
Findings:-
7.
Point No.I: Respondent Counsel submits that Petitioner was an Ex.Deputy Manager, an executive cadre
employee of the Respondent company and not a Workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. Hence, he is
not governed under the provision of I.D. Act, 1947. In view of the above, the present petition filed by the Petitioner
is not maintainable. Further, it is submitted that Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Mining Engineer Trainee
vide office order dated 14.9.2005 of General Manager (Personnel) and office order dated 4.10.2008 of General
Manager (HRD). Subsequently, he was selected and appointed as Mining Graduate Trainee in Executive Grade (E-
1) on 12.6.2006 vide office order dated 3.4.2006 of Chief General Manager (Personnel) and letter
No.CRP/PER/R/01/01/428 dated 28th April 2006. The Petitioner was drafted as Under Manager in E-2 grade on
1.7.2008 and as Deputy Manager in E-3 grade on 1.4.2011. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner remained
unauthorisedly absent from duty without prior permission or intimation with effect from 1.3.2013. Further, it is
submitted that the Project Officer of Medipalli Open Cast Project of the Respondent Company sent two letters to the
Petitioner on 3.3.2013 and 22.5.2013 by post to the address available on the office records with an advise to report for
duty immediately, but the Petitioner neither reported for duty nor communicated anything about his absence. Since
the Petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, from 1.3.2013 to 24.2.2014, hence his name was removed
from the rolls of the Respondent company with effect from 1.3.2013 vide letter dated 24.2.2014 as per the terms and
conditions of his appointment and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal rules of the Respondent Company. Further, it is
submitted the contention of the Petitioner that his termination is in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the
Industrial Disputes Act is incorrect and not true. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner was an executive of the
Respondent company and not a Workman and hence he is not governed by the Standing orders of the Respondent
company and also Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent in support of his contention has examined witness
MW1 who has reiterated the contentions made in the counter in his testimony. Further, MW1was also cross
examined by the Petitioner counsel. In his cross examination, MW1 states, “ Petitioner was appointed as JMET on
14.9.2005 in Respondent organization. Approximately he used to get Rs.50,000/- at the time of his termination from
service. It is true that the Respondent has not conducted any enquiry before his termination. It is true that
Respondent has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,31,000/- and subsequently it was decreed.” Further,
witness states, “Approximately 500 personnel used to work under control of Petitioner before his removal. The
Petitioner has got full control over the persons who were working under him. The services of Petitioner are not
covered under National Coal Wage agreements. It is not true to suggest that Petitioner is a Workman.
4982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, Witness MW1 in his cross examination has corroborated and supported the stand taken by the Respondent in
the chief statement affidavit. The Respondent has also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited by the
witness Ex.M1 to M8. Ex.M1M1is provisional offer of appointment dated 3.4.2006, which reflects offer to
appointment, was issued to the Petitioner Sri. Sheikh Yakub Imran for the post of Mining Graduate Trainee in E1
cadre. Ex.M2 is the office order dated 1.4.2011 which reveal that the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy
Manager in the pay scale of Rs.24,900 – 50,500/- (E-3) with effect from 1.4.2011. Ex. M3 is the office order dated
31.3.2012 whereby the Petitioner was posted as Deputy Manager in the Respondent Management. Ex.M4 is the
notice dated 16.10.2013, pertaining to unauthorized absence of Petitioner from duty and abandonment of the
employment by the Petitioner from 1.3.2013. Ex. M7 is the copy of judgement passed by the Principal Junior Civil
Judge, in O.S.No. 58 of 2015 which was filed by the Respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited against
Petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs.1,31,954/- which has been decreed against the Defendant Petitioner vide
order dated 31.7.2015. Again Ex.M8 is the copy of decree in O.S.No. 58 of 2015 which was passed against the
Petitioner in that case. Thus, from the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Respondent as discussed
above, it is established that Petitioner was initially appointed as Mining Grade-1 Trainee in the Respondent company
and later on he was promoted on the post of Deputy Manager vide order dated 1.4.2011 in the pay scale of Rs.24,900
– 50,550/- and at the time of his removal from service vide order dated 1.3.2013, he was serving in the Respondent
company as Deputy Manager. Thus, his salary was in excess of Rs.1600/-. It is also established that while he was
posted in the employment of Respondent he was supervising about 500 Workmen working in the mines of
Respondent company.
9. On the other hand, Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that he is a Workman under ID Act and Mining
Engineer is also Workman. Further Petitioner submitted that he has no power of administrative or supervisory control
over his employees. He has no right to grant any salary or leaves to the persons who are working under his control
and when he is not having supervisory or administrative control over his subordinates, then he is considered to be a
Workman in terms of Section 2 (s) of I.D. Act, 1947. Petitioner in support of his plea has also examined himself as
WW1 and in his chief statement he reiterated his statement that he belongs to Executive Cadre, should be given a
reasonable and fair opportunity to contest the matter. Further, WW1 states in his chief statement that, he was Mining
Engineer and he comes under the definition of Workman under I.D. Act, 1947. He has also relied upon the decision
of Hon’ble High Court wherein Hon’ble High Court have held that an apprentice is also a Workman in terms of
Section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947. WW1 was cross examined by the Learned Counsel for Respondent and in cross
examination WW1 states, “ I do not remember what are the conditions to be followed in my appointment order. My
academic qualification is BTech (Mining). I have possessed a technical qualification. I have got first class and
second class Mining Engineer certificate. I have submitted both the certificates in this case. I do not remember what
is the Regulation 16 of coal mines regulations. Basing on the first class mining manager certificate to manage the
mining I got the employment. The witness adds, that I was appointed as JMET to work as a Workman. It is not
correct to suggest that I am not a Workman under the Standing Orders. I am covered under coal mines
officers(Conduct and Discipline) Rules. I have been removed from service, not retrenched from the service”. Further
witness WW1 states, “It is fact that I remained absent on duty. ......I have filed documentary proof to show the reason
of my absence.” Further WW1 states, “The job of mining engineer, to my knowledge, is to carry out the mining
works and safety of the Workmen. I have filed this case to provide me job in the Respondent’s management. I am
supposed to work on the open cast mining and underground mining. There is also vocational training centres for my
engagement. I am ready to work in the mining where there will be no dust because I have been affected by dust. It is
not correct to suggest to that I am not a Workman as per the standing rules and as per the I.D. Act, 1947 my job is an
administrative job.”
10.
WW1 was further cross examined by Respondent. In cross examination WW1 states, “Initially I was
appointed as an apprentice. Witness adds that I was appointed as junior mining engineer trainee. I have not submitted
my appointment order in this case. I am not an apprentice and I was a trainee”. Thus, from the above statement of
WW1, he has admitted that he is covered under the Coal Mines Officers(Conduct and Discipline) Rules and his job is
a mining engineer to carry out the mining works and safety of the Workmen.
It would be apposite to make reference of the definition of workman, as defined under Sec.2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947:-
"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-
(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
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4983
the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly
of a managerial nature.
Thus, it is clear from the statement of WW1 that Petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Manager at the time
of removal from service and was doing the job in supervisory capacity and was getting salary of Rs. 25,647/- p.m.
which is exceeding Rs.10,000/- p.m. and he is not covered under the definition of workman under Sec.2(s) of the I.D.
Act, 1947. Since, he is not covered under Sec.2(s), definition of workman the provision of I.D. Act is not applicable
to his case and this petition is not maintainable.
Further, Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Management of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Vs.
A.M. Sekhar ( died)and others, 2014 IV LLJ 333 (Mad), have held,
“26. From a perusal of the findings rendered by the Labour Court in each case with regard to the status of
the ‘employee' as workman', it is evident that the Labour Court has been carried over only by the contention
of the respective employees that they have no power to appoint, dismiss or commence disciplinary action or
to recommend sanction leave or enter into the contract on behalf of the Company and the evidence of W.W.2.
In our considered view, these general observations made uniformly in respect of all the employees, without
discussing individually in respect of each and every duty and responsibility assigned to the respective
employees, will not satisfy the required exercise to be made by the Labour Court for arriving at a conclusion
with regard to the status of an employee, more particularly when such a claim made by the employee is
denied and disputed by the Management at all stages. The Labour Court has to necessarily go into each
and every duty and responsibility of the employee and to give a finding as to which of such duties and
responsibilities are predominant in character.
28. Only by considering the claim made by the employees in the claim petitions and without analysing the
nature of each and every duty and responsibility of the employees and without giving a finding as to whether
such nature of duties and responsibilities are duties of a workman or of a person with managerial capacity,
the Labour Court came to such a conclusion that these employees were workmen. When a jurisdictional
issue is raised before the Labour Court by specifically contending that these employees are not the workmen
within the meaning and definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, such issue has to be
considered and decided by considering all the evidence available before the Labour Court, If the
documentary evidence marked on the side of the Management were not at all considered or discussed by the
Labour Court and however, a decision is arrived at to the effect that they are ‘workmen', such decision can
not be sustainable in the eye of law as the finding given are perverse.”
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court for determining the question whether the
employee is covered under the definition of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. The analysis of the nature of each and every
duty and responsibility of the employee are to be taken into consideration. Further, it is to be seen whether such
nature of duties and responsibilities are duties of workman or of a person with managerial capacity.
11.
From the analysis of oral and documentary evidence on record it is clearly established that at the time of his
removal from the service, Petitioner was working as Deputy Manager in the Respondent company and was having
supervision and control of over 500 Workmen. Further, Petitioner has got control of the Workers in respect of
discharge of their duties and has power to sanction leave etc., to the workers under him. Further, WW1 has also
admitted in cross examination that he is covered under the Coal Mines Officer (Conduct and Discipline) Rules and his
job was as a Mine Engineer to carry the mining work and safety of the Workmen. Through the above statement of the
WW1 has already established that he was doing the job of supervisory nature was getting salary exceeding
Rs.10,000/-p.m. has not covered under the definition of workman as defined under Sec.2(s) of I.D. Act. Therefore, in
view of fore gone discussion irresistible conclusion arrived at that the Petitioner was not a Workman in the
Respondent company at the time of his removal order dated 24.2.2014, and hence his Petitioner against removal
order passed by Respondent not maintainable under I.D. Act in this Industrial Tribunal. As the Petitioner is not
covered under the definition of Workman defined under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, his claim statement is
not maintainable under ID Act, 1947.
This Point is answered against the Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent.
12.
Point No.II:-
In view of the fore gone discussion and finding arrived at Point No.I, Petitioner is not
covered under the definition of Workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Therefore, claim statement of the
Petitioner against his removal order dated 24.2.2014 issued by the Respondent is not maintainable in this Tribunal.
This point is answered against the Petitioner.
13.
Point No.III:- In view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Points No.I & II, the Petitioner is
not entitled to any relief as his petition is not maintainable in this Tribunal, under I.D. Act, 1947.
4984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
This Point is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In view of the fore gone discussion and finding at Points No. I & II, I am of the considered view that the
Petitioner is not covered under the definition of ‘workman’ under Sec.2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, hence, petition not
maintainable in this Tribunal under I.D. Act. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 20th day of August, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Shaik Yacoob Imran
MW1: Sri B.R. Deekshitulu
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of demand letter addressed to CGM SCCL, Godavarikhani, dt.2.9.2016
Ex.W2
Photostat copy of conciliation proceedings
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of certificate of competency issued by Ministry of Labour & Employment
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of office order dt.2.7.2008
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of certificate of competency to manage coal mine dt.7.7.2007
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of identity certificate dt.31.7.2009
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of provisional certificate dt.15.12.2006
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of certificate as 2nd class Manager dt.2.11.2007
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of certificate of 1st class Manager of competency dt.30.10.2010
Ex.W10:
Photostat copy of office order dt.24.2.2014
Ex.W11:
Photostat copy of letter issued by Colliery Manager dt.25.9.2008
Ex.W12:
Photostat copy of certificate of practical experience issued by Colliery Manager dt.26.9.2008
Ex.W13:
Photostat copy of office order dt.8.10.2009
Ex.W14:
Photostat copy of office memo dt.12.4.2011
Ex.W15:
Photostat copy of medical report dt.15.10.2011
Ex.W16:
Photostat copy of DD of Rs.1,31,954/- dt.3.2.2015
Ex.W17:
Photostat copy of notice for payment of dues dt.25.7.2016.
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of provisional offer of appointment dt.3.4.2006
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of office order dt.1.4.2011
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of Office order dt.31.3.2012
Ex.M4:
Photostat copy of notice dt.16.10.2013
Ex.M5:
Photostat copy of endorsement of postal authorities on the notice cover
Ex.M6:
Photostat copy of office order dt.24.2.2014
Ex.M7:
Photostat copy of copy of judgement in OS No.58/2015 dt.31.7.2015
Ex.M8:
Photostat copy of decree in OS No.58/2015
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2122.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa
– सह –
] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/16/2023-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4985
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/45/2010) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.E.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4/11/2024.
[No. L-22012/16/2023–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/45/2010
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The President,
Janta Mazdoor Sangh (HMS),
House No. EWS-62, Shanti Nagar,
Housing Board Colony,
Katni (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
South Eastern Coalfields Limited,
Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
(C.G.) - 495006
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 24th day of October-2024.)
As per letter dated 21/02/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference
number L-22012/16/2023 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 21/02/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Demand No. 2
Whether the action of the Management for deducting subscription @ Rs. 484/- towards Group
Insurance Scheme from the wages of workman is legal and justified? To what relief are the claimant entitled
for?
Demand No. 3
Whether the demand of the Union for deduction subscription towards fee for union without
authorization letter or for deduction of subscription made for more than one union form the wages of the
workmen by the Management is legal and justified? To what relief are the claimants entitled for? ”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Both the parties submitted their respected statement of claim/ defence.
During pendency of the case, today the management filed an application to dismiss the reference in view of a
settlement reached at between the parties. The joint application by the parties stating the out of Court settlement filed
with authority letter by management Ld. Counsel Shri Neeraj Kewat along with the application. Ld. Counsel for
workman union Shri Subodh Agarwal has no objection since the dispute has been settled between the parties hence
the reference became infructuous, hence is answered accordingly.
DATE: 24/10/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
4986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2123.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
केंरीय लोक जनमािण जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
II
ds iapkV (a37/2020,38/2020) izdkf”kr djrh
gSA
[सं. ,y -12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-234]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.37/2020,38/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. - II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work
Department and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-234]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 37/2020
Sh. Anil Kumar,
Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,
CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,
Shop No.- 04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
I.D. No. 38/2020
Smt. Manisha,
Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,
CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,
Shop No.- 04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Versus
1. The Director General C.P.W.D.
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Engineer (Electrical Co-ordination) CPWD,
East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022.
3. The Executive Engineer, CPWD,
Noida Division, Room No. 319, B-Wing,
3rd Floor, I.P. Bhawan, New Delhi-110002.
AWARD
By this composite order, I shall dispose of these two applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act
(here in after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having the
common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for their illegal termination. Claims of
the workmen are that they have joined into the employment in the year 2013 and 2014 in the post of computer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4987
operators respectively. They had been doing their work with diligently and honestly. Their service records were clean
and they had not given any complaint so far. From the initial date of joining, they were being treated as a daily
rated/casual/ must roll worker and was being wages as fixed and never revised from time to time to under the
Minimum Wages Act by the appropriate government while their counter parts to the identical work and the work of
the same value but who was being treated as regular employees were paid their salary in proper pay scale and
allowances. They also enjoy other facilities like uniform, P.F., Medical leave, CL, Gazette/Festival/Restricted
Holidays which are completely denied to the workmen. Workmen supposed to be regularized since their respective
initial date of joining but, the management has never regularized them till now. Workmen had raised the dispute on the
management for regularize their services from the initial date of joining but, the management adamant from his
demand and terminated their services. The action of the management is wholly illegal, bad and unjust. Workmen have
been met about with hostile discrimination as juniors to have been retained in services and they have been thrown out
of job. Many fresh new persons have been taken into the employment after removing the aforesaid workman. At the
time of termination of services no seniority list was displayed, no notice was given, no notice pay was either offered or
paid no services compensation was either offered or paid to the workmen. The impugned termination of services is
violative of section 25 (f), (g) & (h) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The demand notice was served upon to the managements,
but no reply was received and it was presumed that the demand has been rejected. Hence, they have filed the present
claim with the prayer to reinstate them with full back wages.
W.S has been filed by the respondent. Management had denied the averment made in their claims. He had
submitted that workmen concerned are totally baseless and meritless having no locus stand. In fact they are not the
employee of the management. Their claims are liable to be dismissed.
After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 08.12.2021 i.e.-
1. Whether the Claims are maintainable.
2. Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between the management and the claimants.
3. Whether the services of the workmen were terminated illegally?
4. To what relief the claimant is entitled to from which date?
Now, the matters are listed for workman evidence. On behalf of management, Sh. M.D Maheshwari
appeared. Claimants have not brought any evidence i.e. documents and oral to substantiate their claims, inspite of
providing a number of opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claims, it
appears that they are not interested to pursue their cases. Their claims stand dismissed. Awards are 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. Files are consigned to record room.
Date 31st, July, 2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2124.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua II fnYyh ds iapkV (a11/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y -12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-235]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2024
S.O. 2124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. - II
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-235]
SALONI, Dy. Director
4988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 11/2021
Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Charan Singh Sharma
R/o- D-01/536, Gali No.-04, Ashok Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093.
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Head Office-Chander Mukhi,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
2.
The Regional Manager,
Central Bank Of India,
Regional Office: B-1398, 01st Floor,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
Counsels:
For Claimant: None
For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Ojha, Ld. AR.
AWARD
By this order, I shall dispose of this application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after
referred as an Act) filed by the claimant against the respondent for his illegal termination. Claim of the workman is
that he was appointed as peon in the year 1993 in Central Bank of India at Ghonda Branch, Delhi. He had been
doing his work with diligently and honestly. His service record is clean and he has not given any chance to any
complaint to any concerned officer, but, fraudulently management had initiated a departmental enquiry against him
and suspended him in March, 2000 from his job. Management also got a false and fabricated FIR registered in which
workman had to remain in jail for two months and also been terminated from his said post. Despite the innocency,
the workman contested the said case for 19 years and was facing many difficulties and problems and leading a
shameful life and he feel shameful and insulted in the eyes of society. At that time, the daughter of the workman was
preparing the studies for government job and due to the above said reasons the image and goodwill of the daughters
of the workman was fell down in the society and they did not get any job. After acquittal of the workman, the
workman is unemployed till date and he did not succeed to get any work. On 25.09.2019 a demand notice was
served upon the management but despite the service of the legal/demand notice the management neither complied
nor gave reply of the same. Workman has sent a request letter/industrial dispute to the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Central, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 before
Assistant Labour Commissioner cum conciliation officer-III, Delhi, but it was resulted into failure. Hence, he has
filed the present claim.
W.S has been filed by the respondent. He had denied the averment made in the claim. He stated that on
02.03.2000 workman was suspended from service vide letter dated Ro (North)/Dad/227/99-2000/521 issued by the
management bank on 02.03.2000 for committing acts of omission and commission while working at peon at
Patparganj office, Delhi during his service period from 21.09.1999 to 17.12.1999 inter-alia stating that he has not
discharged his duties with utmost care with honesty, devotion and diligence which is on becoming of a Bank
Employee. Workman has committed gross irregularities in while depositing and withdraw of the alleged amount of Rs.
30,000/- in total from account no. 19684 which is maintained in the name of Sh. Nitender. Workman on 21.09.1999
change a figure or Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 15,500/- by inserting “1” and on 01.12.1999 again inserted “2” to make a figure
of Rs. 21,000/- instant of Rs. 1,000/- by repeating again and again workman had done fraud of Rs. 30,000/- on
different dates and for withdrawl of the above said amount. Workman doing all with malafide intention to cheat the
bank. He had submitted that claim is liable to be dismissed.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4989
After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 19.01.2023 i.e.-
1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2. Whether the domestic enquiry against the claimant was conducted fairly.
3. Whether the punishment imposed on the claimant commensurate the charge.
4. To what relief the claimant is entitled to.
Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. On behalf of management, Sh. Vivek Ojha appeared.
Claimant has not brought any evidence i.e documents and oral to substantiate his claim, inspite of providing a number
of opportunities.
In these circumstances, when the claimant has not been appearing since long to substantiate his claim, it
appears that he is not interested to pursue his case. His claim stands dismissed. 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: 23rd, July, 2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2125.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a36/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y -39025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-43]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024
S.O. 2125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.36/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2024- IR (B-II)-43]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/36/2023
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ghasiram Mewada,
S/o Mohan Singh Mewada,
Vill. Pborkhedao Teh Ashta,
Sehore, (M.P.) - 466114
Workman
Versus
The Canara Bank,
Ashta, Sehore
Madhya Pradesh - 466114
Management
4990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)
Vide communication reference number RLC-7(31)2022 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)
Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi this reference is sent to the Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (in short the ‘Act’) The dispute under reference related to :-
“क्या आवेदक कर्मकार श्री घीसारार् र्ेवाड़ को कैनरा बैंक प्रबंधन द्वारा ददनांक 15.01.2022 से नौकरी से बबना ककसी
सूचना के ननकाला जाना उचचत है? यदद नहीं तो ककन लाभों के साथ पुनः नौकरी पाने का हक़दार है ? ”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service
of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written
statement of claim/ defence. Though management was present several time. No evidence was ever produced by any of
the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did
he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
DATE: 22/10/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
दिल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2126.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
फेरो स्ट्क्रैप जनगम जलजमटेड, जभलाई यूजनट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री संिय बांगड़े एंड 10 अन्य के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न. 45/2016) को
िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26012/3/2016-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024
S.O. 2126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 45/2016) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Bhilai Unit and Shri Sanjay Bangade & 10 others which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.
[No. L-26012/3/2016-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/45/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4991
Shri Sanjay Bangade & 10 Others
Helper-cum-Greaser(Trainee).
Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. Bhilai,
District Durg
Workman
Versus
The Unit Head.
Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd., Bhilai Unit,
Inside Bhilari Steel Plant, Mockdump Area,
P.B.No.54, Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai Durg(CG-490001)
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 18th day of October-2024.)
As per letter dated 12/04/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of LD.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L- 26012/3/2016-IR(M). The dispute
under reference relates to:-
"1.
Whether the action of the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. Bhilai in not giving the status
of permanency to 11 workmen, namely, S/Sanjay Bagade, Puna Ram Sahu, Ravi Nayak, Ishwar Lal,
Umesh, Jaideep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Dewangan, Arjun Singh Sahu, Madhusudan Sahu, Jitendra
Kumar & Ram Singh and regularizing their services is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen
are entitled to?
2.
Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd., a Central Public Sector undertaking Company, the Government of
Indian is appropriate Government."
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The parties have filed
their respective statement of claim/defense.
The case of the workmen, as stated in their statement of claim, is that they were offered temporary
appointment on the post of Helper/Greaser for an initial period of one year from the date of joining with the
management Company. Their selections were made on the basis of interview/trade test conducted by the
Management. The different dates of appointment letter are as follows:
Name of the Employee
Designation
Date of Appointment
Sanjay Bagade
Helper-cum-Greaser
14.08.2012
Eshwar Lal Sahu
Helper-cum- Greaser
27.07.2012
Umesh
Helper-cum- Greaser
27.07.2012
Puna Ram Sahu
Helper-cum- Greaser
27.07.2012
Ravi Nayak
Helper-cum- Greaser
27.07.2012
Jaydeep Kumar
Helper-cum- Greaser
14.08.2012
Dinesh Kumar Dewangan
Helper-cum- Greaser
27.07.2012
Arjun Singh Sahu
Helper-cum- Greaser
27.07.2012
Madhusudan Sahu
Helper-cum- Greaser
27.07.2012
Jitendra Kumar
Helper-cum- Greaser
27.07.2012
Ramsingh
Helper-cum- Greaser
27.07.2012
4992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is their case that they were appointed temporarily for a period of one year which could be extended for
another period of 2 years, subject to vacancy requirement prevailing at that time and job performance. Their period of
appointment was extended for 2 years and they were allowed to continue with the service of company for further
extended period of 2 years, after completion of initial period of one year. Thereafter, instead of regularizing these
workmen the Management adopted the practice of extension of their services for 03 months from time to time and
kept this extension in continuation till 2016. According to the workmen, this was an unfair labour practice adopted by
the Management with a view to deprive all these workmen of their legally admissible claims and dues regarding their
absorption and regularization with the company inspite of the fact that job and vacancy existed for which their
appointment was extended from time to time. It is further the case of the workmen that they are still in employment of
the management but have been deprived of benefits of regularization and absorption in the cadre. Accordingly, they
claimed that the reference be answered in their favour, holding the action of the management in not giving the status
of permanency and not regularizing their services, is against law and not justified in law and also they be held entitled
to be given permanent as well regular status.
According to the written statement of defense filed by Management, it is admitted that after adopting
recruitment procedure, these workmen were temporarily appointed for the post of Helper for initial period of one year
from the date of joining in the year July-August 2012 and their services were extended for 02 years after they
completed one year in service as per their condition stated in their appointment letter. According to the Management,
their appointment letter are covered by Certified Standing Orders, which contain provision for confirmation of
permanent status to the workmen who complete twelve months of continuous service within the meaning of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, on one or more posts, in connection with temporarily increase in permanent work. According to
the Management, as per their offer of appointment, the engagement was of purely temporary in nature, for a period of
one year and upon exigency and utilization of their services, could be extended for another 02 years. It was also
mentioned in the offer of appointment that in the event of long term requirement and availability of permanent
vacancy, their case could be considered for permanent employment, as per rules subject to their satisfactory work
performance, during their temporary employment. Also, it has been pleaded that it was specifically stated in the offer
of appointment that at no point of time, these appointees could claim permanent absorption, hence according to the
management, their claim for regularization and permanent absorption is not sustainable in law. It is further the case of
Management that the work is of temporary nature, taking these workmen in permanent capacity would cause severe
financial implication and Management is not in a position to absorb these workmen on permanent post due to
unpredictable job availability with the Management. Accordingly, it had been prayed, that the reference be answered
against the workmen.
The workmen mainly filed and proved their initial officer of appointment and letters of extension of service
issued by the Management from time to time. All these documents had been admitted by Management and have been
marked as Exhibits W-1 to W-29.
The workman side examined on oath the workman Sanjay Bagade who has been cross-examined by
Management. The Management also examined its witness Sourabh Radheshyam Tharewal, Manager Law, who was
been cross-examined by workman. The Management did not file any documents.
Thereafter, following Award was passed by this Tribunal on 16.07.2021, holding that firstly, the job against
which these workmen were appointed is of permanent nature. Secondly, the action of management in continuing
these workmen by way of granting extensions and pretending the jobs of temporary nature was unfair labour practice
as defined u/s. 2(ra) of the Act as mentioned in Section 6 & 10 of Schedule-IV to the Act. It was also held proved that
the workmen were qualified for permanent appointments because the criteria with respect to the qualification and
selection process regarding permanent appointment was same as it was with respect to temporary appointments.
A. “The action of management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Bhilai in not giving status of permanency
to the 11 workmen namely, Sanjay Bagade, Puna Ram Sahu, Ravi Nayak, Ishwar Lal, Umesh,
Jaydeep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Dewangan, Arjun Singh Sahu, Madhusudan Sahu, Jitendra Kumar
& Ramsingh and regularizing their services is not justified in law.
B. These 11 workmen are entitled to be absorbed on permanent basis after expiry of initial one year and
extended two years terms and are entitled to be regularized accordingly.
C. No order as to cost.”
The management challenged this Award before Hon’ble High Court of Chhattis Garh in W.P. (L) No.-
74/2021, which was decided on 11.12.2023 with following observations and directions :-
“19. In the light of above stated legal position and also considering the Standing Orders applicable to the
workmen, also considering the evidence and materials on record, I am of the view that the learned Central
Government Industrial Tribunal has not recorded its finding that permanent vacancy is available or what is the
sanctioned strength, has passed the award, directing the petitioner to regularize the workmen, which is nothing but
amounting to creation of posts, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned CGIT, as such, the award dated
16.07.2021 is contrary to law on perverse finding, therefore, it deserves to be interfered by this Court.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4993
20.
Accordingly, the award dated 16.07.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned
Central Government Industrial Tribunal for deciding the case afresh after ascertaining what is the sanctioned
strength, whether posts of Helper cum Greaser are available with the petitioner, whether the performance of the
respondents is satisfactory or not ? Then only, the reference could be answered by the learned Tribunal. The
petitioner and the respondents are free to amend their pleadings and are also free to bring on record fresh
evidence, materials to substantiate their respective contentions.
21.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is partly allowed.”
Thereafter, the case was again taken by this Tribunal.
Vide order dated 25.06.2024, the workman side was directed to file an affidavit, whether their post is in
executive or non-executive cadre. Management was also directed to file an affidavit on the point as to how many
posts of Helper cum Greaser were available within the period 27.07.2012 (date of first appointment of the workmen)
to 14.08.2012 (the date on which last appointment letter was issued) and also to file authenticated copy of confidential
report of these workmen from the date of their first appointment, till 2023-24 i.e. from 2012-13 to 2023-24.
The workman side filed its affidavit in the light of the said order on 12.07.2024 , wherein it was stated that
their post is of non-executive cadre. They also stated the year wise vacancies in the executive and non-executive cadre
since August 2012 to July 2024. This affidavit is uncontroverted.
They also filed RTI information obtained by them on 31.01.2024, wherein it has been stated that the
sanctioned posts of executives and non-executives under the management is 180 and 1200 respectively.
The management did not care to file any affidavit as required by the said order nor did they file any
authenticated copy of annual confidential reports of the workmen within the period 2012-13 to 2023-24 as directed.
From the aforesaid material on record, it is established to the hilt hence, held proved that, there have
been vacancies in the non-executive cadre to which these workmen belong right from 2012-13 to 2023-24.
Further, the act of management in not filing the annual confidential reports of these workmen as directed vide order
mentioned above, leads to an adverse inference against the management that, had these documents been filed by
management, they would have gone against them. Hence, it can be safely held proved that these workmen have
nothing against them in their annual confidential reports as claimed by them in affidavit from their side.
It is to be kept in mind that, the findings of this Tribunal holding that firstly, the job against which these
workmen were appointed is of permanent nature. Secondly, the action of management in continuing these workmen
by way of granting extensions and pretending the jobs of temporary nature was unfair labour practice as defined u/s.
2(ra) of the Act and Section 6 & 10 of Schedule-IV to the Act and thirdly, that the workmen were qualified for
permanent appointments because the criteria with respect to the qualification and selection process regarding
permanent appointment was same as it was with respect to temporary appointments has not been set aside by Hon’ble
High Court.
Learned Counsel for workmen has referred to a common Judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.-1059/2005, Nihal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Bhupendar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Civil Appeal
No. 6315/2013 decided on 07.08.2013. In this case Special Police Officers were appointed u/s. 17 of Police Act 1861
on temporary basis and worked continuously for 20 years and more, Hon’ble the Apex Court, holding that they were
entitled to be absorbed in the services of state and the State was directed to regularize their services by creating
necessary posts and has submitted that in suitable circumstances, Court can direct creation of posts also.
There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the case referred, but facts of the case in hand
are different in the sense that there have been vacancies all over the time with respect to the posts to which the
workmen in the case in hand are claiming. The action of management in advertising the vacancy, adopting
recruitment process and continuing the workmen in employment since so many years supports this proposition
regarding existence of vacancies. Even the management witness has stated in his statement on oath in his cross
examination that the nature of work on which these workmen are employed is of permanent nature and that they have
been working continuously since the date of their first appointment till date also establishes the vacancy relating to
permanent posts of Helper cum Greaser/Non-executives. In another case of Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Brijraj
Nagar Coal Mines Workers Union, Civil Appeal (S) No.- 4092-4093/2024, Hon’ble the Apex Court held that when
the fact that nature of the work, the continuity of the work and continuous working of the workman was proved, it
would be a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization for no fault of workmen and direction given in
this respect regarding regularization and granting permanent status by High Court was affirmed.
This extract is taken from Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC
(L&S) 408 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 132 at page 207
Re: Relief of regularisation
4994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23. Before we advert to this question, it would be necessary to examine as to whether the Constitution Bench
judgment in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has
applicability in the matters concerning industrial adjudication. We have already pointed out above, the contention of
the counsel for the appellants in this behalf, relying upon Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe
Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] that the decision in Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] would be binding on the Industrial or
Labour Courts. On the other hand, the counsel for FCI has referred to the judgment in U.P. Power Corpn. [U.P.
Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] for the submission that law
laid down in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] equally
applies to Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts. It, thus, becomes imperative to examine the aforesaid two judgments at
this juncture.
24. A perusal of the judgment in U.P. Power Corpn. [U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, (2007) 5
SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] would demonstrate that quite a few disputes were raised and referred to the
Industrial Tribunal qua the alleged termination of Respondents 2 and 3 in that case. Without giving the details of
those cases, it would be sufficient to mention that in one of the cases the Tribunal held that after three years of their
joining in service both Respondents 2 and 3 were deemed to have been regularised. The appellants filed the writ
petition which was also dismissed. Challenging the order of the High Court, the appellants had approached this
Court. It was argued that there could not have been any regularisation order passed by the Industrial Court in view
of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The
counsel for the workmen had taken a specific plea that the powers of the industrial adjudicator were not under
consideration in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and
that there was a difference between a claim raised in a civil suit or a writ petition on the one hand and one
adjudicated by the industrial adjudicator. It was also argued that the Labour Court can create terms existing in the
contract to maintain industrial peace and therefore it had the power to vary the terms of the contract.
29. It was further noticed in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan
Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] that Section 32 of the Act provides that the
court shall have the power to decide all connected matters arising out of any application or a complaint referred to it
for decision under any of the provisions of this Act. The Court then extensively quoted from the judgment in Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] in order to demonstrate the exact
ratio laid down in the said judgment and thereafter proceeded to formulate the following question and answer
thereto: (Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009)
8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] , SCC p. 573, para 30)
“30. The question that arises for consideration is: have the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act been
denuded of the statutory status by the Constitution Bench decision in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] ? In our judgment, it is not.”
31. The Court in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari
Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] also accepted the legal proposition that courts cannot
direct creation of posts, as held in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar
Union [(2001) 7 SCC 346 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1180] . Referring to this judgment, the Court made it clear that inaction
on the part of the State Government to create posts would not mean an unfair labour practice had been committed by
the employer (University in that case) and as there were no posts, the direction of the High Court to accord the status
of permanency was set aside. The Court also noticed that this legal position had been affirmed in State of
Maharashtra v. R.S. Bhonde [State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Bhonde, (2005) 6 SCC 751 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 907] . The
Court also reiterated that creation and abolition of post and regularisation are purely executive functions, as held in
a number of judgments and it was not for the court to arrogate the power of the executive or the legislature by
directing creation of post and absorbing the workers or continue them in service or pay salary of regular employees.
This legal position is summed up in para 41 which reads as under: (Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra
SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] , SCC p.
576)
“41. Thus, there is no doubt that creation of posts is not within the domain of judicial functions which
obviously pertains to the executive. It is also true that the status of permanency cannot be granted by the Court
where no such posts exist and that executive functions and powers with regard to the creation of posts cannot be
arrogated by the courts.”
39. On a harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when
there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction
for regularisation only because a worker has continued as daily-wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number
of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularisation would be impermissible. In the
aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularise such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in
by such a worker as daily-wager, etc. may amount to back door entry into the service which is an anathema to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4995
Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the worker concerned does not
meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the recruitment rules. However, wherever it is found
that similarly situated workmen are regularised by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the
workmen in question who have approached the Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of
regularisation in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularisation of the left-over workers itself
would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Thus, the industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than
violating this constitutional provision.
40. The aforesaid examples are only illustrative. It would depend on the facts of each case as to whether the
order of regularisation is necessitated to advance justice or it has to be denied if giving of such a direction infringes
upon the employer's rights.
Following observation of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chand
Pandey, (2008) 1 SCC 1992
This extract is taken from U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey, (2007) 11 SCC 92 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 736 :
2007 SCC OnLine SC 1223 at page 98
16. We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find that
often Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is being applied by courts mechanically as if it were
a Euclid's formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar
University [(2003) 2 SCC 111] and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [(2004) 8 SCC 579 : AIR 2004 SC 4778] a little
difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision.
Hence, in our opinion, Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] cannot be applied mechanically
without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] inapplicable to the facts of that case.
Hence, in the light of the facts proved and discussed as mentioned above, holding The action of the
management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. Bhilai in not giving the status of permanency to 11 workmen, namely,
Sarvshri Sanjay Bagade, Puna Ram Sahu, Ravi Nayak, Ishwar Lal, Umesh, Jaideep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar
Dewangan, Arjun Singh Sahu, Madhusudan Sahu, Jitendra Kumar & Ram Singh and not regularizing their
services not justified in law,the 11 workmen are entitled to be given permanent status, after expiry of initial
one year and extended two years term and are entitled to be regularized accordingly within 30 days from the
date of notification of Award. They are also held entitled to the consequential benefits regarding arrears etc.
payable to them within 60 days from the date of notification of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a.
from the date of Award, till payment. The workmen are held entitled to litigation cost Rs. 50,000/- payable by
management within 60 days from the date of notification of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a. from
the date of Award, till payment, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
A.
The action of the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. Bhilai in not giving the status of
permanency to 11 workmen, namely, Sarvshri Sanjay Bagade, Puna Ram Sahu, Ravi Nayak, Ishwar
Lal, Umesh, Jaideep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Dewangan, Arjun Singh Sahu, Madhusudan Sahu,
Jitendra Kumar & Ram Singh and not regularizing their services is not justified in law,
B.
These 11 workmen are entitled to be given permanent status, after expiry of initial one year
and extended two years term and are entitled to be regularized accordingly within 30 days from the
date of notification of Award. They are also held entitled to the consequential benefits regarding
arrears etc. payable to them within 60 days from the date of notification of Award, failing which
interest @ of 8% p.a. from the date of Award, till payment.
C.
The workmen are entitled to litigation cost Rs. 50,000/- payable by management within 60
days from the date of notification of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a. from the date of
Award, till payment.
DATE: 18/10/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
दिल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2127.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससि जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट, (सेल); माइन िॉजस्ट्पटल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मेटल माइंस वकिसि यूजनयन
(इंटक) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स
4996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
न. 15/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-26011/30/2017-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024
S.O. 2127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 15/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL; Mine Hospital and Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC) which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.
[No. L-26011/30/2017-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/15/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
The President,
Metal Mines Workers Union (INTUC),
Branch- Nandini Mines of BSP, Qtr. No. 6/A,
Street No. 37/B, Sector – 7, Bhilai,
District – Durg (Chattisgarh) – 490006.
Workman
Vs
1.
The Chief Executive Director (Mines),
M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL,
PO – Bhilai, Distt. - Durg (CG),
Pin Code – 490001.
2.
The Dy. Director,
Mine Hospital, PO- Dalli-Rajhara,
District – Durg (Chattisgarh)
Management
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 24th day of October-2024)
As per letter dated 22/03/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per Notification No. L-
26011/30/2017-IR (M) dt. 22/03/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of the Mines Hospital, Dalli Rajhara, Durg and M/s Bhilai Steel
Plant, Bhilai in framing the charge sheet dated 21.06.2007 against Smt. Anita Mishra, Nursing Sister is
correct and the punishment inflicted by the management on the employee is just, proper and legal? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4997
After registering case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to parties. They appeared and filed their
respective statements of claim and defense.
Case of the Workman, in brief, is mainly that she was appointed as Nurse Sister with the management. In
the year 2005, she was diagnosed suffering from C.L.D. e PH Te decompensation decease. She informed the
management about her illness and proceeded for treatment. On 23.03.2006. When she came back after recovery and
submitted her joining request to the Management, she was informed that her medical reports had been forwarded to
the Disabled Permanent Unfit Medical Board and was advised to join after Medical Board takes a decision in this
respect on the basis of her medical papers. On 01.04.2006, when she went to the Hospital, she was referred to Bhilai
for observation subsequently Medical Board directed for her medical examination vide order dated 21.08.2006 and
26.08.2006. After her examination, the Medical Board directed her to appear before them. According to the workman,
she appeared before the Medical Board as directed by them. The Medical Board directed her to join her duties but
with a instruction that she would not work in the ward but somewhere else and take treatment simultaneously. She
joined her duties on 16.03.2007 as advised and directed by Medical Board. Further, according to the workman, the
management issued a charge sheet dated 21.06.2007 without issuing prior notice alleging charge of misconduct by
habitual absenting herself wilfully and un authorisedly without leave or without sufficient cause for a period of 366
days from November 2005 to February 2007. She submitted reply to the charge sheet wherein she stated about illness
and narrated about incidents as mentioned above but a Departmental Enquiry was instituted against him by the
Disciplinary Authority without considering her reply to the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and
submitted his enquiry report holding that though the workman did not absent herself wilfully or without sufficient
cause, but since during that period she did not apply for leave therefore the charges levelled against her were partially
established, which is perverse and in ignorance of evidence on record, as narrated above, produced by her during the
enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly concluding with the finding of Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report
and issued a show cause notice to her with a copy of the Enquiry Report. In her reply, the workman again stated about
her medical condition and treatment as well examination by Medical Board, stating that her absence was not wilful
but the Disciplinary Authority awarded the impugned punishment without considering her representation vide its
order dated 05.10.2007 in which she was reduced to a lower rank for period of 2 years with accumulative effect from
04.01.2007. Her departmental appeal against the punishment was heard and partially modified to reduction of basic
pay by one stage for a period of 2 years with accumulative effect vide order of Appellant Authority dated 28.04.2008.
According to the workman, the charges were wrongly held proved against her. Hence, order of Disciplinary
Authority as well Appellant Authority regarding punishment is bad in law. The workman has therefore requested that
holding the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 04.01.2007 and Appellant Authority dated 28.04.2008 unjust in law,
she be held entitled to her original status/ position with respect to her salary with all consequential benefits and back
wages.
Case of management is mainly that after the workman was transferred and joined at RMH, the Senior
Deputy Director I/C Rajhara Mines Hospital preferred for ascertaining her medical fitness for the reason of her
permanent absence from duty without intimation. She was directed to appear before Disciplinary Medical Board. The
Board Meeting on 07.08.2006 and recorded her case as pending investigation to be reviewed in the next board. The
board conducted its second meeting on 12.02.2007 and considered her case to be fit for duty. The Disciplinary
Authority instituted Disciplinary proceeding against the workman for her intermittent absence without prior
intimation for the period 7th November, 2005 to 19th February 2007 which was for 366 days. The reply of the
workman on the charge sheet submitted as report dated 17.08.2007 holding her guilty of charges and thereafter,
having heard reply on the Enquiry Report, the impugned punishment award was passed which was further reduced by
Appellant Authority. According to management, the finding of the Enquiry Officer not perverse and punishment is not
disproportionate to the charges.
Following issues were framed vide order dated 27.02.2024 on the basis of pleadings.
1. Whether the enquiry conducted against the workman is just proper and legal.
2. Whether the charges are proved or not in the departmental enquiry.
3. Whether the punishment imposed on workman is just and proper or not.
Issue No. 1 was taken as preliminary issued.
In evidence on issue No. 1 workman filed photocopy documents regarding her termination charge sheet
enquiry and punishment, admitted by management which are marked exhibit W-1 to W-15. The management also
filed Photocopy Documents mainly relating to the enquiry, admitted by workman side, marked Exhibit M-1 to M-45
the workman also filed her Medical Card, order of Deputy Director of the Hospital directing a workman to appear for
medical examination with all relevant papers, her reply to the charge sheet punishment order by Disciplinary
Authority and Appellant Authority application of the workman for reviewed and order of management which are
Exhibit W-16 to W-14. The workman filed her affidavit as her examination-in-chief. She was cross examined by
management.
4998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The management also filed affidavit of its witness Dr. Ashok as his examination-in-chief who never appeared
for cross-examination.
On the basis of evidence on record issue No. 1 was decided on preliminary issued vide order dated
05.04.2024 holding the departmental enquiry conducted legal and proper. This order is part of this award.
Parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence on framing issues. No evidence on framing issues was
adjusted by any of the parties.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Shri K.B. Singh for workman and Shri R.C. Srivastava for
management. I have gone through the record as well.
Issue No. 2-
The charge against the workman is that she committed misconduct by way of willfully and habitually
absenting herself from un authorizedly from duty without leave or without sufficient cause which is misconduct as
defined in Rule 5(1) of the Hindustan Steel Limited Disciplinary and Appeal Rules ( in short ‘Rules’) the period of
absence in the charge was total 366 days in different periods from November 17, 2005 to February 19, 2007. As it
comes out from the enquiry papers that the workman took the ground of her illness and treatment and also the fact are
of sending her by management to the Medical Board as well examination of her case by Medical Board two times
and finally declaring her fit to join duty .
As it comes out from the Enquiry Report which is Exhibit W-10 on record and is admitted document, the
Enquiry Officer observed that on examination of defense documents as well statement of the workman in the enquiry,
it was evident that she was ill during the period but it was not clear as to why she did not apply for leave during the
period of her absence. The Enquiry Officer further observed that since she was a senior employee and had put
considerable time in service she must be presumed to be known the Rules and Regulations regarding furnishing
information to Management and seeking leave or permission which she did not take. Hence, the charges are
partially established. The punishment order shows that the punishment was awarded by the Disciplinary Authority
holding the charge of willful and unauthorized absence from duty fully proved. Thus there is a difference between the
charge which was found proved by the Enquiry Officer and charge for which the workman was punished by the
Disciplinary Authority as well Appellant Authority. This fact gains significance coupled with the fact that the
management could not produce any disagreement note by the Disciplinary Authority as to on which grounds he found
the charges fully proved and disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Rule 5(1) of the standing order under which the workman has been charge reads as under :-
“Habitual late attendance, wilful or habitual absence from duty without leave or without sufficient
cause.”
The Enquiry Officer hold the charge partially proved on the ground that the absence was not willful. The
only fault was that the workman did not apply for leave. As the Rule 5(1) reads, since it is established that she was
being treated under the knowledge of management and had to go through examination by Medical Board for two
times. Only thereafter she was declared fit for resuming her duties. Hence, her absence cannot be said without valid
reasons. To apply for leave or not apply his discrimination of the employee if he does not apply for leave he will have
treated absent from duty if he applies for leave, the management or may or may not grant leave subject to the
availability of leave and Rules in this respect. Since, it is established that reason of absence of the workman was well
within the knowledge of the management, it not material that the workman herself did not inform management about
the reason. Hence, since the absence of the workman was for certain reasons, it is not wilful.
On the basis of this discussion the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding the charge of misconduct by way of
wilfully and habitually absenting from duty without information and without getting leave sanctioned, partially
proved only on the basis that the workman did not apply for leave is nothing but perverse. Hence, the finding of the
Enquiry Officer is held perverse. Consequently, finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the charge is fully proved is
also held perverse.
Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 3-
In the light of finding recorded on issue No. 2, the punishment awarded is held against law and unjustified.
Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the action of management of Mines Hospital, Dalli-Rajhara, Durg and M/s Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai in awarding punishment imposing on the workman unjust, improper and against law, the Workman is
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
4999
held entitled to all back wages and in service benefits payable to her by management within 30 days from the
date of notification treating her exonerated from charges.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 24/10/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
दिल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2128.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससि कृष्णसपंग अलोएस जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री मनोिर सिारे के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 19/2022) को िैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-148]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024
S.O. 2128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 19/2022) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to M/s Krishanping Alloys Limited and Shri Manohar Sahare which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-148]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Manohar Sahare,
Palaspani, Kachidhana, Rampeth
Post- Rampeth, Tehsil : Sausar,
Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Krishnaping Alloyes Limited,
Palaspani Manganese Mine,
Rampeth, Tehsil: Sausar,
Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)
Management
5000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)
Vide communication reference number J-1(5-3)/2022-IR dated 25/04/2022;by the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi this reference is sent to the Tribunal under section-
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Is the Applicant Shri Manohar Sahare is workman or not; If yes, then his termination by the
employer M/s. Krishnapping Alloys Limited, Palaspani Manganese Mine, Rampeth, Tah- Sausar, Dist.
Chhindwara ( Madhya Pradesh) is legal or not and what relief Shri Manohar Sahare is entitled for? ”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service
of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written
statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did
he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
DATE: 22/10/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
दिल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2129.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससि कृष्णसपंग अलोएस जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री लजलतमोिन गोलैत के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न. 21/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक
में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-149]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024
S.O. 2129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s Krishanping Alloys Limited and Shri Lalitmohan Golait which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 19.11.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-149]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/21/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Lalitmohan Golait,
19, Gyarah Kholi, Jawahar Ward,
Pandhurna, Tahsil: Pandhurna,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5001
Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
The Managing Director,
M/s. Krishnaping Alloyes Limited,
Palaspani Manganese Mine,
Rampeth, Tehsil: Sausar,
Dist. Chhindwara (M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 22nd day of October-2024.)
Vide communication reference number J-1(5-5)/2022-IR dated 25/05/2022; by the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi this reference is sent to the Tribunal under section-
10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Whether the termination of services of Shri Lalitmohan Golait, Clerk by the employer M/s.
Krishnaping Alloys Limited, Palaspani Manganese Mine, Rampeth, Tah-Sausar, Dist. Chhindwara (Madhya
Pradesh) is legal or not and what relief Shri Lalitmohan is entitled for ?”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service
of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written
statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did
he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the
reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per
rules.
DATE: 22/10/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
दिल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2130.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
जिन्िुस्ट्तान सिंक जलजमटेड; रािस्ट्थान राज्य टंगस्ट्टन डेवलपमेंट कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और
जिन्ि सिंक टंगस्ट्टन मज़िूर संघ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
ियपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 10/1995 एंड सीआईएस न. 39/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,
प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-29012/59/1994-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024
S.O. 2130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 10/1995 & CIS No 39/2014) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
5002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employers in relation to Hindustan Zinc Limited; Rajasthan State Tungsten Development Corporation Limited
and Hindustan Zinc Tungsten Mazdoor Sangh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 19.11.2024.
[No. L-29012/59/1994-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
Presiding Officer
:
Ashwani vij, RJS (DJ Cadre)
Central IT Case No.
:
10/1995
CIS No.
:
39/2014
dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k dzekad
,y&29012@59@94& vkbZ-vkj-¼fofo/k½ fnukad 2-3-1995
la;qDr lfpo] fgUn ftad VaxLVu etnwj la?k] Msxkuk] ftyk ukxkSj] dk;kZy; VaxLVu izkstsDV] Msxkuk]
ftyk ukxkSjA
&&& izkFkhZ ;wfu;u
1- fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM] VaxLVu izkstsDV] Msxkuk] ftyk ukxkSj] tfj;s izkstsDV eSustjA
2- jktLFkku jkT; VaxLVu MoyiesaV dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM tfj;s Mk;jsDVj bUpktZ] ekQZr jktLFkku
LVsV feujy MoyiesaV dkjiksVjs'ku fyfeVsM] [kfut Hkou] fryd ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqjA
&&& vizkFkhZx.k
izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls %
Jh tqxyfd'kksj vxzoky
vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dh vksj ls
Jh ih0ds0 ikaMs
vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dh vksj ls
dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh mijksDr vkKk dzekad ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ;
gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gS &
“Whether the action of the management of Rajasthan State Tungston Development Corporation,
Jaipur in retrenching smt. Gitudi and smt. Sita w.e.f. 3-6-91 and thereafter not taking them in
service by the management of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., in their Degana Tungston project, Degana
(Nagaur) is Justified? If not, to what relief the workman are entitled to?”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5003
izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkdj mHk; i{kksa dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls fnukad
08-05-1995 dks LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ,d jftLVMZ VªsM ;wfu;u
gS vkSj izkFkhZ Jfedx.k blds lfdz; lnL; gSaA izkFkhZ Jfed Jhefr xhrwMh ,oa Jhefr xhrk o"kZ 1974 esa
crkSj nSfud osru Hkksxh lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :i esa jkt0 LVsV b.MfLVª;y feujy MoyieasV dkjikjs'ku
¼vkjvkbZ,eMhlh½ t;iqj ds Msxkuk izkstsDV esa fu;qDr gq;s FksA o"kZ 1979 esa vkjvkbZ,eMhlh ds reke
feujy izkstsDV dks vyx djrs gq;s jktLFkku LVsV feujy MoyiesaV dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
¼vkj,l,eMhlh½ xfBr dh xbZ vkSj mldk Msxkuk izkstsDV uoxfBr daiuh esa gLrkarfjr gks x;k rFkk
blds lHkh deZpkjhx.k dh lsok vof/k dks fujUrj ekurs gq;s mudk lek;kstu uoxfBr daiuh esa gks
x;kA o"kZ 1984 esa vkj,l,eMhlh dh ,d lClhfMVh daiuh jktLFkku LVsV VaxLVu MoyiesaV
¼vkj,lVhMhlh½ cukbZ xbZ] ftls VaxLVu ekbal dk jktLFkku Hkj dk reke [kuu vkfn dk dk;Z fn;k
x;k ftlesa Msxkuk izkstsDV Hkh 'kkfey Fkk] LFkkukarfjr dj fn;k x;kA lkFk gh VaxLVu ekbal ls lacaf/kr
reke deZpkfj;ksa dh iwoZ lsokvksa dks fujUrj ekurs gq;s mUgsa vkj,lVhMhlh esa lekftu ¼vUrfy;u½ dj
fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh 10 o"kZ dh larks"ktud lsokvksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s mUgsa o"kZ 1989 esa
vk,lVhMhlh }kjk fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa esa 'kqekj djrs gq;s fu;fer osru J`a[kyk 750&930 nh xbZ vkSj rc
ls lsok lekfIr rd lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in dh osru izkIr fd;k x;kA fnukad 13 tuojh 1991 dks
foi{khx.k
,oa
ds chp VaxLVu ekbZUl ,oa izkstsDV vkfn dks gLRkkarj.k djus laca/kh
,d le>kSrk ¼,xzhesaV½ gqvk] ftlesa O;oLFkk nh xbZ fd VªkLkQjZ dEiuh ¼vkj-,l-Vh-Mh-lh-½ vizkFkhZ la[;k
2 ds reke deZpkfj;ksa @LVkQ ¼isafuax oDlZ ds vykok½ dks VªkalQjh dEiuh vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 vius ;gka
iwoZ dh lsok 'krksZ ds v/khu lek;ksftr djsxh vkSj mudh iwoZ dh lsokvksa dks fujUrj ekuk tkosxkA isafuax
deZpkfj;ksa dks gVkus ,oa eqvkotk vkfn nsus dh ftEesnkjh vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 us vius Åij ys yhA mDr
le>kSrk dh vuqikyuk esa fnukad 4-6-1991 dks jktLFkku ds reke VaxLVu [kuu vkfn ls lacaf/kr reke
dke e; deZpkjhx.k foi{kh vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds v/khu vk x;sA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL; Jherh xhrwMh
,oa Jherh lhrk tks fd lQkbZ deZpkfj;ksa ds #i esa dk;Zjr Fkh] dks vuko';d ,oa vkjchVªsjh #i ls
egt mudh lsok;sa lekIr djus dh xjt ls mUgsa isfuax deZpkjh ekudj vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 us ,d uksfVl
fnuakd 1-6-91 dks tkjh fd;k vkSj dk;Z u gksus dk cgkuk cukrs gq, fnuakd 4-6-91 ls mudh lsok,sa
lekIRk dj nhA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks gVkus ls iwoZ dksbZ NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k] tks /kkjk 25
,Q dk mYya?ku gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 }kjk Vsdvksoj djus ds ckn u;s IykaVs'ku ,oa u;s vkoklh; ifjlj
cuus ds dkj.k lQkbZ dk dk;Z c<k gh gS] blds ckotwn dk;Z dh vko';drk ugha gksus dk cgkuk cukus
dh ckr iw.kZr;k vkchZVsªjh ,oa esykQkbZM gS tks vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl dk |ksrd gSA izkFkhZx.k }kjk dHkh
Hkh isfuax deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k cfYd lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA
izkFkhZx.k dks lsoki`Fkd djus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ,oa uksfVl is ugha fn;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 25,Q,Q dh mYya?kuk dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZx.k dks lsokklekfIr ij reke ykHk xzsT;qVh] ih,Q] cksul]
eqvkotk vkfn dh x.kuk Hkh fu;ekuqlkj ugha dh tkdj de Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA ftlds fo#) mDr
nksuksa Jfedksa us izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh ekQZr ,d fookn Hkh le>kSrk okrkZ vk;ksftr djus gsrq ,-,y-lh-
t;iqj ds ;gka mBk;k] ysfdu foi{khx.k dh gB/kfeZrk ds dkj.k dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gks ldk ftlls
vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn dk;e djus gsrq izsf"kr dj fn;kA
var esa dFku fd;k gS fd mijksDr nksuksa Jfedksa dk lsoklekfIr vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkdj iqu% lsok esa
cgky djrs gq;s fu;fer osru ,oa HkRrs ,oa fiNyk Qqy cSd ostst fnyk;k tkosA
vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dh vksj ls tokc izLrqr dj izkjfEHkd vkifRr dh gS fd fnukad 4-6-1991 ls
vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dk vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 esa fof/kor~ gLrkarj.k gks pqdk gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 izkFkhZx.k dk
fu;kstd ugha jgk gS vr% vko';d i{kdkj ds vHkko esa fookn pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA xq.kkoxq.k ij o"kZ
1979 esa VaxLVu izkstsDV ds Msxkuk esa fu;ksftr Jfedksa dh lsok,a vkj,eMhlh esa LFkkukarfjr gksus ij
5004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izkFkhZx.k dh lsok,a Hkh LFkkukarfjr fd;k tkuk rFkk o"kZ 1984 esa VaxLVu izkstsDV Msxkuk esa fu;ksftr
Jfedksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,a vkj,l,eMhlh ls vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 esa LFkkukarfjr fd;k tkuk Lohdkj djrs
gq;s dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k vdq'ky deZpkjh Fks] ftUgsa o"kZ 1989 esa vdq'ky Jfed ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr
osru J`a[kyk 750&930 nh xbZA fnukad 4-6-1991 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dk gLrkarj.k vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 esa
gks tkus ds QyLo:i ftu Jfedksa dh lsok,a vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 esa gLrkarfjr ugha dh xbZ mUgsa vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q,Q ds vUrxZr ns; jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djrs gq;s mudh lsok,a lekIr dj
nh xbZA fnukad 3-6-91 ds i'pkr~ vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds v/khu u rks dksbZ vkS|ksfxd laLFkku ¼[kfut ;k
vU;½ gS vkSj u gh fu;kstu esa dksbZ Jfed gh gSA izkFkhZx.k dks eqvkotk jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djrs gq;s
lsoklekfIr ij ns; xzsT;qVh o ih,Q dk Hkqxrku Hkh fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftls izkFkhZx.k }kjk Lohdkj Hkh
fd;k tk pqdk gS] bl laca/k esa muds }kjk dksbZ vkifRr ugha dh xbZA izkFkhZx.k dh lsokeqfDr /kkjk 25,Q
ds rgr NaVuh ugha gSA Jfedks dks lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl ,oa uksfVl is dk Hkqxrku fd;k
tk pqdk gSA Jfedx.k viuk leLr ns; ykHk izkIr dj pqds gSaA vr% izLrqr Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA
vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dh vksj ls fnukad 24-9-2005 dks izkjfEHkd vkifRr is'k djrs gq;s vfHkdFku
fd;k gS fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr vf/klwpuk esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 i{kdkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk
LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa dsoy uke fy[k nsus ls i{kdkj ugha cu tkrk gSA izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh lsok,a
vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dks dHkh gLrkarfjr ugha dh xbZ vkSj u gh vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 mudk dHkh fu;kstd gh jgk
gSA Msxkuk VaxLVu izkstsDV Hkkjr ljdkj dh vuqefr ls fnukad 6-9-97 ls can gks pqdk gS vkSj ,d can
laLFkku ds fo:) vkS|ksfxd fookn pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZx.k dk fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2ds ds
vUrxZr vkS|ksfxd fookn dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 tks jktLFkku LVsV feujy
MoyiesaV dkW0 fy0 dh bZdkbZ Fkh tks Hkkjr ds jkti= esa izdkf’kr vf/kflwpuk }kjk jktLFkku LVsV ekbZal
,.M feujYl fyfeVsM esa veyxesV gks xbZA vr% izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dk fookn jktLFkku LVsV ekbZal ,.M
feujYl fyfeVsM ds fo:) gh pyus ;ksX; gS D;ksafd vkj,lVhMhlh fy0 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds
vkns’k fnukad 4-7-2003 ,l-ch- daiuh fiVhlu uacj 2001 esa ckbZfMax vi ¼fMtksY;w'ku½ fd;k tk pqdk
gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr Dyse esa ls vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dks i{kdkj ugha ekudj foyksfir djus rFkk
vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr ugha djus dk vokMZ ikfjr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA xq.kkoxq.k
ij 18-12-2012 dks tokc izLrqr dj dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfedx.k o mlds e/; dHkh Hkh fu;ksftr
o fu;ksDrk ds laca/k ugha jgs gS rks vizkFkhZ ds fo:) vkS|ksfxd fookn iSnk gksus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk
gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lk{; izkFkhZ esa lhrk iRuh 'kadj] fxrqM+h iq=h lqok] mn;'kadj] jke flag ds
'kiFk i= is'k gq;s ftuls vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh xbZA vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dh vksj ls Jh dj.khnkl
flag jktkor dk 'kiFk i= is’k gqvk vkSj vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dh vksj ls lR;oku dkSf'kd dk 'kiFk i= is’k
gqvk ysfdu vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds xokgku dj.khnkl flag jktkor ,oa lR;oku dkSf'kd izfrijh{kk gsrq
U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is'k ugha gq;s] ftlls vkns’k fnukad 6-6-2017 }kjk foi{khx.k dh lk{; can dh
xbZA vr% vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr xokgu izfrijh{kk gsrq U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gksus ds
dkj.k izLrqr 'kiFk i= iBuh; ugha gSA
izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k ,oa vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dh cgl lquh xbZA vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr
ugha gqvkA
izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk fyf[kr cgl is'k dj dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfedx.k Jhefr fxrqMh ,oa
Jhefr lhrk dh izFke fu;qfDr o"kZ 1974 esa nSfud osru Hkksxh lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :i esa jktLFkku
vkj,l,eMhlh esa gqbZ Fkh] tks dkykarj esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 vkj,lVhMhlh fy0 gks xbZA vizkFkhZ la[;k 2
}kjk o"kZ 1989 esa nksuksa lQkbZ deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fer djrs gq;s osru J`a[kyk 750&930 nh xbZA nksuksa
Jfedx.k }kjk dHkh Hkh ihfuax odZ ugha fd;k x;kA nksuksa Jfedx.k dk dk;Z vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh
dkWyksuh esa edkuksa ,oa lM+dksa dh lQkbZ dk dk;Z Fkk tcfd ihfuax odZ igkMh ¼[kku½ ij tks eSVsfj;y
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5005
fudyrk gS mldh Nkyus ls NVkbZ dk dk;Z gksrk gSA fnukad 13-1-91 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds e/;
,d bdjkjukek gqvk Fkk ftlesa ;g r; gqvk Fkk fd ihfuax odZ djus okys Jfedksa ds vfrfjDr vU;
lHkh deZpkjh vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds deZpkjh gks tkosaxs ysfdu vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 }kjk nqHkkZoukiwoZd izkFkhZ
Jfedx.k dks vuqfpr Je uhfr viukrs gq;s dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru] evkotk jkf'k fn;s fcuk
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q] 25th] 25,p dh ikyuk fd;s fcuk mudh lsok,a lekIr dj nh xbZA vizkFkhZ
la[;k 2 }kjk uksfVl fnukad 1-6-91 ds tfj;s fnukad 4-6-91 ls Jfedx.k dh lsok,a lekIr dj nh xbZ]
ftlls Li"V gS fd Jfedx.k dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k vkSj dsoy blh vk/kkj ij gh
lsokeqfDr voS/k gks tkrh gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds e/; gq;s bdjkjukek ds vuqlkj vizkFkhZ la[;k 2
dh leLr laifRr;ka ,oa nkf;Ro vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds Åij gSaA Jfedx.k us viuh lk{; ls vius Dyse dks
lkfcr fd;k gS rFkk Jfedx.k dh vksj ls laLFkku esa fu;qDr VkbZe dhij mn;'kadj us Hkh viuh lk{;
ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gS fd Jfedx.k izkjEHk ls gh Lohij ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks] mludk ihfuax odZ ls
dksbZ laca/k ugha FkkA vU; xokg jke flag us Hkh mijksDr rF;ksa dh iqf"V dh gSA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls
izLrqr nLrkostkr~ izn'kZ MoY;w&1 yxk;r 8 v[k.Muh; lk{; jgh gS rFkk vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ
lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k is’k ugha dh xbZ gS ftlls Jfedx.k dh lk{; v[k.Muh; jgh gSA vizkFkhZx.k
}kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q] 25th] 25,p dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ vkSj u gh vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr
nLrkostkr~ dks lk{; ls izekf.kr gh djk;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 }kjk bdjkjukek ds rgr vuqfpr
Je uhfr ,oa nqHkkZouko'k izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dks lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij cgky ugha fd;k x;kA vr%
izkFkhZ Jfedx.k ds lsoki`Fkd vkns'k dks vikLr dj lsok esa fujUrj ekuh tkdj lsok cgky djus ds
leLr fiNyk leLr osru fnyk;k tkosA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d
n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s x;s &
1- ,vkbZvkj 1984 lqizhe dksVZ 500 xseu bafM;k fy0 cuke fuajtu nklA
2- 2002¼3½ osYVuZ ykW dslst 67 lqjs’k pUnz cuke LVsV fczt dULVªD’ku dkW0
3- 2013 ¼139½ ,Q,yvkj 541 nhikyh xqaMw ljokl cuke dzkafr twfu;j v/;kid o vU;A
4- ,vkbZvkj 1976 lqizhe dksVZ 1111 LVsV cSad cuke ,u-,l- euhA
5- 2000¼5½ ,l ,y vkj 124 izHkwn;ky fcjkjh cuke ,e-ih- jkT; ukxfjd vkiwfrZ fuxeA
6- flfoy vihy la[;k 3701@2015 xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkkuA
7- 2016 ¼149½ ,Q,yvkj 941 jktdqekj cuke f'k{kk foHkkx
8- 2015 ,vkbZvkj ,llhMoY;w 6910 iou dqekj vxzoky cuke ,lchvkbZ o vU;A
9- 2015 ,vkbZvkj ,llhMoY;w 869 tlesj flag cuke LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk o vU;A
10- 2000 kkk ,y,yts 1678 ihth bULVh- vkWQ eSMhdy ,tqds'ku cuke oh0ds0 'kekZ
11- 2004¼103½ ,Q,yvkj 102 eS0 fud bafM;k VwYl cuke jke lwjr o vU;A
12- flfoy vihy la[;k 1741@1980 fu.kZ; fmnukad 2-12-1983 xEeu bafM;k fyfeVsM cuke
fujatu nklA
13- 1992¼64½ ,Q,yvkj 978 VsªM foaXl fyfeVsM cuke ih-Mh- QksMdjA
14- 1964 , vkbZvkj 1746 gkWdVhQ xseu cuke b.MfLVª;y fVªC;quy o vU;A
15- 1988 ,vkbZvkj 215 Hkxoku nkl pksiMk cuke ;wukbZVsM cSad vkWQ bf.M;kA
16- flfoy vihy la[;k 3620@1993 bafM;u cSad cuke ds-Å"kk o vU;] lqizhe dksVZ fu.kZ;
fnukad 26-1-98
5006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds izfrfuf/k }kjk cgl dh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfedx.k ,oa mlds e/; dHkh Hkh
deZpkjh ,oa fu;kstd dk laca/k ugha jgk gSA izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dks mlds }kjk lsoki`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k gS
rks vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk djus dk iz’u gh ugha mBrk gSA izkFkhZ izLrqr jsQjsal esa i{kdkj ugha
gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 vkj,lVhMhlh }kjk Jfed dks eqvkotk jkf'k] uksfVl is] NqfV~V;ksa dh jkf'k dk
Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftldh ikorh i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 }kjk ftu deZpkfj;ksa
dh lwph is'k dh xbZ muesa izkFkhZx.k dk uke ugha gSA oSls Hkh Msxkuk VaxLVu izkstsDV Hkkjr ljdkj dh
vuqefr ls fnukad 6-9-97 ls can gks pqdk gS vkSj ,d can laLFkku ds fo:) vkS|ksfxd fookn pyus ;ksX;
ugha gSA vr% izLrqr Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA
eSaus mHk; i{kksa }kjk fn;s x;s rdksZa ij euu fd;kA izkFkhZx.k dh lk{; dk ifj’khyu djs rks izkFkhZ
Jfedk lhrk o Jhefr fxrqMh us viuh lk{; ds eq[; ijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gS fd mldh izFke fu;qfDr
o"kZ 1974 esa nSfud osruHkksxh lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :i esa vkj,lvkbZ,eMhlh t;iqj ds Msxkuk izkstsDV esa
gqbZ Fkh] tgka mlds }kjk 1979 rd dk;Z fd;k x;kA o"kZ 1979 esa ;g vkj,l,eMhlh esa rFkk 1984 esa
vkj,lVhMhlh fy0 esa gLrkarfjr gks xbZ] tgka mlds }kjk lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k x;kA
o"kZ 1989 esa mls lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in dh fu;fer osru J`a[kyk 750&930 nh xbZ tks mls lsoklekfIr
rd feyhA o"kZ 1991 esa vkj,lVhMhlh fy0 o fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM dk vkil esa le>kSrk gksus ij
vkj,lVhMhlh ds iSfuax deZpkfj;ksa dks NksM+dj vU; lHkh deZpkfj;ksa dks mudh iwoZ dh lsokvksa dh
fujUrjrk ds lkFk fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM esa nsus dk vuqca/k gqvk rFkk iSfuax deZpkfj;ksa dks eqvkotk
nsdj gVkus dk r; gqvkA mldh lsok,as iSfuax deZpkjh ekudj uksfVl fnukad 1-6-91 }kjk fnukad 4-6-91
ls lekIr dj nh tcfd og iSfuax deZpkjh esa ugha vkrh Fkh tcfd mlds leku vU; efgyk deZpkfj;ksa
dks fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM esa ,CtkcZ fd;k x;kA lkFk gh dFku fd;k gS fd mls gVkus ls iwoZ
fu;ekuqlkj NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k rFkk u gh uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru fn;k x;kA rFkk
xzsT;qVh] ih,Q] cksul vkfn dh x.kuk Hkh lgh ugh adj de Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA mldk ifjp; i= izn'kZ
MoY;w&1 iznf'kZr djk;k x;kA vizkFkhZ }kjk mldh lsokeqfDr ds ckn u;s deZpkfj;ksa f'kodj.k] lwtkjke]
eqds'k] Jhefr ljkst daoj dks Lohij ds in ij ubZ fu;qfDr nh xbZ ysfdu mls ugha cqyk;k x;kA ftjg
ds nkSjku xokg us uksfVl] eqvkotk jkf’k o pSad jkf’k 7226-37@&:0 feyus ls badkj fd;kA lkFk gh
vU; 118 Jfedksa dks Hkh blh rjg gVk;k x;k gks] irk ugha gksuk dgk gS rFkk mls vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 }kjk
lsok ls gVkus dk uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA xokg us ih,Q] xzsT;qVh dh jkf’k vnk djus ls Hkh badkj fd;k
gSA xokg mn;'kadj o jke flag us viuh lk{; ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gS fd Jfedx.k dk isfuax dk;Z
ls dksbZ laca/k ugha Fkk vkSj os Lohij ds in ij dk;Zjr FksA
izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh izFke fu;qfDr 1-3-1974 dks gqbZ Fkh] bl rF; dh iqf"V vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
izLrqr VaxLVu ifj;kstuk Msxkuk esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dh lwph ls gksrh gS ftuesa izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh
fu;qfDr fnukad 1-3-1974 vafdr gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd o"kZ 1979 esa VaxLVu izkstsDV
ds Msxkuk esa fu;ksftr Jfedksa dh lsok,a vkj,eMhlh esa LFkkukarfjr dh xbZ vkSj blds lkFk gh izkFkhZ
Jfedx.k dh lsok,a Hkh LFkkukarfjr dh xbZA o"kZ 1984 esa VaxLVu izkstsDV Msxkuk esa fu;ksftr
Jfedksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,a vkj,l,eMhlh ls vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 vkj,lVhMhlh fyfeVsM esa LFkkukarfjr
dh xbZA vizkFkhZ vkj,l,eMhlh }kjk izLrqr tokc esa mlus Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dks o"kZ
1989 esa vdq'ky Jfed ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr osru J`a[kyk 750&930 nh xbZA esjs fouez er esa fu;fer osru
J`a[kyk dk ykHk dsoy fu;fer deZpkjh dks gh fn;k tkrk gS vkSj Jfedx.k dks Lohij ds in dh
fu;fer osru J`a[kyk 750&930 izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dks o"kZ 1989 esa nh xbZA vizkFkhZ vkj,lVhMhlh fyfeVsM
}kjk mlds o vizkFkhZ fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM ds e/; fu"ikfnr ,xzhesaV fnukad 13-01-1991 ds rgr
iSfuax deZpkfj;ksa ds vykok vU; lHkh deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,a vizkFkhZ fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM esa iwoZ dh
lsokvksa dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk gLrkarfjr djus gsrq fu"ikfnr gqvk Fkk] ftlds rgr vizkFkhZ vkj,lVhMhlh
fyfeVsM }kjk izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dks iSfuax deZpkjh ekurs gq;s uksfVl fnukad 1-6-1991 }kjk fnukad 4-6-
1991 ls mudh lsok,a lekIr dh xbZ] ysfdu izkFkhZ Jfedx.k iSfuax deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr gks] bl
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5007
laca/k esa dksbZ ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; vfHkys[k ij is’k ugha gSA tcfd izkFkhZ Jfedx.k us viuh
lk{; ds nkSjku iSfuax deZpkjh gksus ls badkj fd;k gS vkSj mldh vksj ls izLrqr xokg mn;'kadj tks
foi{kh laLFkku esa VkbZedhij Fkk rFkk jke flag tks izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk lfpo Fkk] us Jfed dk Lohij ds
in ij izkjEHk ls dk;Zjr gksuk rFkk mudk iSfuax dk;Z ls dksbZ laca/k ugha gksuk crk;k gSA vizkFkhZ
vkj,lVhMhlh fyfeVsM }kjk izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dks Lohij ds in dh fu;fer osruJ`a[kyk o"kZ 1989 esa nh
xbZ gS ftls Lo;a vizkFkhZ us vius tokc esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr
ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds [k.Mu esa dksbZ ekSf[kd lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gS ftlls ;g ugha ekuk
tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dk dk;Z iSfuax odZ ds leku gks vkSj os iSfuax deZpkjh gksA eSaus ,xzhesaV
fnukad 13-01-1991 dk voyksdu fd;k ftlesa Li"V :i ls vafdr gS fd iSfuax deZpkfj;ksa ds vykok
vU; lHkh deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,a vizkFkhZ fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM esa gLrkarfjr ekuh tkosxhA ysfdu vizkFkhZ
}kjk izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dks iSfuax deZpkjh ekurs gq;s uksfVl fnukad 1-6-91 }kjk fnukad 4-6-1991 ls mudh
lsok,a lekIr dj nh xbZ] tks voS/k o vuqfpr gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd vkj,lVhMhlh
}kjk /kkjk 20 ,Q ds rgr NaVuh dj Jfedx.k dks uksfVl] uksfVl is ,oa eqvkotk dk Hkqxrku fd;k
x;k gS] ysfdu fdlh Hkh deZpkjh dh NaVuh fd;s tkrs le; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q ds rgr Jfed
dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k tkuk vko’;d gS ysfdu vizkFkhZ vkj,lVhMhlh fy0 }kjk fnukad 1-6-1991
dks uksfVl tkjh dj mlds rhu fnu ckn ls ;kuh fnukad 4-6-1991 ls Jfedx.k dh lsok,a lekIr dj
nh] ftlls lkfcr gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ vkj,lVhMhlh fyfeVsM }kjk izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dks ,d ekg dk
uksfVl is ugha fn;k x;k vkSj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q ds foijhr tkdj vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dh
mYya?kuk djrs gq;s Jfedx.k dh lsok,a lekIr dh xbZ gS] tks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA
vizkFkhZ fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM }kjk ,xzhesaV fnukad 13-01-1991 ds rgr iSfuax deZpkfj;ksa dh
lsokvksa dks NksM+dj leLr LVkQ dh lsok,a] vizkFkhZ vkj,lVhMhlh fyfeVsM ds lHkh vlsV~l] O;kikfjd
xfrfof/k;ka oxSjg Vsdvksoj dh xbZ gS vkSj tc vizkFkhZ vkj,lVhMhlh ds leLr deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,a
vizkFkhZ fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM esa gLrkarfjr dh xbZ gS rks izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh lsokvksa ds fy;s Hkh vizkFkhZ
fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM gh mRrjnk;h gks tkrk gSA izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh lsok,a /kkjk 25 ,Q ds rgr
NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gSA vizkFkhZ vkj,lVhMhlh fy0 }kjk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr
tkdj voS/k o vuqfpr Je uhfr viukrs gq;s Jfedx.k dh lsok,a lekIr dh xbZ gS] tcfd Jfedx.k
Lohij dh fu;fer osruJ`a[kyk esa dk;Zjr jgs gSa vkSj tc fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,a vizkFkhZ fganqLrku
ftad fyfeVsM esa gLrkarfjr dh xbZ gS rks izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dh lsokvksa dh ftEesnkjh Hkh vizkFkhZ fganqLrku
ftad fyfeVsM dh gSA izkFkhZ Jfedx.k dk lsokeqfDr vkns'k fnukad 1-6-1991 vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ
Jfedx.k dh lsok,a lsok dh fujarjrk ds lkFk vizkFkhZ fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM esa Lohij ds in dh
lsok,a izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gks tkrh gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar
izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS tgka Jfed dh lsok,a vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds
rgr NaVuh ugha ekudj mlds lsokeqfDr vkns'k dks voS/k o vuqfpr ekuk x;k gks vkSj Jfed viuh
vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q iw.kZ dj pqdk gks] ,slh fLFkfr esa tgka Jfed fQftdy iqufuZ;qfDr laHko ugha gks ogka ij
Jfed dks mldh lsokeqfDr fnukad ls lsokfuo`fr dh frfFk rd laiw.kZ osd ostst esa fjokbZTM ostst
vFkok osru] fjokbZTM is&Ldsy] okf"kZd osru o`f)] fjokbZTM egaxkbZ HkRrk vkSj osfj;scy egaxkbZ HkRrk vkSj
lHkh lsokfuo`fr ifjykHkksa ds lkFk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ekuk gSA fopkj.kh; ekeys esa Hkh izkFkhZ
Jfedx.k dh lsok,a vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds foijhr ekudj NaVuh dh dk;Zokgh vuqfpr ,oa voS/k
ekuk gSA vr% mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZ Jfedx.k viuh lsokeqfDr fnukad 4-6-91 ls
lsokfuo`fr dh frfFk rd laiw.kZ osd ostst ftlesa fjokbZTM ostst vFkok osru] fjokbZTM is&Ldsy] okf"kZd
osru o`f)] fjokbZTM egaxkbZ HkRrk vkSj osfj;scy egaxkbZ HkRrk vkSj lHkh lsokfuo`fr ifjykHkksa ds lkFk izkIr
djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA
5008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izkFkhZ Jfedx.k }kjk izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse Lohdkj fd;k
tkdj izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
jSQjsal rnuqlkj mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
v'ouh fot] U;k;k/kh”k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 23-07-2024 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz
ljdkj dks izdk’kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA
दिल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2131.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रािेंर कुमार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ियपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 34/1996 एंड सीआईएस
न. 31/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के
साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-20040/07/1995-आईआर(कोल)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024
S.O. 2131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/1996 & CIS No 31/2014) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Shri
Rajendra Kumar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
19.11.2024.
[No. L-20040/07/1995-IR(Col)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5009
Presiding Officer
:
Ashwani vij, RJS (DJ Cadre)
Central IT Case No.
:
34/1996
CIS No.
:
31/2014
dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k dzekad
,y&20040@07@95& vkbZ-vkj-¼dksy k½ fnukad 9-8-1996
jktsUnz dqekj okYehfd iq= Lo0 Jh 'kadjyky ¼e`rd nkSjkus dk;Zokgh½ ekQZr d`".kyky okYehfd] ljLorh
dkWyksuh] CY;w iksVjht ds lkeus] eSau lkaxkusj jksM] t;iqjA
1@1 T;ksfr nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh jktsUnz dqekj ckfYefd mez&44 o"kZ] fuoklh& 171&ds] y{eh dkWyksuh]
uxj fuxe LVsfM;e ds ikl] lkaxkusj] t;iqjA
&&& izkFkhZ
1- jhtuy eSustj] bf.M;u vkW;y dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM] ckcj jksM] ubZ fnYyh&110001
2- lhfu;j LVs'ku eSustj] bf.M;u vkW;y dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM] ,;j iksVZ lkaxkusj] t;iqjA
&&& vizkFkhZx.k
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls %
Jh dku flag jkBkSM+
vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls
Jh ch0,l0 jruw
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh mijksDr vkKk dzekad ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ;
gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gS &
“Whether the demand of Shri Rajendra kumar Balmiki that he was employed by the management
of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Jaipur and that his service were illegally terminated w.e.f. 25.4.1992
in violation of section 25-H and 25-F is justified? If so, to what relief is Shri Rajendra kumar
Balmiki is entitled?”
izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkdj mHk; i{kksa dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 08-10-
1996 dks LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa ikVZ VkbZe
Lohij ds in ij 250@&:0 izfrekg ij fnukad 1-7-1985 dks gqbZ Fkh rFkk foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk izkFkhZ dks
fnukad 25-4-92 ds ekSf[kd vkns'k ls dk;Z ij ysus ls badkj dj fn;k tcfd laLFkku esa Jfed ds dk;Z
dh dksbZ deh ugha FkhA izkFkhZ }kjk tfj;s vf/koDrk fnukad 18-7-92 dks yhxy uksfVl fHktokus ds ckotwn
u gh dksbZ tokc fn;k vkSj u gh dk;Z ij fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd
dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk foi{kh laLFkku esa izfrfnu 8 ?kaVs ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS] vr% izkFkhZ
iw.kZdkfyd Jfed gSA izkFkhZ ls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z Hkh fy;k x;k ysfdu in dk osru ugha fn;k
x;kA lkekU;r% 90 fnu dk;Z djus ds ckn Jfedksa dks foi{kh }kjk LFkkbZ dj fn;k tkrk gS ysfdu izkFkhZ
dks LFkkbZ ugha fd;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk fu;ekuqlkj u gh dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph tkjh dhA foi{kh }kjk
Jfed dks lsok ls gVkus ls iwoZ u gh dksbZ vkjksi i= fn;k x;k vkSj u gh mls ,d ekg dk uksfVl]
uksfVl is] NaVuh eqvkotk fn;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q] 25th] 25,p dh mYya?kuk
5010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ lsokeqfDr ls csjkstxkj cSBk gS vr% mls iqu% lsok esa cgky dj fiNyk iw.kZ osru leLr
lqfo/kkvksa lfgr fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd laLFkku esa
ikVZ VkbZe Lohij dk dksbZ in ugha gS cfYd izkFkhZ dks laLFkku ifjlj dh lQkbZ gsrq tqykbZ 1987 esa Bsdk
ij j[kk x;k Fkk] ftlds fy;s mls 250@&:0 izfrekg Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a fnukad
31-03-92 ls dkWUVªsDV dks NksM+dj laLFkku dk lQkbZ dk;Z can dj fn;kA izkFkhZ Jfed laLFkku dk
deZpkjh gh ugha Fkk rks mldh lsoki`Fkd djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk laLFkku esa dHkh Hkh
2 ?kaVs ls T;knk dk;Z ugha fd;k vkSj u gh dksbZ vkSj dk;Z mls fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk vius fu;kstu ds
laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA 90 fnu dh vLFkkbZ lsok ij LFkkbZ fd;s tkus dk dksbZ
fu;e laLFkku esa ugha gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSa vr%
mudh ikyuk fd;s tkus dk loky gh ugha mBrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa izkFkhZ Jfed jktsUnz dqekj ckYehfd dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk ftlls
vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh xbZA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls jkts'k dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk ftlls izkFkhZ
izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh xbZA
izkFkhZ Jfed dk izdj.k ds fopkj.k ds nkSjku fu/ku gks tkus ls U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 25-7-
20222 }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed ds fof/kd okjhlku dks i{kdkj cuk;k tkdj fjdkMZ ij fy;k x;kA
mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl is’k gqbZA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk fyf[kr cgl is'k dj LVsVesaV
vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks nksgjkrs gq;s dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed ikVZVkbZe Lohij ds in ij
200@&:- ekfld osru ij Fkk] tks ckn esa c<kdj 250@&:- vkSj 450@&:0 dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ
}kjk ges'kk esgur o bZekunkjh ls dk;Z fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd
dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA mlds ckotwn mls dksbZ vkjksi i=] uksfVl] uksfVl is] NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s fcuk
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] 25 th] 25 ,p dk mYya?ku djrs gq;s fnukad 25-4-92 ds ekSf[kd vkns'k ls
lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k tks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA vr% izkFkhZ dks lsok esa cgky dj leLr ykHk ifjykHk
fnyk;s tkosA izkFkhZ izkfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s x;s &
1- 1994¼69½ ,Q,yvkj 17 eqafliy dkWjiksjs'ku vkWQ nsgyh cuke lq[kchj flagA
2- ts Vh 2011¼5½ ,l lh 533 nsosUnz flag cuke eqafufliy dkWmafly
3- flfoy vihy la[;k 4445@2006 U;w bafM;k ,';ksjsal dkW0fy0 cuke ,-'kadjkfyaxeA fu.kZ;
fnukad 3-10-2008
4- vkj ,y vkj 1989¼1½ 156 ;'koar flag ;kno cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt0 o vU;A
5- 2012 ysc vkbZ lh 404 dku flag cuke ftyk vk;qosZn vf/kdkjhA
6- 1997 vkbZ ,y ,y ts 817 eSusftax Mk;jsDVj o vU; cuke QSyh jkeA
7- flfoy vihy la[;k 3701@2015 xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt0 fu.kZ; fnukad 16-4-2015
8- flfoy vihy la[;k 4370@2015 jktdqekj cuke fot; dqekj xkSjh 'kadj fu.kZ; fnukad 12-5-
2015
9- vkj,yvkj 1991¼1½ ukFkZuZ jsyos cuke tt lhvkbZVh
10- 2008 ¼116½ ,Q ,y vkj 346 rkjlse flag cuke tt yscj dksVZ o vU;A
11- 2006¼4½ vkj,yMoY;w 3028 LVsV vkWQ jkt0 cuke gjh'k pUnz o vU;A
12- 2007¼114½ ,Q,yvkj 352 d:.kk HkV~VkpthZ cuke LVsV vkWQ osLV caxky o vU;A
13- 2003 MoY;w ,y lh ¼;wlh½ 523 tujy eSustj cuke yscj dksVZ o vU;A
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5011
14- 2005 kk ,y ,yts 572 gfj;k.kk Qkbusaf'k;y dkWjiksjs'ku cuke yscj de b.MfLVª;y fVªC;quy o
vU;A
vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl is'k dj dFku fd;k izkFkhZ Jfed vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds
dHkh lqijfotu esa dk;Zjr ugha jgkA izkFkhZ laLFkku esa dsoy dkWUVsªDl csl ij 1&2 ?kaVs lQkbZ dk;Z
djrk Fkk ftldk mls ikfjJfed Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izn'kZ ,e&1 ds tfj;s fnukad
20-4-92 dks lkQ&lQkbZ dk dk;Z djus esa vleFkZrk tkfgj dj fyf[kr esa vkus ls badkj fd;k gSA dk;Z
ds nkSjku izkFkhZ ds fo:) ,d ,QvkbZ vkj la[;k 308@1990 iqfyl Fkkuk lkaxkusj t;iqj esa va0/kkjk
452] 323] 147] 427 vkbZihlh ntZ gSA izkFkhZ Bsds ij dk;Z djus ds dkj.k mls vkbZMh dkMZ Hkh tkjh ugha
fd;k x;kA fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kar gS fd ek= 1&2 ?kaVs dke djus okyk O;fDr A right
fu;fer gksus dk vf/kdkj ugha ekax ldrkA izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA
vr% Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA
eSaus mHk; i{kksa }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr cgl ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk izLrqr U;kf;d
n`"Vkarksa dk llEekuiwoZd voyksdu o ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA
mHk; i{kksa dh lk{; dk ifj’khyu djsa rks izkFkhZ }kjk vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa
of.kZr rF;ksa dks nksgjk;k gS vkSj ftjg ds nkSjku mlds }kjk izn'kZ ,e&1 ij , ls ch mlds gLrk{kj
gksuk rFkk izn'kZ ,e&2 esa ,QvkbZvkj ds ekeys esa >wBk Qalkuk o jkthukek gksuk crk;k gSA vizkFkhZ dh
vksj ls izLrqr xokg us viuh lk{; ds eq[; ijh{k.k esa tokc esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks nksgjkrs gq;s izkFkhZ dk
laLFkku esa dsoy 1&2 ?kaVs lQkbZ dk;Z Bsds ij djuk rFkk mlds cnys esa mls Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk dFku
fd;k gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a vius Dyse ,oa lk{; esa ikVZVkbZe Lohij
ds in ij lkQ&lQkbZ dk dk;Z fd;k tkuk crk;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa iw.kZdkfyd Jfed
ds :i esa dk;Z djrk gks] bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; vfHkys[k ij
is'k ugha dh gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls viuh fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa dksbZ fu;qfDr i= vFkok laLFkku esa
fu;fer dk;Z djus vFkok ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha
dh gSA izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a dFku fd;k gS fd og ikVZ VkbZe dk;Z djrk Fkk vkSj vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk Hkh
izkFkhZ ds }kjk dsoy 1&2 ?kaVs lkQ lQkbZ dk dk;Z fd;k tkuk crk;k gSA vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa ikVZVkbZe
Lohij dk dksbZ in Lohd`r ugha gS] izkFkhZ Jfed laLFkku esa Lohij ds fu;fer in ds fo:) iw.kZdkfyd
deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr jgk gks] i=koyh voyksdu ls izdV ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ Jfed us Lo;a fnukad
2-4-92 dks izn'kZ ,e&1 ds tfj;s vizkFkhZ laLFkku dks ;g fy[kdj fn;k gS fd lkQ&lQkbZ dk dk;Z djus
esa vleFkZ gwa rFkk eSa 2-4-92 ls ugha vkmaxk] vki viuk cankscLr dj ysA izkFkhZ }kjk viuh ftjg ds
nkSjku izn'kZ ,e&1 ij , ls ch vius gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a vius dk;Z dks
NksMk x;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa vYidkfyd Jfed ds :i esa lkQ&lQkbZ dk dk;Z Bsads ij
djrk Fkk] ftlds fy;s mls fu;fer in ij LFkkbZ fd;s tkus dh ekax iw.kZr;k vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA tc
izkFkhZ Jfed laLFkku esa iw.kZdkfyd Jfed ds :i esa dk;Zjr gh ugha jgk gS rks vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku izkFkhZ Jfed ij ykxw ugha gksrs gSa vkSj tc Jfed ij vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku gh
ykxw ugha gksrs gS rks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25,Q] 25th] 25,p dh ikyuk fd;s tkus dk iz’u gh ugha mBrk
gSA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk
izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kar gLrxr izdj.k ls fHkUurk j[krs gSa vr% izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa
mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar pLik ugha gksrs gSaA
mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse vLohdkj fd;k tkdj
izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
5012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
jSQjsal rnuqlkj mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
v'ouh fot] U;k;k/kh”k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 02-08-2024 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz
ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA
नदिल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2132.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार गैल
इंजडया जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री नानू ससंि रावत के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ियपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न. 08/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया
िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 19.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
र् [सं. एल-30011/17/2006-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024
S.O. 2132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 08/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
GAIL India Limited and Shri Nanu Singh Rawat which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 19.11.2024.
[No. L-30011/17/2006-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-30011/17/2006-IR (M) Dated:27.01.2014
Jh ukuw flag jkor iq= Jh cq}k flag jkor] fuoklh& xzke& dkysMh ¼dkuk[ksMh½] ftyk& vtesj]
jktLFkku
---------izkFkhZ
1- egk izca/kd] xSy bf.M;k fyfe-] xzke& fnyokjh] fd'kux< jksM] ulhjkckn] ftyk& vtesj]
¼jktLFkku½
-----vizkFkhZ@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh vkj-lh- tSu] izfrfuf/kA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5013
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh rstizdk'k
kekZ] vfHkHkk"kdA
1- Je ,oa fu;kstu ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 27-01-2014 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ ,oa 2A ds
vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukfdr vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k
dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“Whether Shri Nanu Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Budh Singh Rawat was the employee of the
management of GAIL? If yes, whether the action of the management of GAIL in terminating the services
of Sh. Nanu Singh Rawat w.e.f. 21-09-2004 is fair, legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled
to?’’
2- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 30-10-2014 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlds laf{kIr rF;
bl izdkj gS%&
3- izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh la[;k&1 ds v/khu pijklh ds in ij cwLVj LVs'ku&3 ulhjkckn esa
fnukad 01-08-1999 dks gqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ us fnukad 20-09-2004 rd foi{kh ds v/khu fujarj dk;Z
fd;kA foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks fnukad 21-09-2004 dks dk;Z ij ugha fy;k rFkk ekSf[kd vkns'k ls
lsokeqDr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NVuh
eqvkots dk Hkqxrku Hkh ugha fd;k x;kA lsokeqDr fd;s tkrs le; foi{kh ds v/khu izkFkhZ ls
dfu"Brj vusd Jfed dk;Zjr Fks rFkk izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djus ds ckn u;s Jfedksa dks Hkh HkrhZ
fd;k x;kA bl izdkj foi{khx.k us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F,G o H ,oa fu;e 77] 78 dk
vuqikyu ugha fd;kA vr% foi{khx.k }kjk 21-09-2004 dks dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dks
voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fujarjrk ,oa foxr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr iqu% lsok esa
cgky fd;k tkosA
4- fnukad 10-08-2015 dks foi{khx.k dh vksj ls oknksRrj izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlds laf{kIr rF;
fuEukuqlkj gSA
5- foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dks fdlh in ij fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ cfYd izkFkhZ dks Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls
ek= va'kdkyhu Jfed ds :Ik esa vkdfLed dk;Z dh iwfrZ gsrq j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj bl vof/k dk
Hkqxrku le;≤ ij dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ us fnukad 01-08-1999 ls 20-09-2004 rd fujarj
dk;Z ugha fd;k u gh fdlh dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ dks eSllZ ds-
lh- ekyoh; ulhjkckn }kjk Bsds ds v/khu dh xbZ lsokvksa dh leLr ih-,Q- jkf'k dk Hkqxrku
dj fn;k x;k D;ksfd Hkqxrku dk nkf;Ro mlh dk FkkA izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ds ysVj gsM ij tkyh
gLrk{kj dj dwVjfpr nLrkost cuk;s ftldh foKfIr nSfud uoT;ksfr lekpkj i= esa izdkf'kr
dh xbZ FkhA mDr eSllZ ds- lh- ekyoh; Bsdsnkj dh lafonk fnukad 15-10-2004 dks lekIr gks
xbZA izkFkhZ us eSllZ ds- lh- ekyoh; dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok larqf"Vizn u gksus
ds dkj.k Bsdsnkj }kjk gh lekIr dh xbZ FkhA izkFkhZ u rks deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS vkSj u
gh foi{khx.k m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gSA Bsdsnkj }kjk fu’fpr vof/k ds fy;s j[ks x;s Jfed
dh fu;qfDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ¼bb½ ds varxZr vkus ls Jfed /kkjk 25 F dk ykHk izkIr
ugha dj ldrkA foi{khx.k }kjk vf/kfu;e ds fdlh izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gSA
vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
6- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa AW-1] ukuw flag jkor ¼Lo;a izkFkhZ½ dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{;
esa izn'kZ W-1] ls W-3] rd izys[k iznf'kZr fd;sA
5014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7- foi{khx.k us vius lk{; esa NAW-1] fot; ikols] izca/kd rFkk NAW-2] th- vkj- pkSgku] eq[;
egkizca/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izys[kh; lk{; ds :Ik esa izn'kZ M-1] ls M-65] rd izys[kksa dks
iznf'kZr fd;kA
8- fnukad 09-09-2024 dks eSaus mHk;i{k ds vfHkHkk"kdksa ds ekSf[kd rdZ lqusa vkSj miyC/k lk{; dk
ifj'khyu fd;kA
9- izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k dk ;g rdZ gS fd foi{khx.k ds lk{kh NAW-2] th- vkj- pkSgku] us viuh
izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fnukad 01-08-1999 ls 15-10-2004 rd izkFkhZ }kjk
fd;k x;k dk;Z xSy bafM;k ds vkWfQl ckW; ds dk;Z ls lacaf/kr gSA ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ dks
fnukad 21-09-2004 ls gh lsok ls gVk fn;k FkkA ;g lk{kh izn'kZ W-3] tks fd izkFkhZ dk mifLFkfr
vfHkys[k gS ij A ls B ds LFkku ij Lo;a ds gLrk{kj gksus dh laHkkouk dks ncs 'kCnksa esa Lohdkj
djrs gq;s ;g dgrk gS fd gLrk{kj mlds gksuk yx rks jgk gS ysfdu og dg ugha ldrk fd
gLrk{kj mlds gS ;k ughaA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk;s fd izkFkhZ dks Bsdsnkj
}kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk rks Hkh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (s) vkSj 2 ( g) esa fd;s x;s jktLFkku
la'kks/ku ds varxZr iz/kku fu;kstd foi{khx.k dks gh ekuk tk;sxk vkSj izkFkhZ dks foi{khx.k dk
deZdkj ekuk tkosxkA izkFkhZ dk fu’fpr vof/k ds fy;s fu;qDr fd;s tkus laca/kh dksbZ vkns'k
foi{khx.k us izLrqr gh ugha fd;k gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dk foi{khx.k dk deZdkj gksuk rFkk mldh
voS/k NaVuh fd;k tkuk Hkyh HkkaWfr izekf.kr gSA vr% okn Lohdkj fd;k tkosA mUgksusa vius rdZ
ds leFkZu esa fuEukfdar U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s%&
1- Mk;jsDVj fQ'kjht VehZuy fMohtu cuke Hkhdw HkkbZ es?kkth HkkbZ pkoMk 2010 LAD IC
1089 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
2- ,sXthD;wfVo bathfu;j o vU; cuke ys[kjkt o vU; ¼2005½ 12 ¼lqizhe dksVZ dSlst½ 181
3- lokbZ ek/kksiqj lsUVªy dksijsfVo cSad cuke v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ o vU; 1998 WLC (UC) 178
¼jkt-½A
4- Jh fd'ku cuke yscj dksVZ ,.M b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy vtesj SB Civil W.P. No. 18471@2011
vkns'k frfFk 02-11-2023 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½A
5- jftLVªkj ,e- Mh- ,l- fo’ofo|ky; vtesj cuke yscj dksVZ de b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy SB
Civil W.P. No. 16552@2011 vkns'k frfFk 16-03-2014 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½A
6- DB Civil Special Appeal No. 768@2006 vkns'k frfFk 21-01-2013 ¼'kh"kZd vafdr ugha½A
7- efgf"kZ n;kuUn ljLorh fo'ofo|ky; cuke yscj dksVZ de b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy 2016 ¼150½
855 ¼jkt-½A
8- fpuIik ;w- cuke dkWVu dksiksZjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k o vU; W.P. No. 8395@1989 vkns'k frfFk
03-08-1995 ¼vkU/kz izns'k mPp U;k;ky;½A
9- bathfu;fjax dkexkj ;wfu;u cuke bysDVªks LVhy dkfLaVx fyfe- Civil Appeal No.
86&89@2000 vkns'k frfFk 16-04-2004 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
10- eS- Hkkjr gsoh bysDVªhdYl fyfe- cuke LVsV vkWQ ;w-ih- 2003 ¼98½ FLR 826 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
11- lsdszVjh gfj;k.kk LVsV bysDVªhflVh cksMZ cuke lqjs'k o vU; 1999 ¼81½ FLR 1016 ¼lqizhe
dksVZ½A
12- phQ lsdszVjh] gfj;k.kk o vU; cuke psrjke 2006 ¼lqizhe dksVZ dslst½ ¼L&S½ 574A
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5015
10- fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd foi{khx.k us vius rdksZ esa izeq[k :Ik ls ;g rdZ fy;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr
fdl in ij gqbZ ;g rF; gh vfu'fpr gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ us izn'kZ W-1 esa Lo;a dks vkWfQl ckW;]
izn'kZ W-2 esa ihvkWu vkSj izn'kZ W-3 esa dk;kZy; lgk;d gksuk of.kZr fd;k gSA ;|fi izn'kZ W-1]
izn'kZ W-2 vkSj izn'kZ W-3 izys[k foi{khx.k }kjk tkjh gh ugha fd;s x;s vkSj ;s dwVjfpr gaSA
izn'kZ W-3 vkSj izn'kZ M&20@2 ij fy[kh xbZ fy[kkoV ,d tSlh gS tks ;g n'kkZrh gS fd ;g
nksuksa gh izys[k izkFkhZ }kjk dwVjfpr gSaA izkFkhZ okLrfod rF;ksa dks Nqikdj dwVjfpr nLrkostksa ds
vk/kkj ij ;g izekf.kr djuk pkgrk gS fd og foi{khx.k dk deZpkjh jgk gSA tcfd okLro esa
izkFkhZ Bsdsnkj eS- ds-lh- ekyoh; dk deZpkjh FkkA ftlus fnukad 15-10-2004 dks izkFkhZ dks
vlarqf"Vizn dk;Z gksus ij lsokeqDr dj fn;k vkSj izkFkhZ dh Hkfo"; fuf/k dk iw.kZ Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dks
dj fn;kA tSlk fd izn'kZ M&5] 6] o M&7 i= ls Li"V gSA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr Bsdsnkj }kjk ,d
fu'fpr vof/k ds fy;s dh xbZ Fkh] tks vof/k lekIr gksus ij Lor% lekIr gks xbZA izkFkhZ dh lsok
lekfIr NaVuh ds :Ik esa ugha gS blfy;s izkFkhZ ds laca/k esa /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu
vko';d ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA mUgksusa vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr
U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s%&
1- fdj.k Bkdqj cuke jsthMsaV dfe'uj fcgkj Hkou W.P. No. 1668@2014 ¼fnYyh mPp
U;k;ky;½ vkns'k frfFk 18-05-2023
2- jkLFkku jkT; fo|qr izlkj.k fuxe fy- cuke vfuy dkWofj;k Civil Appeal No.
5743&5744@2021 vkns'k frfFk 17-09-2021 ¼lqizhe dksVZa½
3- nsosUnz dqekj cuke LVsV vkWQ mRrjkapy o vU; AIR 2013 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 3325
4- phQ eSustj iatkc us'kuy cSad o vU; cuke vfur dqekj nkl Civil Appeal No. 3602@2020
¼lqizhe dksVZ½
11- mHk;i{k ds rdksZ o lk{; ds ifj'khyu ds mijkar bl fookn esa fuEufyf[kr fopkj.kh; fcUnq
mRiUu gq;s gS%&
1- D;k izkFkhZ izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{khx.k ds v/khu fnukad 01-08-1999 dks gqbZ rFkk 21-09-2004
dks foi{khx.k us ekSf[kd :Ik ls izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa
dk vuqikyu fd;s fcuk dj nh] tks voS/k gS\
-------------------izkFkhZ
2- D;k izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj vusd Jfed dk;Zjr jgs vkSj u;s
Jfedksa dks Hkh foi{khx.k us fu;ksftr dj izkFkhZ dks ojh;rk ugha nh\
-----------------izkFkhZ
3- vuqrks"k\
12- fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij dzfed fofu'p; bl izdkj gS%&
14- bl fcUnq ds lanHkZ esa loZ izFke ;g fopkj.kh; gS fd D;k izkFkhZ ,oa foi{khx.k ds e/; deZdkj
vkSj fu;kstd ds laca/k fo|eku gSA izkFkhZ us vius l’kiFk dFku esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh
fu;qfDr foi{kh la[;k&1 ds v/khu cwLVj LVs'ku&3 ulhjkckn esa pijklh ds in ij fnukad 01-
08-1999 dks gqbZ Fkh] 20-09-2004 rd mlus fujarj dk;Z fd;kA izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ dk dFku gS
fd mls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;kA ds-lh- ekyoh; Bsdsnkj dks og ugha tkurkA foi{kh us
mls Bsdk fn;k gks rks mls tkudkjh ugha gSA mlus ds-lh- ekyoh; ds ;gkW dHkh dke ugha fd;kA
5016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izkFkhZ us izn'kZ W-1 ls izn'kZ W-3 izys[kksa ds laca/k esa ;g dgk gS fd izn'kZ W-1 mls H. R. foosd
ikBd us fn;k FkkA izn'kZ W-2 20-09-2004 dk fy[kk gqvk gSA foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us
dwVjfpr izys[k lk{; esa iznf'kZr fd;s gSA tcfd izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd mldh dwVjpuk ds
laca/k esa iqfyl esa dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha dh xbZA foi{kh ds lk{; dk ifj'khyu djus ij ;g izdV
gksrk gS fd foi{kh us izkFkhZ ds fo:} dwVjpuk ds vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ izFke lwpuk iqfyl
dks ugha nhA ek= izn'kZ M&31 foKfIr nSfud UoT;ksfr lekpkj i= fnukad 11-06-2005 esa
izdkf'kr djok;hA foi{kh ds lk{kh NAW-2 th- vkj- pkSgku us izn'kZ W-1] izn'kZ W-2 o izn'kZ
W-3 dks izkFkhZ }kjk dwVjfpr cukuk rks dgk gS fdarq bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus
dksbZ izFke lwpuk izkFkhZ ds fo:} ugha dhA
15- NAW-2 th- vkj- pkSgku ;g Lohdkj djrs gS fd Bsdsnkj ds-lh- ekyoh; vkSj xSy bafM;k ds e/;
dk;Z vuqca/k gqvk Fkk] fdarq og vuqca/k is'k ugha fd;k gSA izn'kZ W-1] izn'kZ W-2 izek.k i=ksa dks
lk{kh us bl vk/kkj ij QthZ dgk gS fd ,sls izek.k i= og tkjh ugha djrsA izn'kZ W-3
mifLFkfr iaftdk ds laca/k esa lk{kh n`<+rk ls ;g ugha dgrk gS fd bl ij A ls B ds e/;
mlds gLrk{kj u gkas] oju~ bu gLrk{kjksa ds ckjs esa mlus dgk gS fd og ugha dg ldrk fd ;g
gLrk{kj mlds gS ;k ughaA bl fLFkfr esa ;g laHkkouk fuewZy ugha gS fd izn'kZ W-3 ij A ls B
gLrk{kj th- vkj- pkSgku us fd;s gksaA
16- izn'kZ W-2 izek.k i= ij fdlh Mh- lkaor] ofj"B izca/kd ds gLrk{kj gaS tks foi{kh ds v/khu
dk;Zjr jgs gaSA mDr Mh- lkaor uked izca/kd dks foi{khx.k us lk{; esa izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA
tcfd Mh- lkaor dk fdlh in ij dk;Zjr gksuk lk{kh th- vkj- pkSgku us Lohdkj fd;k gSA
viuh izfrijh{kk ds var esa lk{kh th- vkj- pkSgku us ;g dgk gS fd
;g lgh gS fd fnukad
01-08-1999 ls 25-10-2004 rd izkFkhZ }kjk fd;k x;k dk;Z xSy bafM;k ds vkWfQl ckW; ds dk;Z ls
lacaf/kr gSA ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 21-09-2004 ls gh lsok ls gVk fn;k FkkA
fo}ku
vfHkHkk"kd foi{khx.k us vius rdZ ds nkSjku lk{kh th- vkj- pkSgku tks fd eq[; egk izca/kd tSls
mRrjnkf;Ro iw.kZ in ij fu;qDr jgs gSa] dh bl LohdkjksfDr ds laca/k esa dksbZ fojks/kh rdZ vFkok
Li"Vhdj.k ugha fd;k gSA ftlls bl dFku dks izHkkoghu ekuk tkosA bl dFku ds izdk'k esa
foi{kh ds nwljs lk{kh NAW-1 fot; ikols dk ;g dFku fd izkFkhZ us 01-08-1999 ls 20-09-2004
rd fujarj dk;Z ugha fd;k] fo'oluh; ugha yxrk gSA
17- foi{kh dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks ds-lh-ekyoh; Bsdsnkj us dk;Z ij j[kk Fkk rFkk mlh ds
}kjk mldh lsok lekIr dh xbZ gSA ;gkW ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ;|fi foi{kh }kjk mDr Bsdsnkj
ls dh xbZ lafcnk@vuqca/k dks lk{; esa iznf'kZr ugha fd;k x;k gS fdarq NAW-1 fot; ikols dk
;g dFku gS fd ds-lh-ekyoh; dkUVsªDV yscj ,DV ds varxZr iathd`r Bsdsnkj Fkk rFkk foi{kh
laLFkku Hkh iathd`r laLFkku gSA izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k us iz/kku fu;kstd ds dk;Z gsrq Bsdsnkj ds
ek/;e ls fu;ksftr Jfed dks iz/kku fu;kstd dk gh deZdkj ekus tkus dk rdZ nsrs gq;s
vf/ku;e dh /kkjk 2 (s) vkSj 2 (g) esa jktLFkku ljdkj }kjk fd;s x;s la'kks/kuksa dh vksj /;ku
vkd`"V fd;k gSA bl rdZ ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk
ikfjr fu.kZ;ksa Jh fd’ku cuke yscj dksVZ ,.M b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy vtesj] jftLVªkj ,e- Mh-
,l- fo’ofo|ky; vtesj cuke yscj dksVZ de b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy] DB Civil Special Appeal
No. 768@2006 vkns'k frfFk 21-01-2013 ¼'kh"kZd ugha½ ,oa efgf"kZ n;kuUn ljLorh fo'ofo|ky;
cuke yscj dksVZ de b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy o vU; esa ikfjr fof/k dk voyEc fy;k x;k gSA
ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd vf/ku;e dh /kkjk
2 (s) vkSj 2 (g) esa fd;s x;s la'kks/ku ds varxZr fdlh m|ksx esa Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;ksftr O;fDr tks
fd iz/kku fu;kstd ds lkFk fu"ikfnr Bsds ds laca/k esa gks] iz/kku fu;kstd dk deZdkj ekuk
tkosxkA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5017
18- ekuuh; vkU/kz izns'k mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; fpuIik ;w- cuke dkWVu dksiksZjs'ku vkWQ
bafM;k o vU; esa ,oa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; bathfu;fjax dkexkj ;wfu;u
cuke bysDVªks LVhy dkfLaVx fyfe- esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd jkT; }kjk ikfjr fof/k ij ;fn
jk"Vªifr dh vuqefr izkIr dj yh xbZ gks rks og dsUnzh; fof/k ij izHkkoh :Ik ls izpfyr ekuh
tkosxhA foi{khx.k dh vksj ls bl vf/ker ds foijhr dksbZ U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr ugha gqvk gSA
bl rF;kRed vkSj fof/kd ifjn`'; esa izkFkhZ dks ;fn Bsdsnkj ds-lh-ekyoh; }kjk fu;ksftr
deZdkj eku Hkh fy;k tkos rks Hkh og iz/kku fu;kstd xSy bafM;k ¼foi{khx.k½ dk gh deZdkj
ekuk tkosxkA
19- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us eS- Hkkjr gsoh bysDVªhdYl fyfe- cuke LVsV vkWQ ;w-ih- ds fu.kZ;
esa ;g Li"V dj fn;k gS fd tc deZdkj iz/kku fu;kstd ds ifjlj esa dk;Z djus gsrq fu;ksftr
fd;k x;k gks rks pkgs mls Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gks] iz/kku fu;kstd vius
nkf;Ro ls mueqDr ugha gks ldrkA
20- ;gk ;g mYys[k Hkh lqlaxr gksxk fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ,d fu'fpr vof/k dh lafonk ds v/khu
Bsdsnkj }kjk fd;k tkuk ;|fi foi{khx.k dk dFku gS] fdarq ,slk dksbZ vuqca/k@lafonk lk{; esa
izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftlls izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ,d fu'fpr vof/k ds fy;s lafonk ij fd;k tkuk
izekf.kr gksA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us phQ lsdszVjh] gfj;k.kk o vU; cuke psrjke ds fu.kZ;
esa ;g dgk gS fd vf/ku;e dh /kkjk 2 (oo) vkSj 2 (bb) ds varxZr tgk fu'fpr vof/k gsrq lafonk
dks uohuhd`r u fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij lsok lekfIr dh xbZ gks fdarq fu;kstd }kjk ml lafonk
dks izekf.kr djus gsrq dksbZ lkexzh izLrqr u dh tkos] rks lsok lekfIr vf/ku;e dh /kkjk 25 F
ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gksxhA blh dze esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; lsdszVjh
gfj;k.kk LVsV bysDVªhflVh cksMZ cuke lqjs'k o vU; esa ;g dgk gS fd tgkW fu;kstd] iz/kku
fu;kstd u gksdj ,d Bsdsnkj gks tks fd vuqKfIr izkIr Bsdsnkj u gks rks ,slh Bsdk O;oLFkk
N}e~ ,oa fn[kkoVh dgh tk;sxhA
21- foi{kh ds lk{kh th-vkj- pkSgku dh izfrijh{kk esa dh xbZ LohdkjksfDr ,oa izn'kZ W-1] izn'kZ W-2]
,oa izn'kZ W-3 dks ek= dwVjfpr dguk rFkk dwVjpuk ds ds vijk/k ds fo:} dksbZ nkf.Md
dk;Zokgh u djus dks] foi{kh dh izyf{kr Lohd`fr dgk tk ldrk gSA izn'kZ W-3 mifLFkfr
iaftdk ij lk{kh th-vkj- pkSgku }kjk Lo;a ds gLrk{kjksa ds gksus ;k u gksus ij n`<+rk ls dksbZ
fu'fpr mRrj u nsuk bl izys[k dh okLrfodrk dh vksj gh bafxr djrk gSA
22- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; ,sXthD;wfVo bathfu;j o vU; ys[kjkt o vU; esa ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; us ;g dgk gS fd deZdkj tc Lo;a dks ijhf{kr djs vkSj izca/ku lk{kh us mDr vof/k
esa deZdkj }kjk dk;Z djus dks Lohdkj fd;k gks rks 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA
blh izdkj ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; lokbZ ek/kksiqj lsUVªy dksijsfVo cSad
cuke v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ o vU; esa ;g dgk gS fd tc izys[kh; lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr gks fd
deZdkj us 240 fnu dk;Z iw.kZ fd;k gS rks izca/ku dh fo[k.MukRed lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g rF;
izekf.kr ekuk tk;sxkA
23- lk{; ,oa fof/k dh bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dk fnukad 01-08-1999 ls 20-09-2004 rd foi{khx.k ds
v/khu vkWfQl ckW; vFkok dk;kZy; lgk;d ¼tks fd vaxzsth ls fgUnh vuqokn dgk tk ldrk gS½
ds in ij fu;ksftr jgdj dk;Z djuk izekf.kr gksrk gS rFkk lsok lekfIr frfFk 21-09-2004 ds
iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z djuk Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gSA
24- foi{kh us vius lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr ugha fd;k gS fd mlus izkFkhZ dks lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ ,d
ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku fd;k gks] bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh
lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu u fd;k tkuk izekf.kr
5018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
gksrk gSA blfy;s foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr voS/k NaVuh izekf.kr gksrh gSA vr%
;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
26- izkFkhZ ukuw flag jkor us vius l'kiFk dFku esa ;g rks dgk gS fd foi{kh ds v/khu mls lsokeqDr
fd;s tkrs le; vusdks twfu;j Jfed dk;Zjr Fks rFkk lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ds ckn u;s Jfedksa
dks HkrhZ fd;k x;kA fdarq izkFkhZ us ,sls fdlh dfu"B Jfed vFkok u;s Jfedksa ds u rks ukeksa dk
mYys[k vius dFku esa fd;k vkSj u ,sls Jfedksa ds fu;qfDr vkns'k vFkok vU; dksbZ izek.k lk{;
esa izLrqr fd;s gSaA izkFkhZ izfrijh{kk esa dgrk gS fd mlls twfu;j fdlh Jfed dk uke mls ;kn
ugha gSA og ;g Hkh ugha crk ldrk fd mUgsa dc vkSj fdl in ij j[kk x;k FkkA og mldh
lsokeqfDr ds ckn j[ks x;s u;s Jfed dk uke Hkh ugha tkurkA izkFkhZ ds bu dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij
;g izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj Jfedksa dks lsok esa j[krs gq;s izkFkhZ dks
lsokeqDr fd;k gks vkSj u;s Jfedksa dks Hkh fu;ksftr fd;k gksA vr% lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g fcUnq
izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
28- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k&1 izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofu'fpr fd;k x;k gS rFkk fnukad 21-09-2004 dks
foi{khx.k }kjk dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu u
fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij voS/k izekf.kr gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok
esa fujarjrk] foxr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;k tkosA tcfd foi{kh dk bl fcUnq
ij fojks/k gSA mudk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks Bsdsnkj }kjk nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :Ik esa
vkdfLed dk;ksaZ gsrq yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk foxr chl o"kksZ ls foi{kh ds v/khu dksbZ dk;Z
ugha fd;k x;k vkSj izkFkhZ [ksrh&ckM+h djrs gq;s Ik;kZIr vk; vius ifjokj ds Hkj.k iks"k.k gsrq
vftZr dj jgk gSA eSaus mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ij fopkj fd;kA izkFkhZ us vius vfHkopuksa vkSj lk{; esa
mls fn;s tk jgs osru dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k gSA fdarq foi{khx.k }kjk izLrqr izn'kZ M- 43,
M-51 o M-52 tks fd eS- ds-lh- ekyoh; }kjk la/kkfjr osru Hkqxrku ii= gS] ds voyksdu ls
izkFkhZ dks 2400@&:- ekfld osru Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk i= esa
;|fi ;g dgk gS fd og lsokeqfDr ds mijkar iw.kZr% csjkstxkj gS fdarq izfrijh{kk esa mlus ;g
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ?kj esa FkksMh cgqr [ksrh&ckM+h gS tks oks gh djrk gSA izkFkhZ us ;g ugha dgk
gS fd og Lo;a vkSj ifjokj ds Hkj.k iks"k.k gsrq fdlh ls lgk;rk izkIr djrk gks ;k fdlh vU;
ij fuHkZj gksA bl fLFkfr esa ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ vius o vius ifjokj ds Hkj.k iks"k.k esa
'kkjhfjd :Ik ls l{ke gSA lsokeqfDr ds mijkar [ksrh&ckM+h djrs gq;s mlus vkthfodk vtZu Hkh
fd;k gSA
29- izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu foi{khx.k
}kjk u fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij gh voS/k ekuk x;k gSA izkFkhZ lQkbZ dehZ ds nSfud osru Hkksxh
in ij vLFkkbZ deZpkjh Fkk ftldh lsok;sa foi{khx.k us Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls izkIr dh FkhA izkFkhZ
dh fu;qfDr fdlh LFkkbZ ,oa fjDr in ds fo:} ugha Fkh] u gh ;g fu;qfDr foi{kh dh fofgr
p;u izfdz;k ds varxZr dh xbZ FkhA lsok lekfIr dks voS/k ik;s tkus ds mijkar iqu% mlh in
ij cgkyh Lor% ugha gks tkrh gS] oju~ izdj.k ds lqlaxr rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj djrs
gq;s ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS fd D;k cgky fd;k tkuk vkSj foxr osru fnyok;k tkuk
vko';d gSA vFkok mls ,d fu’fpr izfrdj jkf'k ,d eq’r fnyok;s tkus ls U;k; dk mn~s';
gy gks ldrk gSA bl izdj.k esa ;fn izkFkhZ dks iqu% mlh in ij inLFkkfir djus dk vkns'k
ikfjr fd;k tkos rks foi{kh dks ;g fof/kd vf/kdkj lnSo miyC/k jgsxk fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk fof/kor vuqikyu dj og izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok ls i`Fkd dj nsA bl izdj.k
esa ,slh dksbZ fLFkfr fo|eku ugha gS ftlls izkFkhZ dks lsok esa cgky u fd;s tkus ij mlds
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5019
lekurk ds vf/kdkj dk vFkok ofj"Brk dk guu gksuk izdV gksrk gksA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dh
izd`fr] fd;s x;s dk;Z dh vof/k vkSj izkFkhZ }kjk lsokeqfDr ds mijkar vftZr vk; dks fopkfjr
djrs gq;s bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr vf/ker ls izkFkhZ dks lsok esa iqu% izR;kLFkkfir fd;k tkuk
U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA izkFkhZ dks ,deq'r izfrdj ds :Ik esa pkj yk[k :- foi{kh ls Hkqxrku djok;s
tkus ls U;k;fgr lk/ku gks ldrk gSA
30- vr% foi{khx.k }kjk fnukad 21-09-2004 dks dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 25 F ds foijhr ik;s tkus ij voS/k ?kksf"kr djus ds mijkar izkFkhZ dks iqu% foi{khx.k dh
lsok esa izR;kLFkkfir u djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks ,deq'r izfrdj ds :Ik esa pkj yk[k :- foi{khx.k
}kjk Hkqxrku djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA foi{khx.k izfrdj jkf'k dk Hkqxrku vf/kfu.kZ; ds
izoZruh; gksus dh frfFk ls 2 ekg dh vof/k esa izkFkhZ dks djs] vU;Fkk izkFkhZ bl jkf'k ij
9 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt nj ls C;kt Hkh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA
31- lanfHkZr fookn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA
32- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa
izdk
kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA
33- U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 26-09-2024 dks lquk;k x;kA
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2133.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj केन्द्रीय लोक गिममाण गिभमि ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] चंडीगढ़-I ds iapkV
(04/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-236]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2024
S.O. 2133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.04/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-I 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)-236]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.04/2023
Registered On:-10.05.2023
Hira Singh S/o Sh. Matha Ram R/o Village Droul, Post Office Satog, Tehsil Theog, Himachal Pradesh-171209.
...........Workman
Versus
1.
Executive Engineer, CPWD, Kennedy Cottage, Chaura Maidan, Rd. Nabha, Near Vidhan Sabha Shimla
Himachal Pradesh 171004.
2.
M/s Soni Management and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. Grand Hotel, CPWD, Near Kali Bari Mandir, The Mall
Road, Shimla-171001.
........Respondents
5020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed On:-12.08.2024
1.
The workman Sh. Hira Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.
2.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the Workman expired and AR for Workman
made a statement that none of the LR has contacted the representative of the Workman for impleading them as LRs. It
is further stated that it appears none is interested to pursue the present case and the same may be disposed off
accordingly.
3.
Since the workman has expired and LRs are also not interested to pursue the case further, therefore the
present case is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in
the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the
ID Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2134.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
सन जसक्यूररटी सर्विसेि, सवे नं.67 परमार नगर, पुणे; मिाप्रबंिक, बीएसएनएल, अिमिनगर; उपजवभागीय अजभयंता,
बीएसएनएल, कोपरगांव अिमिनगर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री बालू ओंकार पवार, कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिनगर, पंचाट (संिभि संख्या Reference (IDA) No. 23/2019
(CNR No. MHLC160000792019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार
को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-128-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 20th November, 2024
S.O. 2134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference (IDA) No. 23/2019(CNR No. MHLC160000792019) of the
Labour Court, Ahmednagar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Sun security Services, Survey No.67 Parmar nagar, Pune; The General Manager, BSNL, Ahmednagar; The
Sub division Engineer, BSNL, Kopargaon Ahmednagar, and Shri Balu Omkar Pawar, Worker, which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 13.11.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-128-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR
(Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmednagar)
Exh. O-13
Reference (IDA) No. 23/2019
(CNR No. MHLC160000792019)
1.
M/s.Sun Security Services,
Survye No.67, 1st Floor,
Parmar Nagar-3,
Pune 411013.
2.
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
D.T.O. Compound, Near G.P.O.
Ahmednagar 414002.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 23, 2024/अग्रिायण 2, 1946
5021
3.
Sub Divl.Engineer,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Kopargaon, Distt, Ahmednagar
Ahmednagar
... First Party
Vs.
Balu Omkar Pawar
Age: 41 years, Occ.: Nil,
At Po.: Khadki, Tal.: Kopargaon,
Dist.: Ahmednagar.
... Second Party
AWARD
( Date: 10-07-2024)
3.
This reference is referred by the Section Officer, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi vide referral order dated 28-03-2019 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party Balu
Omkar Pawar was dismissed from service on 7-2-2018. The reference was made to decide issue 1. whether
the action taken by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he deserves
to reinstate with full back wages and continuity in service ?
4.
Accordingly, the second party Balu Omkar Pawar has filed his statement of Claim on record. In pursuance
of notice, First Party no.2 & 3 appeared and filed their W.S. but though notices is served to First Party No.1
he did not appear and not file any W.S.
5.
The Second Party remained absent and though various opportunities given to him he did not adduce any
evidence. Therefore, this Court having no alternative but to record negative finding to both the issues.
Therefore I am inclined to pass the following order-
AWARD
1.
The reference is answered in the “negative”.
2.
Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of
Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action.
Dated :10.07.2024
SHARAD G.DESHPANDE. Presiding officer
दिल्ली, 20 नवम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 2135.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार सन
जसक्यूररटी सर्विसेि, सवे नं.67 परमार नगर, पुणे; मिाप्रबंिक, बीएसएनएल, अिमिनगर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध
जनयोिकों और श्री गणेि बालासािेब अनाप, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिनगर,पंचाट
(संिभि संख्या Reference (IDA) No. 25/2019(CNR No. MHLC160000812019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया
िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 13.11.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल– 42025-07-2024-141-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 20th November, 2024
S.O. 2135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference (IDA) No. 25/2019(CNR No. MHLC160000812019) of the
Labour Court, Ahmednagar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Sun security Services, Survey No.67 Parmar nagar, Pune; The General Manager, BSNL, Ahmednagar; and
Shri Ganesh Balasaheb Anap, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 13.11.2024.
[No. L-42025-07-2024-141-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
5022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 23, 2024/AGRAYANA 2, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR
(Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar)
Exh. O-11
Reference (IDA) No. 25/2019
(CNR No. MHLC160000812019)
1.
M/s.Sun Security Services,
Survye No.67, 1st Floor,
Parmar Nagar-3,
Pune 411013.
2.
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
D.T.O. Compound, Near G.P.O.
Ahmednagar 414002.
... First Party
Vs.
Ganesh Balasaheb Anap,
Age: 41 years, Occ.: Nil,
C/o. Near Neharu Garden, Maliwada,
Tal.: Sangamner, Dist.: Ahmednagar,
Ahmednagar 414002.
… Second Party
AWARD
( Date: 10-07-2024)
1.
This reference is referred by the Section Officer, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi vide referral order dated 28-03-2019 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party
Ganesh Balasaheb Anap was dismissed from service on 7-2-2018. The reference was made to decide issue 1.
whether the action taken by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he
deserves to reinstate with full back wages and continuity in service ?
2.
Accordingly, the second party Ganesh Balasaheb Anap has filed his statement of Claim on record. In
pursuance of notice, First Party no.2 appeared and filed their W.S. but though notices is served to First Party
No.1 he did not appear and not file any W.S.
3.
The Second Party remained absent and though various opportunities given to him he did not adduce any
evidence. Therefore, this Court having no alternative but to record negative finding to both the issues.
Therefore I am inclined to pass the following order-
AWARD
1.
The reference is answered in the “negative”.
2.
Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of
Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action.
Dated :10.07.2024
SHARAD G.DESHPANDE, 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: 2024.11.28 15:19:17 +05'30'