175 GI/2025

(1)

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. 01]

नई दिल् ली, िनवरी 12—िनवरी—18, 2025, िजनवार/ पौष 22—पौष 28, 1946

No. 01]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 12—JANUARY—18, 2025, SATURDAY/PAUSHA 22–PAUSHA 28, 1946

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

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उप- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जविेि मन्त्राल

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 13 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 1.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िप एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एति् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार, िनवरी 13, 2024 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवविन करने के जलए जविेि में भारती

जमिनों/पोस्ट्टों में सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारर ों के प प में इस मंत्राल के नीचे उजल्लज त अजिकारर ों की जन ुजि करता

िज:

क्रम

सं.

अजिकारी का नाम और पि

जमिन / पोस्ट्ट जिसमें सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के

प प में जन ुि दक ा ग ा िज

श्री पंकि भौ ावल, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारती िूतावास, पेररस

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-27012025-260513

CG-DL-W-27012025-260513

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-27012025-260513

CG-DL-W-27012025-260513

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्री जनज ल िास ,वजिक सिा क

भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, सैंट –डेजनस

श्री सुिीत कुमार ससंि, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारती िूतावास, बनव

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(01)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 13th January, 2025

S.O. 1.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers

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

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

from January 13, 2024:

Sl. No

Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant

Consular Officer

Mr. Pankaj Bhouryal, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Paris

Mr. Nikhil Das, Personal Assistant

Consulate General of India, Saint Denis

Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Berne

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2025(01)]

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

कार्मवक, लोक जिका त त ा पेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मवक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 2.—केन् द्री सरकार दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की िारा 5 की

उप-िारा (1) सपर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए अजिसूचना सं्‍ ा 9/सी.बी.आई.-80-03/2024

एचपी-7903/पटना, दिनांक 16.07.2024 और िुजिपत्र अजिसूचना सं्‍ ा 9/ सी.बी.आई.-80-03/2024

एचपी13292/पटना, दिनांक 14.11.2024, गषि जवभाग के माध् म से िारी जबिार सरकार की सम्मजत से 5 मई 2024

को आ ोजित नीट ( ूिी) 2024 परीक्षा में हुई अजन जमतताओं के संबंि में मिुबनी ाना, पूर्णव ा जिला, जबिार में

भारती िंड संजिता की िारा 419/ 420/ 467 /468 /34 के तित ििव की गई एफआईआर सं्‍ ा 25/24 त ा ऐसे

अपराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबि दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए

ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन् अपराि का अन्वेषण/ जनगरानी और िांच करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन

के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त जबिार और मामले से संबंजित अन् स्ट् ानों में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/100/2024-एवीडी-II]

सत् म श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department Of Personnel And Training)

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2024

S.O. 2.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

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

Government of Bihar, issued vide Notification No.9/C.B.I-80-03/2024 HP-7903/ Patna, Dated 16.07.2024 and

Corrigendum Notification No. 9/C.B.I-80-03/2024 HP13292/ Patna, Dated 14.11.2024, Home Department, hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction to the whole of Bihar and other places related to the Case to members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to investigate/supervise and inquire into the FIR No. 25/24, registered at Madhubani

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

Police Station under Purnia District, Bihar, under sections 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 34 of IPC, which relates to

irregularities in NEET (UG) 2024 examination held on 5th May 2024 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in

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

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/100/2024-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 3.—केंद्री सरकार दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का केंद्री अजिजन म 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए तेलंगाना राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना

सं. िी.ओ.एमएस.सं.79 दिनांक 19.11.2024, गषि (जविेष) जवभाग के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से रािीव गांिी अंतरावष्ट्री

िवाई अड्डा (आरिीआईए), िजिराबाि के सीमा िुल्क जवभाग के कमवचारर ों के जवरुि केन्द्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो, भ्रष्टाचार

जनरोिक िा ा, िजिराबाि को श्री मोिम्मि मुल्तानी, पुत्र अब्िुल अिीि मोिम्मि, जनवासी नारा ण ेड़, संगारेड्डी,

तेलंगाना से प्राप्त हुई दिनांक 15.10.2024 की ई-मेल जिका त त ा जिका तकताव द्वारा ििव कराई गई दिनांक

16.10.2024 की जिका त में उजल्लज त आरोपों सजित 1) श्री जवन कुमार, जनरीक्षक, सीमा िुल्क जवभाग, आरिीआईए,

िजिराबाि 2) श्री मुकेि कुमार, जनरीक्षक, सीमा िुल्क जवभाग, आरिीआईए, िजिराबाि 3) श्री बी. संतोष कुमार, केनरा बैंक

सीमा िुल्क संग्रि केन्द्र, आरिीआईए, िजिराबाि 4) अज्ञात लोक सेवकों एवं अज्ञात गजर-सरकारी व्यजि ों के जवरुि भ्रष्टाचार

जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का अजिजन म सं. 49) (2018 में ासंिोजित) की िारा 7 (ए), भारती न् ा

संजिता, 2023 की िारा 61 के अंतगवत िंडनी अपराि त ा उि मामले के अन्वेषण के िौरान सामने आने वाले दकसी अन्

अपराि सजित ऐसे एक ा उससे अजिक अपराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबि दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र

एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन् अपराि एवं दिनांक 15.10.2024 की ई-मेल

जिका त त ा जिका तकताव द्वारा ििव कराई गई दिनांक 16.10.2024 की जिका त के आिार पर अन् संच ी अपरािों में

जन जमत मामला/अन्वेषण का संचालन करने के जलए िी.ओ.एमएस.सं.51, गषि (जविेष) जवभाग, दिनांक 30.08.2022 में

िारी आिेिों में रर ा त िेते हुए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन के सभी सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त तेलंगाना राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/101/2024-एवीडी-II]

सत् म श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2024

S.O. 3.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

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

Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 19.11.2024, Home (Special) Department,

hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of all the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of

the State of Telangana for conducting regular case/investigation into allegations mentioned in email complaint dated

15.10.2024 and complaint dated 16.10.2024 lodged by the complainant received by CBI, ACB, Hyderabad from Shri

Mohammed Multani, S/o Abdul Aziz Mohammed, R/o Narayankhed, Sangareddy, Telangana against Officials of

Customs Department in Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA), Hyderabad including regular case/investigation into

any other offence that may come to light during the investigation of the said case including any attempt, abetment and

conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more such offences and/or any offence committed in the course of

such transaction or arising out of the same facts against 1) Shri Vinay Kumar, Inspector of Customs Department, RGIA,

Hyderabad, 2) Shri Mukesh Kumar, Inspector of Customs Department, RGIA, Hyderabad, 3) Shri B.Santosh Kumar,

Officer, Canara Bank Customs Duty Collection Counter, RGIA, Hyderabad, 4) Unknown Public Servants and Unknown

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Private Persons punishable under section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No.49 of 1988) (as

amended in 2018), Sec. 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & other cumulative offences on the basis of email

complaint dated 15.10.2024 and complaint dated 16.10.2024 lodged by the complainant, in relaxation of the orders

issued in G.O.Ms.No.51, Home (Special) Department, dated 30.08.2022.

[F. No. 228/101/2024-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 4.—केंद्री सरकार दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का अजिजन म सं. 25) की

िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए जनम्नजलज त अपरािों को जवजनर्िवष्ट करती िज, जिनका अन्वेषण भी दिल्ली

जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन के सिस्ट् ों द्वारा दक ा िाना िज, नामतः :-

(क) “छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ (प्रजतषेि) अजिजन म 2022 (2023 का अजिजन म सं. 4)” के अंतगवत िंडनी अपराि।

( ) “सावविजनक िुआ अजिजन म, 1867 ासंिोजित सावविजनक िुआ (मध् प्रिेि संिोिन) अजिजन म, 1976

(1976 का अजिजन म सं. 47)’’ के अंतगवत िंडनी अपराि।

(ग) उप ुवि अपराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबि दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार

में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्पन्न कोई अन् अपराि।

[फा. सं. 228/76/2024-एवीडी-II/1]

सत् म श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th December, 2024

S.O. 4.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are also to be

investigated by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely :-

(a) Offences punishable under “The Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 (Act No. 4 of 2023)”.

(b) Offences punishable under “The Public Gambling Act, 1867 as amended as Public Gambling (Madhya Pradesh

amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 47 of 1976)”.

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

[F. No. 228/76/2024-AVD-II/1]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 5.—केन्द्र सरकार, एति् द्वारा, दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का अजिजन म

25) की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, छत्तीसगढ़ राज् सरकार की

िो अजिसूचनाओं, सं. एफ-4-156/गषि-सी/2024, दिनांक 22.08.2024 त ा सं. एफ-4-157/गषि-सी/2024, दिनांक

23.08.2024, गषि जवभाग (सी-अनुभाग), मंत्राल , मिानिी भवन, नवा रा पुर, अटल नगर के अजिक्रमण में संिोजित

अजिसूचना सं. एफ-4-156/गषि-सी/2024 दिनांक 04.10.2024, गषि (सी-अनुभाग) जवभाग, मंत्राल , मिानिी भवन,

नवा रा पुर, अटल नगर के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से ाना, राज् आर् वक अपराि ब् ूरो, छत्तीसगढ़ रा पुर, छत्तीसगढ़

में भा.िं.सं. की िारा 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120बी एवं भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 [ ासंिोजित

भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण (संिोिन) अजिजन म, 2018] की िारा 7, 7ए और छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ (प्रजतषेि) अजिजन म, 2022 की

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

िारा 4, 7, 8, 11 एवं सावविजनक द्युत अजिजन म, 1867 ( ासंिोजित सावविजनक द्युत (मध् प्रिेि संिोिन)

अजिजन म, 1976) की िारा 4 क के अंतगवत ििव अपराि सं. 06/2024 का अन्वेषण करने त ा मिािेव ऑनलाइन िुआ

के संबंि में राज् के जवजभन्न ानों में ििव दकए गए अन्वेषणािीन जनम्नजलज त 12 मामलों

रेंि रा पुर

क्रम सं.

जिला

ाना

अपराि सं./िारा

मामले

की

अद्यतन

जस्ट् जत

रा पुर

गंि

184/2024, भा.िं.सं. की िारा 420, 120बी, िुआ

अजिजन म की िारा 4(क) त ा छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ

(प्रजतषेि) अजिजन म, 2022 की िारा 07, आईटी

अजिजन म की िारा 66सी और तार अजिजन म,

1885 की िारा 25 (सी)

फरार आरोजप ों का

पता एवं तलाि

अन्वेषण के अिीन

रा पुर

गंि

188/2024, भा.िं.सं. की िारा 420, 120बी, िुआ

अजिजन म की िारा 4(क) त ा छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ

(प्रजतषेि) अजिजन म, 2022 की िारा 07, आईटी

अजिजन म की िारा 66सी, तार अजिजन म, 1885

की िारा 25 (सी)

फरार आरोजप ों का

पता एवं तलाि

अन्वेषण के अिीन

रा पुर

गंि

181/2024, िुआ अजिजन म की िारा 07 त ा

बीएनएस की िोड़ी गई िारा 318(4), 61(2), आईटी

अजिजन म की िारा 66सी एवं भारती तार

अजिजन म की िारा 25 (सी)

फरार आरोजप ों का

पता एवं तलाि

अन्वेषण के अिीन

रा पुर

जसजवल लाइन

390/23, िुआ अजिजन म, 2022 की िारा 7ए, 8

अन्वेषण के अिीन

रा पुर

रटकरापारा

05/2024, छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ अजिजन म, 2022 की

िारा 4(क), 6, 7

अन्वेषण के अिीन

रेंि जबलासपुर

िांिगीर – चांपा

जिवरीनारा ण

303/23, भा.िं.सं. की िारा 420, 506बी, 34,

120बी, छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ प्रजतषेि अजिजन म की िारा

06, 07

अन्वेषण के अिीन

सिी

182/24, छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ प्रजतषेि अजिजन म की िारा

अन्वेषण के अिीन

सिी

197/24, छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ प्रजतषेि अजिजन म की

िारा 7

अन्वेषण के अिीन

सिी

226/24, छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ प्रजतषेि अजिजन म की िारा

अन्वेषण के अिीन

रेंि सरगुिा

सूरिपुर

267/23, िुआ अजिजन म की िारा 11

अन्वेषण के अिीन

सूरिपुर

268/23, िुआ अजिजन म की िारा 11

अन्वेषण के अिीन

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सूरिपुर

90/23, छत्तीसगढ़ िुआ प्रजतषेि अजिजन म, 2022

की िारा 6, 7

अन्वेषण के अिीन

त ा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबि दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में

दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन् अपराि का का केन्द्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो द्वारा अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली

जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त छत्तीसगढ़ में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/76/2024-एवीडी-II]

सत् म श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th December, 2024

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

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

Government of Chhattisgarh, issued vide Amended Notification No. F-4-156/Home-C/2024 dated 04.10.2024, Home

(C-Section) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar in supersession of both the

notifications No. F-4-156/Home-C/2024:: dated 22.08.2024 and No. F-4-157/Home-C/2024:: dated 23.08.2024 Home

Department (C-Section), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction to the whole of Chhattisgarh to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation

of the Case Crime No. 06/2024 of the Police Station, State Economic Offence Bureau, Chhattisgarh Raipur,

Chhattisgarh u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B IPC and section 7, 7A of PC Act, 1988 [As amended by PC

(Amendment) Act, 2018] and u/s 4,7,8,11 of Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 and u/s 4 A of Public

Gambling Act, 1867 (as amended Public Gambling (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976) and for the

investigation of the following 12 cases by CBI, lodged in connection with Mahadev Online Gambling in various

police stations of the state that are under investigation.

Range Raipur

Sr.

No.

District

Police Station

Crime No./Section

Updated status of

the case

Raipur

Ganj

184/2024 Section 420, 120B IPC, Section 4(A)

Gambling Act and Section 07 of Chhattisgarh

Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022, Section 66 C of IT

Act and section 25 (c) of Telegraph Act, 1885

Location and Search

for the absconding

accused

under

Investigation.

Raipur

Ganj

188/2024 Section 420, 120B IPC, Sec 4(A)

Gambling Act and Section 07 of Chhattisgarh

Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022, Section 66 C of IT

Act and section 25 (c) of Telegraph Act ,1885

Location and Search

for the absconding

accused

under

Investigation.

Raipur

Ganj

181/2024 Section 07 of Gambling Act, and added

section 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, Section 66 C of IT Act

and Section 25(c) of Indian Telegraph Act

Location and Search

for the absconding

accused

under

Investigation.

Raipur

Civil Line

390/23, Section 7A, 8 of Gambling Act, 2022

Under Investigation.

Raipur

Tikrapara

05/2024, Section 4(A), 6, 7, Chhattisgarh Gambling

Act, 2022

Under investigation.

Range Bilaspur

Janjgir

Champa

Shivri

Narayan

303/23, Section 420, 506B, 34, 120B of IPC, Section

06, 07 of Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act.

Under investigation.

Sakti

182/24, Section 7 Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition

Act.

Under investigation.

Sakti

197/24, Section 7 Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition

Act.

Under investigation.

Sakti

226/24, Section 7 Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition

Act.

Under investigation.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

Range Sarguja

10.

Surajpur

267/23, Section 11 Gambling Act

Under investigation.

11.

Surajpur

268/23, Section 11 Gambling Act

Under investigation.

12.

Surajpur

90/23,

Section

Chhattisgarh

Gambling

Prohibition Act 2022

Under investigation.

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

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

[F. No. 228/76/2024-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 6.—केन् द्री सरकार दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का अजिजन म सं. 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, अजिसूचना सं. 50311/गषि-सीपीएम-

एमआईएससी-0102-2023/सीपीएंडएम, भुवनेश्वर, दिनांक 27.12.2023 और िुजिपत्र अजिसूचना सं. 40222/गषि-

सीपीएम-एमआईएससी-0102-2023/सीपीएंडएम, भुवनेश्वर, दिनांक 30.10.2024, गषि जवभाग के माध् म से िारी

ओजडिा राज् सरकार की दिनांक 14.11.2021 से प्रभावी का ोत्तर स्ट्वीकषजत से, िजसा दक केन्द्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो, जविेष

का व िा ा द्वारा सीबीआई, मामला सं. आरसी-059/2021/एस/0009/ सीबीआई /एसटीबी/नई दिल्ली के संबंि में अनुरोि

दक ा ग ा ा, अजभ ुि कुन्हु चरण बडत् ा (मोबाइल नंबर: 7978788207 और 9692833199), जनवासी पंडारा स्ट्रीट,

ओल्ड ब्रह्मपुर, सिर, गंिम, ओजडिा-760009 द्वारा दकए गए अपराि िोदक सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 और

लैंजगक अपरािों से बालकों का संरक्षण अजिजन म, 2012 (पॉक्सो अजिजन म) के प्राविानों के अंतगवत िंडनी िैं, का

ओजडिा राज् में अन्वेषण करने के जलए (दिनांक 14.11.2021 से का ोत्तर प्रभाव से) दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन के

सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार करती िज।

आरोपों के अनुसार, श्री कुन्हु चरण बडत् ा (मोबाइल नंबर: 7978788207 और 9692833199), जनवासी पंडारा

स्ट्रीट, ओल्ड ब्रह्मपुर, सिर, गंिम, ओजडिा-760009, त ा अन् अजभ ुिों नामतः तजव ा अल्पेि उकाभाई पुत्र श्री उकाभाई,

जनवासी रंगपुर, बोटाि, भावनगर, गुिरात, श्री वाला जचरंि कुमार मनुभाई पुत्र श्री मनुभाई, जनवासी वािी जवस्ट्तार, गांव

सोलाई तालुका, सुत्रपाड़ा, जिला जगर सोमना , गुिरात-362275, श्री सत् म ससंि जनवासी मकान सं्‍ ा 1206, गली सं्‍ ा

3, बी ब्लॉक, बाबा कॉलोनी, बुराड़ी, सेंरल दिल्ली और कुछ अन् (अज्ञात) व्यजि बाल अश्लील सामग्री साझा/प्रेजषत करने के

आि से इलेक्रॉजनक प प में एक बालक को संजलप्त करने वाली अश्लील सामग्री संग्रजित करने/कब्िे में र ने, वाजणजज् क उद्देश्

के जलए एक बालक को संजलप्त करने वाली अश्लील सामग्री को इलेक्रॉजनक प प में संग्रजित करने/कब्िे में र ने, इलेक्रॉजनक प प

में अश्लील सामग्री प्रकाजित ा प्रेजषत करने और बालकों को अश्लील ा अभद्र ा ौन उत्तेिक प प में ििावने आदि वाली सामग्री

को इलेक्रॉजनक प प में एकत्र करने, ोिने, ा ब्राउज़ करने में संजलप्त े।

उपरोि तथ् , प्र म िष्ट ा, सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 की िारा 67 और 67बी त ा लैंजगक अपरािों से

बालकों का संरक्षण अजिजन म, 2012 की िारा 15 के तित िंडनी अपरािों का काररत िोना उिागर करते िैं।

[फा. सं. 228/104/2024-एवीडी-II]

सत् म श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2024

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

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

w.e.f 14.11.2021 of the State Government of Odisha, issued vide Notification No. 50311/,Home-CPM-MISC-0102-

2023/CP&M, Bhubaneswar, Dated the 27.12.2023, Home Department and Corrigendum Notification No. 40222/Home-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

CPM-MISC-0102-2023/CP&M/ Bhubaneswar, Dated the 30.10.2024, Home Department, as was sought for by CBI,

Special Task Branch, in respect of CBI Case No. RC-059/2021/S/0009/CBI/STB/NEW DELHI, hereby extends the

powers and jurisdiction to the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f 14.11.2021) for

investigation of offences, committed by the accused Kunhu Charan Badatya (Mobile Nos. 7978788207 and

9692833199), a resident of Pandara Street, Old Brahampur, Sadar, Ganjam Odisha-760009, in the State of Odisha,

punishable under the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 and The Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

As per the allegations Sh. Kunhu Charan Badatya (Mobile Nos. 7978788207 and 9692833199), a resident of

Pandara Street, Old Brahampur, Sadar, Ganjam Odisha-760009, other accused persons namely Taviya Alpesh Ukabhai

S/o Sh. Ukabhai R/o Rangpur, Botad, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, Shri Vala Chiranjay Kumar Manubhai S/o Manubhai R/o Vadi

Vistar Village Solai Taluka, Sutrapada, District-Gir Somnath, Gujarat-362275, Sh. Satyam Singh R/o H.No.1206, Gali

No. 3, B Block, Baba Colony, Burari Central Delhi and some others (unknown) were indulging in storing/possessing

pornographic material in electronic form involving a child with an intention to share/ transmit child pornography,

storing/possessing pornographic material in electronic form involving a child for commercial purpose, publishing or

transmitting obscene material in electronic form and collecting, seeking, browsing material in electronic form, depicting

children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner etc.

The above facts, prima-facie, disclose commission of offences punishable under Section 67,67B of The

Information Technology Act, 2000 and under section 15 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)

Act, 2012.

[F. No. 228/104/2024-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 7.—केन् द्री सरकार दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का केन्द्री अजिजन म 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केरल राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना

सं. िी.ओ.(एमएस.) सं.78/2021/गषि, दिनांक 18.03.2021, गषि(एम) जवभाग, जतरुवनंतपुरम (एस.आर.ओ.

सं. 301/2021) और िुजि-पत्र अजिसूचना सं. िी.ओ.(एमएस.) सं.242/2024/गषि, दिनांक 17.11.2024, गषि(एम)

जवभाग, जतरुवनंतपुरम (एस.आर.ओ. सं. 1060/2024) के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से, सीबीआई मामला सं.

आरसी0332021ए0002 में सीमा-िुल्क जवभाग के श्री िोस के.एम., अिीक्षक, गणपजत पॉट्टी, अिीक्षक, ासर अराफात

के., जनरीक्षक, सत् मेंद्र ससंि, अिीक्षक, नरेि, जनरीक्षक, सुिीर, जनरीक्षक, संिीव कुमार, जनरीक्षक, रमेन्द्र ससंि, जनरीक्षक,

ोगेि, जनरीक्षक, अिोकन सी., प्रिान िवलिार, फ्ांजसस, िवलिार, श्रीमती आिा एस., अिीक्षक, सुश्री जमजनमॉल

वी.सी., जनरीक्षक और श्री मणी, उप-कमवचारी और अन् के जवरुि भारती िंड संजिता (1860 का केन्द्री अजिजन म 45)

की िारा 120बी सपर त िारा 420 त ा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (2018 के केंद्री अजिजन म 16 द्वारा

ासंिोजित) की िारा 7, 8 और 12 के तित अजभकज त िंडनी अपराि काररत करने, सा िी इस मामले से संबंजित

उसी तथ् से उत्पन्न संव्यविार के क्रम में काररत अपरािों एवं उनसे िुड़े मामलों त ा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं

तथ् ों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन् अपराि और/अ वा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबि दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा

और/अ वा षड्यंत्र का पंिीकरण और अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 15.04.2021 से) समस्ट्त केरल राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/30/2023-एवीडी-II]

रािीव कुमार रे, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2024

S.O. 7.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

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

State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification No.G.O.(Ms.) No. 78/2021/HOME dated 18.03.2021, Home(M)

Department,

Thiruvananthapuram

(S.R.O.

No.

301/2021)

and

Erratum

Notification

No.

G.O.(Ms.)

No. 242/ 2024/HOME dated 17.11.2024, Home(M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram (S.R.O. No. 1060/2024),

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto

w.e.f. 15.04.2021) in the whole of the State of Kerala in CBI Case RC0332021A0002 for the registration and

investigation of the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 120B read with 420 Indian Penal Code

(Central Act 45 of 1860) and sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( as amended by the

Central Act 16 of 2018) against Shri Jose K.M., Superintendent, Ganapathy Potty, Superintendent, Yaser Arafath K.,

Inspector, Satyamendra Singh, Superintendent, Naresh, Inspector, Sudhir, Inspector, Sanjeev Kumar, Inspector,

Ramendra Singh, Inspector, Yogesh, Inspector, Ashokan C., Head Havildar, Francis, Havildar, Smt. Asha S.,

Superintendent, Ms. Minimol V.C., Inspector and Shri Mani, Sub-staff of Customs Department and others including

offences committed in the course of transaction arising out of the same fact, in regard to this case, and the matters

related thereto and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)

and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/30/2023-AVD-II]

RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 8.—केंद्री सरकार दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का केन्द्री अजिजन म 25)

की िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपर त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए केरल राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना

िी.ओ.(एमएस.) सं.258/2024/गषि दिनांक 28.11.2024, गषि (एम) जवभाग, जतरुवनंतपुरम (एस.आर.ओ सं.

1107/2024) के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से मेससव श्री वत्स इंटरनेिनल प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, इसके प्रजतजनजि प्रबंि जनिेिक

एवं जनिेिक, श्रीमती रे ा आर.एल पत्नी श्री भूतसलंगम के., प्रबंि जनिेिक मेससव श्री वत्स इंटरनेिनल प्राइवेट जलजमटेड,

श्री भूतसलंगम के., पुत्र श्री कांतास्ट्वामी, जनिेिक मेससव श्री वत्स इंटरनेिनल प्राइवेट जलजमटेड त ा अज्ञात लोकसेवकों एवं

गजर-सरकारी व्यजि ों, दि कोई िों, के जवप ि भारती िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का केंद्री अजिजन म 45) की िारा

120बी सपर त िारा 420 एवं 406 त ा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा

ासंिोजित) की िारा 13 की उप-िारा (2) सपर त उप-िारा (1) का ंड (क) के अंतगवत िंडनी अपरािों त ा इस

मामले के संबंि में, समस्ट्त केरल राज् के अंिर, समान तथ् ों से उत्पन्न संव्यविार में काररत अन् अपरािों त ा ऐसे

ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन् अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् ापन के सिस्ट् ों की

िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल राज् में करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/108/2024-एवीडी-II]

रािीव कुमार रे, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2024

S.O. 8.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

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

Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O.(Ms.)No.258/2024/HOME dated 28.11.2024, Home (M)

Department, Thiruvananthapuram (S.R.O No. 1107/2024), hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to the members

of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole state of Kerala for investigation of offences punishable under

section 120 B read with sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) and sub section

(2) read with clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended vide

Act 16 of 2018) against M/s Sri Vatsa International Private Limited represented by its Managing Director and Director,

Smt Rekha R.L W/o Shri Boothalingam.K, Managing Director M/s Sri Vatsa International Private Limited, Shri

Boothalingam.K, S/o Shri Kanthaswamy, Director M/s Sri Vatsa International Private Limited and unknown public

servants and private persons, if any, for commission of offences punishable under the said Acts and any other offences

committed in the course of transaction arising out of the same fact, in regard to this case, within the whole state of

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

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

[F. No. 228/108/2024-AVD-II]

RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

रेल मंत्राल

(रेलवे बोडव)

नई दिल्ली, 5 अगस्ट् त, 2024

का.आ. 9.—रेल मंत्राल (रेलवे बोडव), रािभाषा जन म, 1976 (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) के

जन म-10 के उपजन म(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में जनम्नजलज त का ावल ों ििााँ 80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकारर ों/

कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िज:-

1. मंडल रेल प्रबंिक का ावल , पूवव रेलवे, आसनसोल

2. इंजड न रेलवे केटररंग एण्ड टूररज्म कॉरपोरेिन जलजमटेड, एरर ा का ावल , िानापुर

3. इरकॉन इंटरनेिनल जलजमटेड, जसलीगुड़ी परर ोिना का ावल

[फा. सं. सिंिी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(1863400)]

डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक, (रािभाषा)

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(Railway Board)

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2024

S.O. 9.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule-10 of the

Official Langauge Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where

80 percent or more officers/employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. DRM Office, Eastern Railway, Asansol.

2. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation LTD., Area Office, Danapur.

3. Ircon International LTD., Siliguri Project Office.

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/(1863400)]

Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director, (O.L.)

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 10.—रेल मंत्राल (रेलवे बोडव), रािभाषा जन म, 1976 (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) के

1. स्ट्टेिन प्रबंिक, गुमानी .

2. स्ट्टेिन प्रबंिक, कोटालपो र.

3. स्ट्टेिन प्रबंिक, पाकुड़.

4. स्ट्टेिन प्रबंिक, नगरनबी.

5. स्ट्टेिन प्रबंिक, जिकारीपाड़ा.

6. सिा क कार्मवक अजिकारी का ावल , सीनी कार ाना.

7. बहु जवष क क्षेत्री प्रजिक्षण संस्ट् ान, ड़गपुर .

[फा. सं. सिंिी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(1935521)]

डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक, (रािभाषा)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2024

S.O. 10.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule-10 of the

Official Langauge Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where

80 percent or more officers/employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Station Manager, Gumani.

2. Station Manager, Kotalpukur.

3. Station Manager, Pakur.

4. Station Manager, Nagar Nabi.

5. Station Manager, Shikaripara.

6. Asstitant Personnal Officer Office, Sini Workshop.

7. Multi Disciplinary Zonal Training Institute,Kharagpur.

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/ (1935521)]

Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director, (O.L.)

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 11.—रेल मंत्राल (रेलवे बोडव), रािभाषा जन म, 1976 (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) के

कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को एति् द्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िज:-

1. मिाप्रबंिक का ावल , पूवोत्तर सीमा रेल (जनमावण), गुवािाटी.

2. मु्‍ कार ाना प्रबंिक, कााँचरापाड़ा, पूवव रेलवे, कोलकाता.

3. िसवीं वाजिनी, रेल सुरक्षा जविेष बल, िनबाि.

[फा. सं. सिंिी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(1928289)]

डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक, (रािभाषा)

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2024

S.O. 11.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule-10 of the

Official Langauge Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where

80 percent or more officers/employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway (Construction), Guwahati.

2. Chief Workshop Manager, Kanchrapara, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.

3. 10^th Battalion, Railway Protection Special Force, Dhanbad.

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/ (1928289)]

Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director, (O.L.)

पेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 10 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 12.—केन् द्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10

के उपजन म (4) के अनुसरण में पेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन सावविजनक क्षेत्र के

उपक्रम के जनम् नजलज त का ावल ों, जिनके 80 ा अजिक प्रजतित कमवचारी वषन् ि ने जिन् िी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर

जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:-

1. इजण्ड न ऑ ल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, (जवपणन

प्रभाग), िजिराबाि टर्मवनल, सवे नं.-183, आईडीए-

चरण-III, चेरलापल्ली, िजिराबाि

2. इजण्ड न ऑ ल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, (जवपणन प्रभाग),

वारंगल मंडल का ावल , म.सं. 5-11-503, चौ ी मंजिल,

कंिकतला गेटवे, के ूसी क्रास रोड, नईम नगर, िनमकोंडा,

वारंगल

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. इजण्ड न ऑ ल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड (जवपणन

प्रभाग), बैंगलोर इंडेन मंडल का ावल , इजण्ड न

ऑ ल भवन, 29 पी कसलंगा राव रोड, (जमिन रोड),

बैंगलुप

4. इजण्ड न ऑ ल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड (जवपणन प्रभाग),

बैंगलुप टर्मवनल, िेवनगोंती, बैंगलुप

[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.(2025)]

डॉ. ज् ोजत जमश्रा, उप जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2025

S.O. 12.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Sector undertaking

under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more percent of the staff

have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division),

Hyderabad Terminal, Survey No.-183, IDA-Phase-III,

Cherlapalli, Hyderabad

2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division),

Warangal Divisional Office, H.No. 5-11-503, 4th

Floor, Kandkatla Gateway, KUC Cross Road, Nayeem

Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal

3. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division),

Bangalore Indane Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhawan,

29 P. Kalinga Rao Road, (Mission Road), Bengaluru

4. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division),

Bangalore Terminal, Devangonti, Bengaluru

[F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL(2025)]

Dr. JYOTI MISHRA, Dy. Director (OL)

को ला मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 10 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 13.—केंद्री सरकार एतद्दवारा रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976

(1987 में ा संिोजित) के जन म 10 के उप जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, को ला मंत्राल के जन ंत्रणािीन भारत कोककंग

कोल जलजमटेड के सरा ढेला, िनबाि जस्ट् त का ावल ‘सीसीडब्ल् ूओ (वॉिरी प्रभाग)’, जिसके 80% से अजिक

कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[फा. सं. 13012/1/2017-सिंिी]

आस्ट् ा िजन, सं ुि जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2025

S.O. 13.—In pursuance of sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), Central Government hereby notifies the Office ‘CCWO (Washery

Division)’ of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited under the control of Ministry of Coal located at Saraidhela, Dhanbad

wherein the percentage of the staff having working Knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80% .

[F. No. 13012/1/2017-HINDI]

AASTHA JAIN, Jt. Director

जवज्ञान और प्रौद्योजगकी मंत्राल

(बा ोटेक्नोलॉिी जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 9 मई, 2023

का.आ. 14.—केन् द्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10

के उप-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, बा ोटेक् नोलॉिी जवभाग के जन ंत्रणािीन नवोन् मेषी एवं अनुप्र ुक् त िजव-प्रसंस्ट् करण केंद्र,

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती

िज:

नवोन् मेषी एवं अनुप्र ुक् त िजव-प्रसंस्ट् करण केंद्र,

सजक् टर 81, (नॉलेि जसटी), एस.ए.एस. नगर,

मोिाली - 140306, पंिाब

[फा. सं. ई.-17/02/2017-सिंिी-डीबीटी (कम् प् ूटर सं. 166)]

चजतन् मूर्त व, सं ुक् त सजचव

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Biotechnology)

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023

S.O. 14.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office, Center of Innovative and Applied

Bioprocessing, under the control of the Department of Biotechnology whose more than 80% staff has acquired

working knowledge in Hindi:

[F. No. E-17/02/2017-Hindi-DBT (Computer No. 166)]

CHAITANYA MURTI, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 मई, 2023

का.आ. 15.—केन् द्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10

के उप-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, बा ोटेक् नोलॉिी जवभाग के जन ंत्रणािीन रा्‍ री कषजष ाद्य िजवप्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान,

िज:

रा्‍ री कषजष ाद्य िजवप्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान,

सजक् टर 81, (नॉलेि जसटी), एस.ए.एस. नगर,

मोिाली - 140306, पंिाब

[फा. सं. ई.-17/02/2017-सिंिी-डीबीटी (कम् प् ूटर सं. 166)]

चजतन् मूर्त व, सं ुक् त सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2023

S.O. 15.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office, National Agri-Food Biotechnology

Institute under the control of the Department of Biotechnology whose more than 80% staff has acquired working

knowledge in Hindi:

National Agri-Food Biotechnology Institute,

Sector-81 (Knowledge City)

S.A.S. Nagar,

Mohali- 140306, Punjab

[F. No. E-17/02/2017-Hindi-DBT (Computer No. 166)]

CHAITANYA MURTI, Jt. Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल् ली, 8 नवम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 16.—केन् द्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10

के उप-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, बा ोटेक् नोलॉिी जवभाग के जन ंत्रणािीन जनम् नजलज त का ावल , िीव जवज्ञान संस्ट् ान,

भुवनेश् वर जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को एतद्द्वारा

अजिसूजचत करती िज:

िीव जवज्ञान संस्ट् ान,

नाल् को स्ट् क् वा र, नाल् को नगर

चंद्रिे रपुर, भुवनेश् वर- 751023, ओजडिा

[फा. सं. ई.-17/02/2017-सिंिी-डीबीटी (कम् प् ूटर सं. 166)]

एकता जवश् नोई, सं ुक् त सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th November, 2024

S.O. 16.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office, Institute of Life Sciences,

Bhubaneswar under the control of the Department of Biotechnology whose more than 80% staff has acquired working

knowledge in Hindi:

Institute of Life Sciences,

NALCO Square, NALCO Nagar,

Chandrasekharpur,

Bhubaneswar – 751023, Odisha

[F. No. E-17/02/2017-Hindi-DBT (Computer No. 166)]

EKTA VISHNOI, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 4 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 17.—केन् द्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10

के उप-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, बा ोटेक् नोलॉिी जवभाग के जन ंत्रणािीन जनम् नजलज त का ावल , रा्‍ री पिु िजव

प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान, िजिराबाि जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमवचारर ों ने सिंिी का का वसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज,

को एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:

रा्‍ री पिु िजव प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान,

सवेक्षण सं्‍ ा. 37, जवस्ट् ताररत क् ू जसटी मागव,

पत्रकार कॉलोनी के सामने,

गौजलडोड्डी के पास, गजिबावली

िजिराबाि, तेलंगाना - 500032

[फा. सं. ई.-26/01/2024-सिंिी-डीबीटी (कम् प् ूटर सं. 20629)]

एकता जवश् नोई, सं ुक् त सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2024

S.O. 17.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office, National Institute of Animal

Biotechnology, Hyderabad under the control of the Department of Biotechnology whose more than 80% staff has

acquired working knowledge in Hindi:

National Institute of Animal Biotechnology,

Survey no. 37, Extended Q-city Road,

Opp. Journalist Colony, Near Gowlidoddi

Gachibawli,

Hyderabad, Telangana – 500032

[F. No. E-26/01/2024-Hindi-DBT (Computer No. 20629)]

EKTA VISHNOI, Jt. Secy.

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल् ली, 8 िुलाई, 2024

का.आ. 18.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्ल् ू.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/64/2015+) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@07@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/36/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2024

S.O. 18.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/64/2015) 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 05/07/2024.

[No. L-22012/36/2015 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/64/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Sudhir Kumar Sharma

At, Dafai No.-7, Near Kalibadi

North Jhagrakhand Colliery

District Korea (CG).

Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager

SECL, Hasdeo Area

Po- South Jhagrakhand

Distt.-Korea (CG)

Management

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 20^th day of June-2024)

As per letter dated 10/07/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-22012/36/2015/IR(CM-II) dt. 10/07/2015. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, is justified in

dismissing Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Cashier Grade-I from service w.e.f. 27 January 2014 ? If not,

what relief he is entitled to and from which date ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. Parties

appeared and file their respective Statement of Claims and Defense.

According to the workman, he was served a charge sheet on 20.07.2012 while working as Cashier Grade-1,

and was required to show cause on the charge mentioned in the charge sheet, which was allegation of following

misconducts under the Certified Standing Orders :-

Clause-26(22) :- Any wilful and deliberate act which is subversive of discipline of which may be

detrimental to the interest of company.

Clause-26(43) :- Breach of Standing Order.

The substance of the charge was he made false amount in the T.A. Bills of employees and thus

misappropriated amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in his favour, which turned out to be irregular payment of Rs. 40,00,000/-.

A departmental enquiry was conducted after the management found the reply of the show cause notice filed by the

workman insufficient. According to the workman, the enquiry was not conducted according to rules and procedure

thus prejudicing his defence. The Enquiry Officer recorded his finding against evidence on record. The Disciplinary

Authority wrongly accepted the enquiry report and passed disproportionate punishment.

He prayed that setting aside his dismissal, he be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.

Rebutting the allegations of the workman, management has taken a case in their written statement of defense

that during course of surprise checking of cash book and vouchers, it was found that abnormal payment of T.A. Bills

was made to employees. On further verification of T.A. Bill passing register, it was found that payment was made for

more amount then the amount of bill entered in the T.A. Bill Passing Registers. This was reported to the General

Manager who ordered a preliminary enquiry. It was found in the preliminary enquiry that the amount should to have

been paid to the employees on their T.A. Bills was more than it was entered in the bill passing register resulting into

siphoning of money in a fraudulent and corrupt manner by the workman who was cashier at that time. A charge sheet

was issued to the workman and after his reply was found not sufficient, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted

as per rules and procedure. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges proved and the Disciplinary

Authority passed the punishment of dismissal of the workman after his representation on the enquiry report was found

insufficient.

Following preliminary issue was framed vide order dated 26.06.2019:-

Whether the departmental enquiry conducted was legal and proper?

Parties adduced their evidence on this preliminary issue the copy of enquiry papers was filed by

management, admitted by workman.

Vide order dated 16.06.2022, preliminary issue was decided holding the departmental enquiry legal and

proper. This order is part of this award.

Following additional issues were also framed on 16.03.2022:-

Whether the charges are proved from the enquiry papers ?

Whether the punishment is disproportionate to the charge ?

Relief to which the workman is entitled ?

Parties were directed to file their evidence on these additional issues in form of documents/affidavit. None

of the parties filed any evidence on additional issues.

No oral argument was submitted by any of the parties, no written submissions were filed. I have gone

through the record.

Issue No.-2 :-

The settled proposition of law is that the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a

departmental enquiry. Following judgments are being referred to in this respect.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and

independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. vs.

K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255

Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary

proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although

the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all

reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function, who

upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to

prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any

irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject

the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs.

State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10 , 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India,

(2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)

In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State

Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7

SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony

Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417

(vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30,

it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are

two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of

public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a

departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his

misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of

proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and

the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."

In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite distinct,

exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.

In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad High

Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the

distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two proceedings

i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The

object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry

proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule

relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on

the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot

be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent

officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to standard of

proof in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry the technical rules

of evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has also no application in the departmental

enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for

breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of

commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the

service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry

and trial of criminal case. "

Perusal of enquiry papers filed and proved by management shows that as many as 8 witnesses were

examined during the enquiry who stated that they received lesser amount then what was entered in the bill passing

400/- were given to the employee and Rs. 4000/- were pocketed by the workman. Hence, the statements of witnesses

recorded during the enquiry fully support the charge as it has been found after perusal of enquiry papers, the argument

of learned Counsel for the workman that the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding the charges proved was wrong

cannot be accepted. Accordingly, holding the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the charges against the workman are

held proved. Issue no.-2 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.-3 :-

The settled proposition of law is that the punishment can be interfered by this Tribunal only when it is so

disproportionate to the charge that it shocks the conscience of this Tribunal. Following judgments are being referred

to in this respect.

Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of

judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own

conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately

mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to

shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with

cogent reasons in support thereof.”

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:

“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the

High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the

punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors

including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of

duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an discipline required to be

maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent person concerned works.”

In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a long

line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal

position in the following words:

“11.

The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere

with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was

shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In

view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice

made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the

administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making

process and not the decision.

12.

To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate

authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten

litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons

in support thereof.”

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position

as follows:

“8.

……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary

proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly

disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:

“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the

conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2

SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court or a

Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority, and/or on appeal the appellate

authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material

procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in

imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such

as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position

that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department

or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of

facts.

This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 : (2011) 1

SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587

7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the

domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the

enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the

evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental

enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except

where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is

to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or

statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on

extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 :

(1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of

India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at

Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)

In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that:

“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the

order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office

of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be

directed.”

In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645

Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of

confidence in the employee, observing that:

“Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would

lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness or

reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved.”

No doubt an employee has to maintain absolute integrity while in service. There can be no compromise on integrity of

an employee in any institution. The acquittal of the workman was by granting him benefits of doubt that too has been

appealed against. Hence, in these circumstances, the punishment to the workman inspite of the fact that he was

acquitted from the charges after trial cannot be faulted in law or fact. Holding the punishment justified in law, issue

no.-3 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.-4 :_

On the basis of findings recorded above, the workman is held entitled to no relief.

Accordingly, the Reference is answered as follows :-

AWARD

Holding the Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, justified in dismissing

Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Cashier Grade-I from service w.e.f. 27 January 2014, the workman is entitled to

no relief. No order as to cost.

DATE:- 20/06/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 14 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 19.—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k 64/2012)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@10@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/128/2012-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 14th October, 2024

S.O. 19.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 64/2012) 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 10/10/2024.

[No. L-22012/128/2012 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23^rd day of September, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 64/2012

Between:

The President (Sri R. Kashi Ramulu),

Telengana Trade Union Council (E/716),

H.No.3-5-247/3, Azmathpura,

Karimnagar.

….. Workman

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur,

Adilabad district. – 504 303.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Workman : M/s. A.Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/128/2012-IR(CM-II) dated

2.9.2012 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 workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area,

Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Addanki Venu, Ex-Badli Filler, RK-5 Inc., SCCL,

Sreerampur Area with effect from 15.9.2009 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 64/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that, Sri Addanki Venu was initially appointed as Badli Filler on 17.3.2001. It is submitted that, from

the date of appointment, the concerned workman was regular to his duties and performing his duties upto the

satisfaction of one and all. It is submitted that on account of his personal work, the concerned workman obtained

leave on 2.7.2007 and came to Hyderabad, then he fell sick and took treatment in Osmania General Hospital on

3.7.2007. It is submitted that the concerned workman sent a telegram to the Respondent on 3.7.2007 requesting to

extend the leave. It is to submitted that while so, on 13.11.07 the Respondent stated to have published the charge sheet

in a local daily news paper alleging that the concerned workman was absent from 3.7.07 to 12.10.07 without

sanctioned leave and it amounts to misconduct under the Company's Standing Order No.25.31. As the concerned

workman was not in station he could not respond to the paper publication. In those circumstances, without waiting

for any further time, the Respondent conducted the enquiry on 20.11.2007 and the enquiry officer passed ex-parte

orders holding the concerned workman as guilty. It is submitted that the concerned workman came to know about the

publication of charge sheet dated 12.7.2007 through one of his friends only on 3.12.2007. Immediately, the concerned

workman made a representation dt.4.12.2007 to the Respondent duly enclosing the documentary proof i.e. medical

prescriptions, medical certificates and also the copy of Telegram through which the concerned workman has

requested for extension of leave requesting to re-conduct the enquiry, so as to enable the concerned workman to

participate in the enquiry and to defend himself by producing relevant documents. Unfortunately, without considering

his representation dt.4.12.2007 the Respondent issued a notice dt.7.12.2007 asking the concerned workman to submit

his explanation by enclosing the report of the enquiry officer. The workman has submitted his reply dt.31.3.2008

categorically pleading that on account of his sickness, he could not attend his duties from 3.7.2007 to 12.10.2007.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

Thereafter, a show cause notice dt.26.6.2009 was issued by the Respondent. Thereafter, the concerned workman gave

a reply dt.8.8.2009 to the show cause notice, whereat, stated that his absence is neither willful nor wanton, but only on

account of his ill-health and other family problems, he could not be regular to his duties. However, without

considering any of the submissions made by the concerned workman, the Respondent issued a proceeding dt.9.9.2009

dismissing the concerned workman from service. That, had the Respondent given the concerned workman an

opportunity to defend himself by conducting re-enquiry, the concerned workman could have produced the medical

certificates, prescriptions to prove that he was taking treatment in Osmania General Hospital. Basing on the ex-parte

order, the concerned workman was dismissed from service with effect from 15.9.2009 vide office order dt.9.9.2009.

Thereafter, the name of the concerned workman was removed from the roll of the company vide proceedings dt.

10.9.2009. It is submitted that, the inability of the concerned workman to be regular to his duties during the period

from 3.7.2007 to 12.10.2007 is neither willful nor wanton, but only on account of his ill-health and other family

problems, he could not be regular to his duties. Had the enquiry was conducted properly, giving due opportunity to

the concerned workman, the necessity to dismiss him from service could have been avoided. As a result of the above

lop sided enquiry, the concerned workman was dismissed from service. It is submitted that, the concerned workman is

the sole bread winner in his family. As a result of his dismissal from service, the concerned workman and his whole

family members are facing lot of hardships and starvation. It is submitted that, dismissing the concerned workman

from service for his inability to be regular to his duties during the period from 3.7.2007 to 12.10.2007 was only on

account of his ill-health and other family problems, is not only untenable, but also disproportionate to the charge

alleged against him. Before imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service, the Disciplinary Authority ought to

have considered the issue of imposing any minor penalty. It is submitted that, aggrieved by the above order of

dismissal from service, a conciliation was moved before the conciliation officer which ended in failure. It is submitted

that, assuming without admitting that the enquiry conducted is correct and proper, even then, for the reasons

mentioned above, the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the charges

alleged. It is submitted that, concerned workman has not gainfully employed elsewhere from the date of dismissal to

till date. The concerned workman and his family members have become burden to one and all, on account of his

dismissal from service. As such, the concerned workman prayed to modify the punishment of dismissal to that of any

other lesser penalty, so as to survive himself and to look after his family. It is prayed to declare the impugned order

No. SRP / PER / 13.008/4106, dt.9.9.2009 and later removing his name from the rolls vide proceeding

No.SRP/RK5/RO16/4025, dt. 10.9.2009 issued by the Respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same,

consequently direct the Respondent to re-instate the Workman into service duly granting all other consequential

benefits.

3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Workman as under:

It is submitted that the concerned workman was dismissed from the services of the company with effect from

15.09.2009 vide Letter No. SRP/PER/13.008/4106 dated 09.09.2009 on proved charges. It is submitted that the

Workman was dismissed on proved charge after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles

of natural justice. It is submitted that the concerned workman was initially appointed as Badli Filler in the

Respondent Company on 17.03.2001. The averment that from the date of appointment, the concerned workman was

regular to his duties and performing his duties up to the satisfaction of one and all is not true and correct. The

concerned workman is habitual absentee for his duties and poor performance. The performance of the concerned

workman for last 7 years prior to his dismissal is as follows:

YEAR

ACTUAL

MUSTERS

2002

124

2003

003

2004

009

2005

132

2006

106

2007

056

2008

Nil

2009

Nil(Upto 24.8.2009)

It is submitted that the workman while he was working at RK-5 Incline he was sanctioned one day leave with Pay on

2.7.2007 and he remained absent from duty without sufficient cause from 3.7.2007. Subsequently the workman sent

a telegram from Hyderabad informing that he had fallen sick without giving his address. There was no request for

extension of leave. He was having only one day leave balance to his credit as on date and there was no balance of

sick leave. Further, the workman did not submit detailed address while sending the telegram and as such a letter was

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sent to his home address informing him to report at Colliery Hospital for treatment vide letter No.SRP/RK-5/G-

12/3873 dated 11.07.2007 since as a part of welfare facilities well equipped Main Hospital and Dispensaries are

provided by the Respondent company to cater the health requirement of about 71,220 employees and their

families.The postal authorities have returned the letter undelivered with a remark that the addressee was absent. It is

submitted that there was no request from the workman for extension/grant of leave furnishing sufficient cause, and

continuously absenting from duties with effect from 03.07.2007 to 12.10.2007 and staying beyond sanctioned leave

which amounts to misconduct and the workman was issued with Charge Sheet No.SRP/RK-5/R-008/5552,

dated 12.10.2007 under Company's Standing Orders 25.31 which reads as follows:

"25.31 - Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or over staying beyond sanctioned leave."

Since the workman was continuously absenting from duties without any sanctioned leave or permission from the

competent authority, the Charge Sheet was sent to his home address available with Company records by Registered

Post. However, the charge sheet was returned undelivered by the Postal Authorities. Hence, as per the procedure a

Telugu version of the Charge Sheet was published in Telugu Daily Newspaper “Andhra Jyothi" on 13.11.2007

advising the workman to submit his written explanation within 4 days of publication and to participate in the enquiry

on 20.11.2007 at 9.00 am at Office of Dy.G.M.,RK-5 Incline along with his witnesses/evidences. Further, it was

informed in the paper publication that if the charge sheeted employee failed to submit his explanation to the charges

or failed to attend the enquiry without any information, the enquiry would be held ex-parte basing on the

evidences/information available with the management. But the workman neither submitted any explanation nor

attended the enquiry on 20.11.2007. As such, ex-parte enquiry was conducted on 20.11.2007 by the Enquiry Officer

basing on the information available on records and the evidences adduced by the Management. As per the findings of

the Enquiry Officer, the charges levelled against the workman were proved and he was found guilty of misconduct

under Company's Standing Order 25.31. It is submitted that punctuality in attendance is the very essence of the

contract of employment and one must perform his job diligently and carefully and must not absent from work without

sufficient cause. It is submitted that the workman was habitual absentee for his duties and had poor performance. He

was issued charge sheet for misconduct under Company's Standing Orders No.25.31. The workman failed to give his

explanation and also failed to participate in the enquiry proceedings as such ex-parte enquiry was conducted by the

enquiry officer and the charges leveled against the workman were proved and he was found guilty of misconduct

under Company's Standing Order No.25.31. Since the workman was continuously absenting from duties a copy of

the Enquiry Report together with Enquiry Proceedings were sent to his home address by Registered Post with

acknowledgement due vide Lr.No.SRP/RK-5/R.010/67371 dated 07.12.2007 giving an opportunity to make

representation if any against the findings of the Enquiry Officer within 7 days of receipt of the same which was

received by him on 12.12.2007. But he did not submit any representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer

within the stipulated period. Subsequently, after a lapse of 4 months he send a letter dated 31.03.2008 stating that he

went to Hyderabad on certain works and there he had fallen sick and also submitted a representation to GM., SRP on

4.12.2007 and requested to permit to participate in the enquiry and also to submit his explanation on the report of the

Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that the workman neither joined for duty nor reported sick at Company Hospitals for

treatment but remained absent from duty. Again to give him a fair opportunity, he was informed that workmen of

SCCL should report at Company Hospital in the event of falling sick and if required they are referred to super

specialty hospitals, Hyderabad, depending upon the patient's health condition and he was once again issued dt.

26.06.2009 to submit his explanation on or before 10.07.2009. It is submitted that in reply to Respondent' s letter

dated 26.06.2009 the workman stated that due to death of his father he could not give reply and asked for one more

month for submitting the explanation. His request was considered and he was advised to submit his explanation on or

before 09.08.2009. The letter which was sent by Registered post to his local address ie., Qr.No.D-104, 1-Zone,

Kalyanikhani, Mandamarri was received by the Workman on 29.07.2009. This clearly establishes that though he was

available locally at Mandamarri, he did not join duties till 31.08.2009 neither did he report sick at Colliery Hospital

for treatment. He submitted explanation dated 08.08.2009 to Dy.General Mananger, RK-5 Incline requesting to re-

conduct enquiry which was already conducted on 20.11.2007 and requested to be allowed for duty and to drop all

proceedings whereas in fact he was never forbidden from resuming his duties. He also stated that he was the only

bread winner and earning member in the family, but he did not bother to join duties even after giving him extended

grace period of 2 years and he did not report for duty till 31.8.2009. However, instead of joining duty he kept

requesting the Respondent company to refix the enquiry. It shows that he has no interest to work in the Company and

was only trying to hoodwink the Respondent Company, as it was later learnt that the Workman was employed as

press reporter for "Andhra Jyothi", Eenadu'" and other such newspapers etc. consequent upon which he was reluctant

to work as a coal filler in underground which amounts to cheating the Respondent Company and withholding

antecedents which is against the Respondent Company's Standing Orders. It is also clearly evident that as he was

employed elsewhere, his family has not fallen into dire straits as claimed by him but all the while he has been

cheating the Company by holding two jobs at the same time, which is against the Rules of the Respondent Company

and also can be seen clearly as the reason for his continued absence from duties in the Respondent Company which

justifies his dismissal. It is submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and its connected material documents,

proceedings and evidence on record have been carefully perused by the disciplinary authority and it was found that

the charge which was proved against the workman was severe in nature and the punishment warranted was that of

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

dismissal as during the previous 8-year period he has put in very poor attendance whereas an underground employee

is expected to put in minimum of 190 musters in a calendar year. The disciplinary authority has gone through the

entire past record of the workman and also his present performance and found that there were no extenuating

circumstances to take a lenient view. Under these circumstances the Respondent Company was left with no other

alternative but to dismiss the Workman from the services of the Company and he was dismissed with effect from

15.09.2009 vide letter no.SRPPER/13.008/4106, dated 09.09.2009. The name of the workman was removed from the

rolls of the company with effect from 15.09.2009 vide Lr.No.SRP/RK5/RO16/4025 dated 10.09.2009. It is submitted

that the workman had no interest to attend his duties which is the reason why he has absented so frequently. Putting in

3 or 5 musters in a year is totally unacceptable but still the Respondent Company has given him several chances and

adequate opportunity to help him improve his attendance but to no avail. It is clearly evident that the Workman was

not attending his duties at the Respondent Company because he was working elsewhere and claiming to have fallen

sick in an attempt to justify his absence from duties for which he has not even submitted any documentary evidence.

The enquiry was conducted giving fair opportunity to the Workman to participate in the enquiry proceedings, but the

Workman did not avail the same. The disciplinary authority after considering the past record and present performance

of the workman and found no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and rightly imposed penalty of

dismissal as his attendance during the past 8 years was below par i.e. from 2002 to 2009 which justifies the action of

Respondent Company in imposing the penalty of dismissal as the employee was clearly uninterested in pursuing

employment in the Respondent Company evident from the lack of attendance. It also never bothered the workman

not to attend duties at the Respondent Company but requests to the welfare of his family members as the reason to be

given an opportunity by the Respondent Company. The production results depend upon the overall attendance and

performance of each and every individual. They are inter linked and inseparable. In this regard, if any one employee

remains absent, without prior leave or without any justified cause, the production gets affected. Such unauthorized

absence creates sudden void, which at times is very difficult to fill-up, and already planned schedules get suddenly

disrupted when employees absent without prior notice. Despite this, the Respondent Company has given him ample

opportunity by being lenient regarding his very poor attendance during the years 2002 to 2009 and was finally left

with no option but to finally dismiss the Workman from services as it was clearly evident that by his careless

attendance to duty and being absent without intimation, prior approval or sanction of leave from the Company, that he

was not interested in pursuing employment in the Respondent Company. Hence, the Workman is not entitled to any

relief as sought through the claim petition. In view the above, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of

merits.

4. On the basis of rival bleedings of both the parties, the following points emerged for determination of the

case:-

Whether the departmental enquiry held against the Workman is legal and valid?

II. Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Workman vide order dated 9.9.2009

with effect from 15.9.2009 is justified?

III. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service of Workman is disproportionate and not commensurate to the

charge?

IV. To what relief he is entitled?

Findings:-

5. Point No.I:- The legality and validity of the departmental enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated

31^st January, 2023.

This point is answered accordingly.

6. Points No.II & III:- The workman in his claim statement has challenged his removal order dated 9.9.2009 from

service on the ground that Respondent has issued the impugned order of dismissal dated 9.9. 2009 basing on lopsided

enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Further, it is submitted that the enquiry officer has not given an

opportunity to the Workman to defend his case while conducting the enquiry, as the concerned Workman could have

submitted his medical prescriptions and certificates, pertaining to his treatment in Osmania General Hospital. The

workman argued that basing on the ex-parte enquiry order, Respondent has dismissed Workman from services vide

office order dated 9.9.2009 which is not justified.

7. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that finding of the enquiry officer and it’s connected material and

evidence on record has been carefully perused by the Disciplinary Authority and it was found that charge which was

proved against the workman was severe in nature and punishment warranted was of dismissal. Further, it is contended

that during the period under consideration the workman has put in very poor attendance and whereas an underground

employee usually instructed to put in 190 musters in a calendar year. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through

the entire past record of the Workman and also his present performance, and found that there was no extenuating

circumstances to take a lenient view. Therefore, under the circumstances as in the present case, Respondent has left

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

with no other option but to dismiss the Workman from the service of the company with effect from 15.9.2009 vide

order dated 9.9.2009. Further, Respondent argued that the allegation of the Workman regarding not providing the

opportunity to defend his case is denied.

8. Perused the record of enquiry proceedings. As per record, the Workman was issued with chargesheet dated

12.10.2007 under Company’s Standing Orders No.25.31 for unauthorized absence from duty for the period alleged in

the chargesheet. But despite the service of the notice, the Workman did not appear before the enquiry and thereafter

chargesheet cum notice of enquiry was published in ‘Andhra Jyothi’ Telugu daily newspaper on 13.11.2007 directing

the charge sheeted employee to submit his explanation, if any and to attend for enquiry on 20.11.2007. Further, at

the scheduled date and time, enquiry was conducted but the charge sheeted employee despite service of notice and

charge sheet at his own volition did not submit the explanation to charge sheet and opted not to attend the enquiry

despite the service of notice. Thus, charge sheeted employee did not appear in the enquiry to defend his case on his

own volition. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer commenced the proceeding and recorded the statement of the witnesses.

The Enquiry was concluded on 20.11.2007. Further, the record of enquiry proceeding reveals that the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report dated 30.11.2007 with the finding holding the charge against the charge sheeted

employee of misconduct under the Company’s Standing Order No.25.31 held proved. Disciplinary Authority after

considering enquiry report and its proceedings has passed the order dated 9.9. 2009 whereby dismissed the Workman

from the service of the Company with effect from 15.9.2009. Disciplinary Authority has also served the copy of

record of inquiry and connected papers to the charge sheeted employee through letter dated 26.6.2009 before passing

the dismissal order of Workman.

9. The Workman has taken the plea that due to death of his father, he could not give reply and asked for one more

month for submitting his explanation and the same was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. The record of

enquiry proceeding, reflects that the notice and charge sheet was sent to workman at available address on record of

Workman and Workman was very much available at the given address but he did not appear before the enquiry

deliberately and remained absent unauthorizedly from duty. It is not the case of Workman that notice of enquiry was

not sent at his given correct address. Therefore, when the notice of enquiry was sent by Respondent Management at

his given address on official record through registered post, it is presumed that it was served upon Workman. The

plea of the workman that dismissal order was passed on the basis of ex-parte enquiry is not tenable as the Workman

opted on his own volition not to appear and submit the explanation to charge sheet in the Enquiry.

10. Further, Workman has taken the plea that during the period from 3.7.2007 to 12.10.2007, he was absent from

duty on account of his ill-health and other family problems, and he could not be regular to his duties. In this context,

the Respondent has contended that the Workman was not interested to attend his duty and reason shown for his

absence from duty is incorrect. Further, it is contended that Workman has put in 3 or 5 musters in a year is wholly

unacceptable, but still Respondent company has given him several chances for adequate opportunity to help him to

improve his attendances. Further, Respondent contended that the Workman did not attend his duty regularly prior to

the charge sheet and even subsequently. He also failed either to attend his duties or to report sick at Colliery Hospital

as per rules where free medical facilities are provided by the Respondent company to its employees and their family

members in case he was really sick. Further, it is contended that the Workman was not attending his duty at the

Respondent company, because he was working elsewhere and claiming to have fallen sick in an attempt to justify his

absence from duties, for which he has not even submitted any documentary evidence. Further, it is contended that

the enquiry was conducted after giving fair opportunity to the Workman to participate in the enquiry proceedings but

the Workman did not avail the same. Further, it is contended that allegation made in the claim statement of illness is

not true and correct and Workman is put to strict proof of this same.

11. It is not the case of the Workman that notice and charge sheet was not served at his permanent address as per

official record. As regards, plea of his illness during the absence period as alleged in charge sheet, Workman has not

submitted any documentary evidence to support and prove his plea of illness. There is no explanation to the effect as

to why he did not report sick at the Colliery Hospital as per direction of the Respondent management. The documents

submitted by the Respondent reflects that workman was habitual of remaining absent from duty. On going through

the record of enquiry proceeding, it is established that the Workman remained absent from duty unauthorizedly

without sanctioned leave from 3.7.2007 to 12.10.2007. Further, he did not apply for any leave medical grounds.

Although Workman has submitted the documents in support of his plea of illness but these document has not been

proved by relevant evidences. Further, documents filed by Workman does not disclose the nature of the illness as

alleged by Workman as to why he did not report sick at the Colliery Hospital. Therefore, the plea of illness of

workman for the unauthorized absence from duty is not tenable. Thus, it is unequivocally established that the

workman remained absent from duty unauthorizedly for the period as alleged in the charge sheet.

12. Now, as regards the jurisdiction of interference in the finding of the Enquiry Officer is concerned, the Hon’ble

Apex Court as well as High Court has laid down principles that, the High Court and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

interfere in the finding of the Enquiry Officer of Disciplinary Authority unless the order as such is perverse or without

any evidence.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

In the case of State of Karnataka versus N Ganga Raj in Civil Appeal No.8071 of 2014, date of decision

14^th February 2020, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have held,

“9. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors.3, again, a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that power

of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.

Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the

conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its

power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its

own independent findings on the evidence.It was held as under:

“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.

Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the

conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is

conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether

the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the

findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has

jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on

some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein,

apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support

therefrom, the disciplinary authority is 3 (1995) 6 SCC 749 entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty

of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to

reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal

may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent

with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the

conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding

be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the

conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has

co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict

proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of

evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel

[(1964) 4 SCR 781], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence,

reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based

on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”

11. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya 5, this Court held that the courts will not act

as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that

another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the

findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence

will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. The Court held as under:

Further, Supreme Court have held that, “Once the evidence has been accepted, the departmental enquiry in

exercise of the power of jurisdiction the tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the finding of these

facts regarding by re- appreciating the evidence as if the courts are the appellate authority.”

In North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. v. Ashappa decided on 12 May, 2006 Apex Court have held:-

“Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The Appellant

runs a fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the

buses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee

to remain absent for a long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite

such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than

three years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several

occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein

has to be treated lightly.

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Apex Court held:

"11. Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of

absence, more particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was

no negligence and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the

Standing Orders shows the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement

of prior permission. Only exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-

observance of which renders the absence unauthorised."

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 276], Hon’ble Apex Court have

held:-

“the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment

imposed upon by the Respondent stating: "It is now well-settled that principles of law that the High Court or

the Tribunal in exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of

punishment. Doctrine of proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now well-settled that

the High Court shall be very slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment unless it is found to be

shocking to one's conscience."

In the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Heem Singh, civil Appeal No.3340/2020, dated 29.10.2021, Hon’ble

Apex Court have held:

Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of

evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which

governs a criminal trial, of proof be yond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance

of probabilities. Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context and subject.

The first end of the spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy -deference to the position of the

disciplinary authority as a fact finding authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline and

efficiency of the service. At the other end of the spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to

interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or when they suffer from perversity.

To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold

level of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to

support the charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-

appreciate evidentiary findings in a disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the judge to be

more appropriate. To do so would offend the first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate

guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the judges' craft is in vain.”

Further in the case of North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn.vs. Ashappa AIR 2006 SCC 2164, on 12 May, 2006

wherein, the Apex Court had held:-

“Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The Appellant

runs a fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the

buses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee

to remain absent for a long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite

such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than

three years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several

occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein

has to be treated lightly.

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as discussed above, from the perusal of the

record, it is manifest that it is not the case of no evidence or perverse order. There is ample evidence on record to

prove the charge against the Workman under Standing Orders No.25.31 of Company. Therefore, I am of the

considered view that the action of the Respondent management in terminating the services of the Workman is

justified.

13. As regards the quantum of punishment of dismissal against the Workman is concerned, as per record, the

Workman remained unauthorizedly absent from duty without sanctioned leave from the duty of Respondent

Management and due to such misconduct of the Workman, the Respondent suffered loss of work. In view of the

matter it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Petitioner has to be treated lightly and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the Workman was habitual of absenting from work. Therefore, the punishment of

dismissal cannot be said in any manner disproportionate or not commensurate to the charge levelled against him.

Points No.II and III are answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

14. Point No.IV:-In view of the finding given in Points No. I, II & III, the Workman is not entitled to get any relief

and the claim statement is unfounded of merit and baseless, hence, liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, Point No.IV is decided accordingly.

AWARD

The action of the General manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Adilabad

Dist., in terminating the services of Shri Addanki Venu, Ex-Badli Filler, RK-5 Inc., SCCL, Sreerampur Area vide

order dated 9.9.2009 with effect from 15.9.2009 is held justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed

for. Petition stands dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 23^rd day of September, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Workman

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Workman

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल् ली, 8 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 20.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार

जनिेिक, केंद्री तािा िल िलकषजष संस्ट् ान, कौिल् ागंग, भुवनेश्वर, उड़ीसा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और

मिासजचव, सीफा श्रजमकसंघ, कौिल् ागंगा, भुवनेश्वर-(उड़ीसा),के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण, ,oa Je U;k;ky;] भुवनेश्वर पंचाट (संिभव सं्‍ ा 18/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 08.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. ,y-42011/1/2019--vkbZ-vkj- (डी ू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2025

S.O. 20.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

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

Labour–Bhubaneswar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director, Central Institute of Fresh Water Aquaculture, Kausalyagang, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, and The

General Secretary,CIFA ShramikSangh, Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar-(Orissa) ,which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.01.2025.

[No. L-42011/1/2019– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

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

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 18/2019

Date of Passing Order – 30^th September, 2024

Between:

The Director,

Central Institute of Fresh Water Aquaculture,

P.O. Kausalyagang,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa – 751 002.

…

1^st Party-Management.

(And)

The General Secretary,

CIFA ShramikSangh,

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

At./Po. Kausalyaganga,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 002.

…

2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-Management.

None.

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union.

ORDER

In the present case, a reference was received from the Deputy Director to the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour New Delhi vide order No. L-42011/1/2019 – IR(DU), dated 11.02.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section (1)

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

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of CIFA, ICAR, Bhubaneswar in not implementing the

recommendation of 7^th CPC in favour of 34 workmen (As AkshayaBhoi& 33 others, list enclosed) who have

been getting the wage benefit as per 6^th CPC based on the principle of equal wages for equal work is legal

and/or justified? If so, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”

2. In the reference order, the Deputy Director, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi commanded the parties raising the

dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal

within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to each one of the

opposite parties involved in the dispute.

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

4. On receipt of the above reference, notices were sent to the 2^nd Party-Union on 31.07.2019, 26.12.2019 and on

dated 05.09.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2^nd Party-

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

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

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

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

interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

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

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

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

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

1947, for publication.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 8 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 21.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्री सरकार वररष्ठ

अिीक्षक, डाकघर अनुभाग, कोटा,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबि जन ोिकों और चौ मल सुमन, कामगार, द्वारा-सं ुि मिासजचव,

जिन्ि मििूर सभा छावनी, कोटा, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण कोटा,fookn esa औद्योजगक

न् ा ाजिकरण कोटा, पंचाट आई टी (केंद्री )- 01@2002¼lhvkbZ,l&03@2014½ को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा

ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 08.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. ,y-40012/121/2002-vkbZ-vkj- (डी ू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2025

S.O. 21.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award I.T.(Central)- 01/2002¼lhvkbZ,l&03/2014) of the Industrial Tribunal

Kota, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Senior

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

Superintendent, Post Office Section, Kota, and Chouthmal Suman, through-Joint General Secretary, Hind

Mazdoor Sabha Cantonment, Kota, Worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 08.01.2025.

[No. L-40012/121/2002 – IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

vuqyXyd

U;k;k/kh'k] Je U;k;ky;] ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh% lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½

funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad% J-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&01@2002¼lhvkbZ,l&03@2014½

¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060001312002½

fnukad LFkkfir% 25-09-2002

izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;]

ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k

dza-,y&40012@121@2002¼vkbZvkj¼Mhvks½½ fnukad

03-09-2002

funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947

e/;

pkSFkey lqeu iq= Jh izrki] }kjk la;qDr egkea=h] fgUn

etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dkWyksuh] Nkouh] dksVk

&&izkFkhZ Jfed

,oa

izoj v/kh{kd] Mkd?kj [k.M dksVk

&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&

Jh Mh-vkj- f}osnh

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&

Jh ,l-ih- lksjy

vf/kfu.kZ;

fn% 26-09-2024

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 03-09-2002 ds }kjk funsZ'k@fookn] vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr ^^vf/kfu;e^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds

vUrxZr bl U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&

^^Whether the action of the management of Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Kota in dismissing the services of

Sh. Choth Mal Suman S/o. Sh. Pratap w.e.f. 6/7/93 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled ?^^

mDr fookn ds U;k;ky; esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A

uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mifLFkr gksdj viuk LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dj

laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks izoj v/kh{kd] Mkd?kj] dksVk [k.M dksVk ftUgsa bl fookn esa vkxs pydj

fu;kstd 'kCn ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk us fnukad 07-11-1985 ls 'kk[kk Mkdiky xkxjksu ¼>kykokM+½ ds in ij lsok esa

fu;ksftr fd;kA fu;kstd ds ;gka izkFkhZ dk fiNyk lsokdky larks"kizn jgkA fu;kstd us fnukad 26@30-11-1987 ds rgr

izkFkhZ dks foHkkxh; Mkdrkj deZpkjh ¼lsok vkpj.k½ fu;ekoyh 1964 ds fu;r 8 ds vUrxZr vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh

izLrkfor djrs gq, Kkiu o blds lkFk vopkj vFkok dnkpkj dk vkjksi i= Hkh layXu djds fn;k Fkk] ftlesa izkFkhZ ij

vkjksi yxk;s Fks fd fnukad 16-03-1985 ls 25-09-1985 rd vfrfjDr foHkkxh; 'kk[kk Mkd iky ds in ij dk;Z djrs gq,

vf/kd jkf'k;ksa dh fudklh djds 107@& :i;s vf/kd Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk crk;kA fnukad 27-11-1984 ls 20-07-1985 rd

dh vof/k esa 600@& :i;s dk tkyh Hkqxrku djds jde dk vLFkkbZ xcu fd;k tkuk crk;kA fnukad 04-03-1985 ls

02-07-1985 rd dh vof/k esa fnukad 04-03-1985 dks 20@& :i;s ewY; oxZ ds [kksys x;s vkorhZ [kkrs dks ys[kk [kkrk ds

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

rgr [kksyuk crk;k] tks ys[kk dk;kZy; dh vuqefr ds fcuk ugha [kksyk tk ldrk rFkk fnukad 05-06-1985 dks vius Lrj

ij vafre Hkqxrku Hkh dj fn;kA cSad [kkrk la[;k 258758 dh ikl cqd esa fnukad 27-03-1985] 09-05-1985] 12-06-1985 ,oa

02-07-1985 dks 20@& :i;s izfrekg dh tek izfof"V;ak dh] ijarq bl jde dks ljdkjh fglkc esa ysdj ugha fy;kA izkFkhZ

us bldk mRrj fnukad 18-12-1987 dks izLrqr fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks Mkd rkj foHkkx ds dk;Z dh dk;Z iz.kkyh dh tkudkjh

ugha Fkh vkSj izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ds laca/k esa dksbZ dHkh Vªsfuax Hkh ugha nh x;h FkhA >kykokM+ fLFkr mlds mPp vf/kdkjh us gh

vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ dks tokc fy[kok;k Fkk vkSj dgk fd eSa dgwa tSls fy[k nsa vkSj xyfr;ksa dks Lohdkj dj ys] eSa

rsjs i{k esa bldk fu.kZ; djk nwaxkA izkFkhZ bl laca/k esa le>rk ugha Fkk] bl dkj.k tSls mUgksaus dgk izkFkhZ us dj fn;k vkSj

tokc fy[kdj ns fn;kA fu;kstd us izkFkhZ }kjk vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa fn;s x;s mRrj ij dksbZ /;ku ugha fn;k vkSj izkFkhZ ij

vkjskfir vkjksiksa dh tkap izkjEHk dj nhA izkFkhZ ij vkjksfir vkjksiksa dh tkap izkFkhZ dh ekStwnxh esa ugha gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ dks rks

tkap d{k ls ckgj cSBk fn;k tkrk Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dh xSj ekStwnxh esa xokgksa dh xokgh fjdkMZ dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ dks Lo;a

dk i{k izLrqr djus ,oa cpko djus dk volj iznku ugha fd;k rFkk fu;kstd }kjk djkbZ xbZ tkap U;k; ds uSlfxZd

fl)karksa dh vogsyuk djds dh xbZ gS] ftlesa izkFkhZ dks fnukad 06-07-1993 ds vkns'k }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk

n.M ns fn;k gS] tks voS/k gSA izkFkhZ dh dksbZ xyrh ugha jgh] laiw.kZ vkjksi vlR; o cscqfu;kn gSA izkFkhZ dks xyr rjhds ls

Qalkdj "kM;a= jpdj vkjskfir fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ fdlh izdkj dk 'kkS dkWt uksfVl Hkh

ugha fn;k x;k gS rFkk tkap izfrosnu dh izfr;ka Hkh ugha nh xbZ gSA mDr n.Mkns'k ds fo:) izkFkhZ }kjk foHkkxh; vihy

dh Fkh rFkk fnukad 01-07-1999 ds i= ds }kjk iksLV ekLVj tujy jktLFkku lnZu fjtu vtesj us izkFkhZ dh vihy dks

fujLr fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk n.M vR;ar dBksj gS tks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11,

ds vUrxZr n.M dks lekIr djus o de djus dk O:kid vf/kdkj izkIr gSA var esa izkFkhZ us izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dks

fiNys laiw.kZ osru lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ fnukad 07-11-1985

ls izksfotuy rkSj ij 'kk[kk Mkdiky xkxjksu] >kykokM+ ds in ij dk;Zjr Fkk ckn esa izoj v/kh{kd dksVk ds vkns'k

fnukad 16-02-1989 ls fu;fer fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us /kukns'k Hkqxrku esa QthZ Hkqxrku fd;k gS vkSj Lo;a

1904@& :i;s dh QthZ Hkqxrku xyrh dks Lohdkj dj fnukad 19-04-1993 dks jkf'k tek dh gSA izkFkhZ }kjk LosPNk ls

xyrh Lohdkj dh gS o tokc fn;k x;k Fkk fQj izkFkhZ }kjk >kykokM+ Mkd?kj ,e-vks- uEcj 1881@13 fnukad 23-12-1992

Jherh jksMh ckbZ ifRu LoxhZ; Jh vej yky Hkhy fuokluh xzke dksykuk iksLV xkxjksu dk Jh eksguyky ,yvkbZlh ,tsUV

dh xokgh ysdj feyhHkxr ls /kukns'k dk Hkqxrku QthZ vaxwBk fu'kkuh jksMh ckbZ uke dh yxkdj xyr izkIrdrkZ dks

1904@& :i;s dk xyr Hkqxrku dj fn;k rFkk ckn esa fnukad 19-04-1993 dks izkFkhZ us Lo;a dh xyrh ekudj LosPNk ls

1904@& :i;k >kykokM+ Mkd?kj esa tek djk fn;sA izkFkhZ dks vfrfjDr foHkkxh; ,tsUV~l ¼lsok vkpj.k½ fu;ekoyh 9164

ds fu;e 8 ds rgr mDr vkjksi ds fy;s vkjksi i= Kkiu la[;k ,Q-61@93&94 fnukad 13-09-1993 fn;k x;kA tkap esa

vkjksi fl) gksus ij tkap fjiksVZ dh izfr izkFkhZ dks fnukad 31-03-1994 ls jftLVMZ Mkd }kjk Hksth x;h tks fnukad 09-04-

1994 dks izkIr gqbZA bl ij izkFkhZ dk tokc fnukad 02-05-1994 dks izkIr gksus ij vkSj mlds }kjk fn;s x;s xokg lcwr

izfrosnu vkfn ij fopkj ds ckn izfri{kh ds Kkiu la[;k ,Q- 6&1@93&94 fnukad 13-06-1994 ds vkns'k ls izkFkhZ dks

lsok ls fu"dklu dj n.M fn;k x;kA n.Mkns'k ds f[kykQ Mhih,l vtesj ds ;gka vihy Kku la[;k LVkWQ

19&3@94&95 fnukad 15-03-1995 ls rFkk fiVh'ku ih,eth vtesj ds Kkiu la[;k LVkWQ 44&19 fnukad 01-07-1994 }kjk

[kkfjt dh x;hA tkap fof/kor dh x;h gS] ;fn fof/kor tkap ugha dh x;h gS rks U;k;ky; }kjk tkap djok;s tkus dk

fuosnu fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk fookn dkQh foyEc ls mBk;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrxZr

Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ dsUnzh; flfoy lsod gSA izkFkhZ vfrfjDr foHkkxh; ,tsUV Fkk o ml ij

vfrfjDr foHkkxh; ,tsUV lsok vkpj.k fu;ekoyh 1964 ds fu;e 8 ds rgr fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj tkap mijkar

n.Mkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s Fks] izkFkhZ bl dkj.k ls vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds vUrxZr Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa Hkh ugha

vkrk gSA var esa LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse lO;; [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

4- gLrxr izdj.k esa foHkkxh; tkap ds Qs;jusl ds laca/k esa mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh xbZ ftlesa vizkFkhZ i{k dk dFku

jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse izLrqr fd;k x;k gS rFkk tks jsQzsal U;k;ky; dks izkIr gqvk gS mlesa

lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 06-07-1993 vafdr gS tcfd vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa izkFkhZ dh lsok

i`Fkdrk fnukad 13-06-1994 vafdr dh x;h gS rFkk bl laca/k esa nLrkosth lk{; o tkap i=koyh Hkh izLrqr dh x;h gS

ftlls lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 13-06-1994 dh iqf"V dh x;h gSA blfy, bl gLrxr jsQjsal dks fuf.kZr djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj

^^egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUn fd'kksj&2003 McY;w,ylh¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`"B 424^^ rFkk lqjs'k pUnz cuke tujy

eSustj jkt- LVsV fczt ,.M dULVªD'ku dkWiksZjs'ku&2002¼3½ MCy;w,ylh-¼jkt-½ ist 67 ds U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa

izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vuq:i bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd;k tkosA blds [k.Mu

esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ vfHker izdV ugha fd;k x;k ijarq vius izdj.k ds leFkZu esa U;kf;d n`"Vkar eanzkl gkbZdksVZ ds-

fpnEcje cuke rfeyukMw jkT; o vU; fjV fiVh'ku la[;k 9853@1983 vkns'k fnukad 31-10-1988 izLrqr dh ftldk

llEeku voyskdu fd;k x;k rFkk mlls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;k x;kA

,sls esa U;k;ky; dks loZizFke ;g r; fd;k tkuk furkUr vko';d gS fd izkFkhZ pkSFkey lqeu dh lsok i`Fkdrk

fnukad LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse rFkk jsQszal ds vuqlkj fnukad 06-07-1993 gS ugha \

6- lquk x;k] i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse izkFkhZ i{k }kjk izLrqr dj vizkFkhZ }kjk lsok

ls gVkus ds laca/k esa fu;kstd }kjk fnukad 26@30-11-1987 ds rgr izkFkhZ dks foHkkxh; Mkdrkj deZpkjh ¼lsok vkpj.k½

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

fu;ekoyh 1964 ds fu;r 8 ds vUrxZr vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh izLrkfor djrs gq, Kkiu o blds lkFk vopkj vFkok

dnkpkj dk vkjksi i= layXu dj fn;k tkuk rFkk ckn tkap izkFkhZ dks fnukad 06-07-1993 ds vkns'k }kjk lsok ls

i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk n.M fn;s tkus dk dFku vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa fd;k gS ijarq vius mDr dFkuksas ds

leFkZu esa izkFkhZ }kjk ,slh fdlh tkap ftlesas vkjksi i= fnukad 26@30-11-1987 rFkk tkap vkns'k fnukad 06-07-1993 dh

izfr izLrqr ugha dh x;h gS vfirq tks nLrkost izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa os vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk Kkiu

la[;k ,Q&6&1@93&94 fnukad 13-09-1993 ds }kjk tkap izfdz;k vey esa yk;s tkus ftlds i'pkr ckn tkap

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk Kkiu la[;k ,Q&6&1@93&94 vkns'k fnukad 13-06-1994 dks tkjh fd;s tkuk ftlesa

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk ckn tkap izkFkhZ pkSFkey lqeu dks Mkd foHkkxh; ,tsUV ¼lsok ,oa vkpj.k½ fu;ekoyh

1964 ds fu;e 8 ds v/khu nks"kfl) ik;k tkdj izkFkhZ pkSFkey lqeu] vfrfjDr foHkkxh; 'kk[kk Mkdiky

xkxjksu ¼iqV vkWQ M~;wVh½ >kykokM+ dks lsok ls fu"dklu ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr tks

tkap i=koyh U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k dh x;h gS] tks layXu gS] og Hkh Kkiu la[;k ,Q&6&1@93&94 esa tkjh n.Mkns'k

fnukad 13-06-1994 ds laca/k esa gh gSA blds vfrfjDr i=koyh ij ,slh dksbZ lk{; vofLFkr ugha gS ftlesa izkFkhZ }kjk

vfHkdfFkr dFkuksa dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd mlds fo:) vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk fu;kstd }kjk fnukad 26@30-11-1987 ds rgr

izkFkhZ dks foHkkxh; Mkdrkj deZpkjh ¼lsok vkpj.k½ fu;ekoyh 1964 ds fu;r 8 ds vUrxZr vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh

izLrkfor djrs gq, ckn tkap fnukad 06-07-1993 ds vkns'k }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk n.M fn;k x;k gksA

fnukad 06-07-1993 dks tkjh vkns'k dh iqf"V ds laca/k esa i=koyh ij dksbZ ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{;

vofLFkr ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fu;kstd }kjk fnukad 26@30-11-1987 ds rgr izkFkhZ ds fo:)

fu"ikfnr dh x;h tkap ftlesa vkns'k fnukad 06-07-1993 }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k] dh tkap i=koyh eaxk;s

tkus ds laca/k esa Hkh dksbZ izkFkZuk ugha dh x;h gSA vfirq vizkFkhZ }kjk tkap i=koyh is'k djus gsrq izkFkZuk i= fnukad 08-

03-2011 izLrqr fd;k x;k ftldk tokc izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftl ij vkns'k fnukad 09-12-

2011 }kjk tkap i=koyh ryc fd;s tkus ds vkns'k iznku fd;s x;s Fks ftlds ckn tkap i=koyh is'k gqbZA vizkFkhZ }kjk

vius tokc LVsVesaV vkQW Dyse esa Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks vfrfjDr foHkkxh; ,tsUV~l ¼lsok vkpj.k½ fu;ekoyh

9164 ds fu;e 8 ds rgr mDr vkjksi ds fy;s vkjksi i= Kkiu la[;k ,Q-61@93&94 fnukad 13-09-1993 fn;k x;kA

tkap esa vkjksi fl) gksus ij tkap fjiksVZ dh izfr izkFkhZ dks fnukad 31-03-1994 ls jftLVMZ Mkd }kjk Hksth x;h tks fnukad

09-04-1994 dks izkIr gqbZA bl ij izkFkhZ dk tokc fnukad 02-05-1994 dks izkIr gksus ij vkSj mlds }kjk fn;s x;s xokg

lcwr izfrosnu vkfn ij fopkj ds ckn izfri{kh ds Kkiu la[;k ,Q- 6&1@93&94 fnukad 13-06-1994 ds vkns'k ls izkFkhZ

dks lsok ls fu"dkflr fd;s tkus dk n.M fn;k x;kA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr

ugha dh x;h fd izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk vkns'k fnukad 13-06-1994 ds }kjk ugha vfirq 06-07-1993 gSaA blds vfrfjDr

izkFkhZ }kjk lk{; Lo:i tks nLrkost izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa os Hkh vkns'k fnukad 13-06-1994 dks ikfjr vkns'k ftlesa mls

fnukad 13-06-1994 ls lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k x;k gS] izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA

7- blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVkus dk tks n.M fn;k

x;k ml n.Mkns'k ds fo:) foHkkxh; vihy dh Fkh rFkk fnukad 01-07-1999 ds i= ds }kjk iksLV ekLVj tujy jktLFku

lnZu fjtu vtesj us izkFkhZ dh vihy dks fujLr dj fn;kA blds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ }kjk tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa

Li"V dFku fd;k x;k gS fd n.Mkns'k ds f[kykQ Mhih,l vtesj ds ;gka izLrqr vihy Kkiu la[;k LVkWQ

19&3@94&95 vkns'k fnukad 15-03-1995 ls [kkfjt dh x;hA ,sls esa izkFkhZ }kjk vius lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad

06-07-1993 ds laca/k esa vihy fnukad 01-07-1999 dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds rF; dh Hkh iqf"V i=koyh ij

vofLFkr lk{; ls ugah gksrh gS D;ksafd i=koyh ij tks lsok i`Fkdrk vkns'k fnukad 13-06-1994 ds laca/k esa nLrkost

layXu gS] dh vihy ds laca/k esa vkns'k fnukad 15-03-1995 layXu gS] ftlds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd }kjk fnukad 13-06-1994 ds vkns'k }kjk lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k x;k rFkk ftlds laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dh

x;h vihy ij vkns'k fnukad 15-03-1995 ds }kjk lsok i`Fkdrk vkns'k fnukad 13-06-1994 dh iqf"V dh x;hA i=koyh ds

lkFk layXu tkap i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ls Li"V gS fd tks tkap izkFkhZ ds fo:) vey esa yk;h x;h Fkh melsa

izkFkhZ }kjk lE;d :i ls Hkkx fy;k gS] Kkiu izkIr fd;k gS] mldk izfrosnu Hkh fn;k gS rFkk n.Mkns'k ikfjr gksus ds

i'pkr mldh vihy Hkh dh x;h gS ijarq izkFkhZ }kjk tkap vkns'k fnukad 06-07-1993 ds }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s

tkus dk vadu fd;k x;k gS tcfd tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse] mHk;i{kdkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr nLrksotkr

rFkk tkap i=koyh esa vofLFkr ewy nLrkostkr ds voyksdu ls izdV gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk Kkiu

la[;k ,Q&6&1@93&94 fnukad 13-09-1993 e; vuqcU/k izFke yxk;r prqFkZ fn;k tkuk] ftlds vuqdze esa

tkap izfdz;k vey esa yk;k tkuk] izkFkhZ pkSFkey lqeu }kjk tkap esa Lo;a dh vksj ls fnukad 04-10-1993 dks

rFkk fnukad 02-05-1994 dks tkap ds lanHkZ esa izfrosnu fn;k tkuk ftlds i'pkr ckn tkap vizkFkhZ

fu;kstd }kjk Kkiu la[;k ,Q&6&1@93&94 ds rgr tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk vius vkns'k fnukad 29-03-1994

ds }kjk vkjksi fl) ik;s x;s] ftl ij izoj v/kh{kd Mkd?kj] dksVk [k.M] dksVk }kjk vkns'k fnukad 13-06-

1994 ls tkap vf/kdkjh dh tkap fjiksVZ ls iw.kZr;k larq"V gksdj izkFkhZ pkSFkey lqeu dks Mkd foHkkxh; ,tsUV

¼lsok ,oa vkpj.k½ fu;ekoyh 1964 ds fu;e 8 ds v/khu nks"kfl) ik;k tkdj lsok ls fu"dklu ds n.M ls

nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA ,sls esa izLrqr jsQszal esa izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 06-07-1993 ,oa LVsVesaV vkWQ

Dyse esa lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 06-07-1993 ds laca/k esa i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; vofLFkr gksuk izdV ugha gS]

ftlds dkj.k foHkkxh; tkap ds Qs;jusl ds laca/k esas vkns'k fn;s tkus ls iwoZ izdj.k ds {kS=kf/kdj dk fcUnq

gh mRiUu gks tkrk gS fd izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djus dk {kS=kf/kdkj Hkh U;k;ky; dks gS ;k ughaA

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8- i=koyh ds lexz voyksdu ls izdV gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse rFkk U;k;ky; dks izkIr jsQzsl esa

izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 06-07-1993 dk vadu fd;k x;k gS tcfd mijksDr foospu ls ;g Li"V izekf.kr gS

fd izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 13-06-1994 gSA Qyr% ;g fcUnq Li"V ugha gS fd ;g U;k;ky; dkSulh lsok

i`Fkdrk fnukad ekudj jsQjsal dk fuLrkj.k djsxkA D;k ;g U;k;ky; izkIr jsQzsal rFkk izkFkhZ i{k }kjk crk;h lsok i`Fkdrk

fnukad 06-07-1993 ds vuqlkj vFkok tkap i=koyh o nLrkosth lk{; esa vafdr dh x;h lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 13-06-1994

ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k dj ldrk gS vFkok ugha\ bl ckcr ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp

U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ^^egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUn fd'kksj&2003 McY;w,ylh¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`"B 424^^ ds

isjk uEcj 12 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds }kjk fuEu vfHker izdV fd;k x;k gS%&"Thus, in view of the above, I

reach the inescapable conclusion that the Labour Court has no competence to

correct/modify/amend/alter the terms of the reference or mention the date of termination etc., or

proceed with the reference and accepting the date of termination as suggested by the workman and

in case it does so the award becomes nullity, being without jurisdiction, based on the bad

reference."

9- mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ds isjk la[;k 11 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ^^enuiky flag

cuke mRrjizns'k jkT; ,oa vU;&,vkbZvkj 2000 lqizhe dksVZ i`"B 537^^ dk mYys[k Hkh fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ekuuh;

mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ;g er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd Je U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj jsQzsUl esa vafdr fcUnq rd gh

lhfer gksrk gS vkSj mls jQzsUl ls ijs tkdj i{kdkjksa ds ukeksa ;k frfFk;ksa esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ ifjorZu ;k la'kks/ku

djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA ukeksa o frfFk;ksa esa dksbZ ifjorZu ;k la'kks/ku djokuk gS rks i{kdkjksa dks leqfpr ljdkj ds

le{k viuk i{k j[kdj bl ckcr dk;Zokgh djokuh gksxhA

10- vr% mDr fu.kZ;ksa ds izdk'k esa ;g Li"V gS fd ;fn jsQzsUl vkns'k rFkk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk

fnukad 06-07-1993 ,oa lk{; ls lkfcr lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 13-06-1994 gksdj fHkUu&fHkUu gksus ls U;k;ky; Dyse esa

vafdr lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad dks vk/kkj ekudj fu.kZ; ikfjr ugha dj ldrk gS D;ksafd ,slk fu.kZ; {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk

gksxk vkSj 'kwU; gksxkA fygktk bl n`f"V ls pwWfd gLrxr jsQzsUl vkns'k ,oa LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa mls gVkus dh

frfFk 06-07-1993 ijarq okLrfodrk esa izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk dh fnukad 13-06-1994 gS] tks vyx&vyx

gaS] ,sls esa fQygky ;g izdj.k bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS] ijUrq i{kdkj ;fn leqfpr

ljdkj ls bl ckcr jsQzsUl vkns'k esa la'kks/ku djokdj U;k;ky; esa is'k djrs gSa rks U;k;ky; ,sls jQzsUl vkns'k ij fof/k

vuqlkj dk;Z dj ldrk gSA

ifj.kker% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 03-09-2002 ds tfj;s

lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd of.kZr jsQzsUl vkns'k ,oa LVsVesaV vkWQ

Dyse esa izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 06-07-1993 rFkk okLrfodrk esa izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk 13-06-1994 gksdj]

vyx&vyx vFkok vLi"V gksuk izdV gS vkSj LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa vafdr frfFk dks U;k;ky; vk/kkj ekudj fu.kZ;

ikfjr ugha dj ldrk gS D;ksafd ,sls esa jsQzsUl vkns'k esa vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkuk 'kwU; ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk

gksxkA i{kdkj ;fn leqfpr ljdkj ls izkFkhZ dh lsok ls gVkus dh frFkh ckcr jsQzsUl vkns'k esa la'kks/ku djokdj is'k djsa

rks izdj.k esa fof/k vuqlkj fuLrkj.k dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA

lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k

vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 26-09-2024 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj

leqfpr ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA

नई दिल् ली, 9 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 22.—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान

la[;k 104/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@01@2025 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/159/2013-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2025

S.O. 22.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 104/2013) 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 04/01/2025.

[No. L-22012/159/2013 – 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 13^th day of November, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 104/2013

Between:

The President (Bandari Satyanarayan),

Telengana Trade Union Council,

H.No.5-295, Indranagar, Opp. Bus Stand,

Mancherial -504208.

….. Workman /Union

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,,

Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township -504 292.

Adilabad Dist.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Workman :

Sri S. Bhagwanth Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjith Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/159/2013-IR(CM-II)

dated 11.11.2013 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 workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,, Bellampalli Area, Goleti

Township(P.O), Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Amabati Chandraiah, Ex-coal Filler,

Morganspit, SCC Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 26.5.1998 is justified? If not, what relief the

applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 104/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the Workman is appointed as an employee on 2-11-1987, and he was confirmed to his service and

he become permanent employee during the course of service in the company. It is submitted that the Workman could

not attend to his duties during the year 1997 due to his ill health, the Respondent issued a Show cause notice dated

25-5-1997 and the Workman submitted a reply dt 2-6-1997 and could not be considered by the Respondent Company

and dismissed from service dated 21.5.1998. It is submitted that the Workman preferred an appeal to the Higher

authorities that went in vain and mechanically upheld the orders of chief General Manager, Bellampalli. It is

submitted that the Workman was put in 11 years of service without any red remark and the Workman has got still 20

years of service for superannuation. It is submitted that removal from service of the Workman, who has rendered

more than 10 years of qualified service is arbitrary, illegal and against to the principles of natural justice and also

against to the provision are governed by various standing orders of company. It is submitted that, the " Award And

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Settlements" both are decrees in Industrial Disputes Act. There was a settlement from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.2000 before

the Regional Labour Commissioner at Hyderabad those who were removed from 1-1-1998 to 31-12-2000, cases can

be considered by the Management as per the circular P. 40 /5911/IR/33, dt 10-3-2000, workman was called for

interview on 16-11-2002 and the workman is successfully attended the interview, so the case of the workman is not

considered for re-employment-as per settlement. If the workman was given employment he could have been put in

more than additional 12 years of service. the non-consideration of Workman is very bad in law and against settlement

by the company. It is submitted that Respondent did not conduct enquiry properly and no subsistence allowance is

paid and Respondent obtained thumb impressions on enquiry report by the Workman and enquiry and workman do

not know English language and enquiry conducted by the Respondent without mentioning contents therein. after

removal from the service by the Respondent, the workman and children of workman are fallen on roads with untold

sufferings. The relationship between the workman and Respondent is still continuing and the workman has not

reached the age of superannuation. It is therefore prayed to direct the Respondent to reinstate the workman into

service with continuity and other attendant benefits and with full back wages.

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

The contention of the Workman that he was appointed on 02.11.1987 and was confirmed as permanent employee and

is governed by the Standing Orders of the Company are all borne by record and the Respondent has no say over the

same. It is submitted that the Workman has not filed any single document especially his appointment letter and

conformation letter which are available with him in proof of his contention. It is submitted t hat because of the delay

on the part of the Workman, the relevant documents pertaining to the case of the Workman could not be located, since

the Morganspit Mine, where the Workman worked while in service was closed in the year 2000, ie, 16 years back and

the old records are not available. Since, the records concerned are also available with the Workman, the Workman

may kindly be directed to file all such relevant documents, on which the Workman intends to rely upon in leading his

case. The contention that the Workman could not attend to duties in the year 1997 due to ill health is not true and

correct. Not a single document was filed establishing his illness. In this regard, the workmen have to approach the

respective Hospitals of the Respondent Company, which are located near the mines where the workmen were

employed and get treatment and due certification of their illness. It is not open to the employee to rely upon outside

medical treatment without specific advice of the Respondent Company, as in several cases these certificates are

obtained only to get over the unauthorized absenteeism of the workmen. It is submitted that when the Company

Hospitals are of the view that more expert treatment is required to any workman, then at Respondent's cost, such

patient workmen are referred to super specialty hospitals located in Hyderabad and in such event, the workman need

not incur any financial expenditure. However, no such concurrence or advice of the Medical Department of the

Respondent Company has been filed. The Workman is a habitual absentee and was not having interest in the post he

was working. The Workman clearly admitted that a show cause notice was issued on 25.05.1997 to which he filed

reply on 02.06.1997 and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 21.05.1998. The further allegation of the

Workman that his appeal to higher authorities was also went in vain and the higher authorities mechanically upheld

the orders of Chief General Manager, Belampalli is denied and the Workman is put to strict proof of the said

allegation. It is submitted that he has filed an appeal to the higher authorities and the same could not yield any result

and the orders of the General Manager-Respondent No.2 were mechanically upheld is not correct. It is submitted

that the Workman has put in 11 years of service and still has 20 years of service goes against very case of the

Workman that he had rendered meritorious service and indulged in unauthorized absentceis1m and hence there is no

merit in trying to take any mileage of his service in the Respondent Company. The other contention that the Circular

dt. 10.03.2000 should have been taken into consideration in reinstating the Workman is without any merit as he could

not come within the parameters of the said circular nor the Workman has taken any care to file a copy of such circular

details of his case, as to how the said circular applies to his case. It is submitted that no proper enquiry was conducted,

no subsisting allowance was paid and he does not know English language, the Workman cannot agitate at this point of

time. Further, the payment of subsistence allowance arises only, if the Workman is suspended pending enquiry, as

per the provisions of the Standing Orders of the Company. As the Workman was not suspended, question of payment

of subsistence allowance does not arise at all. Further, pension claim of the Workman was also settled. It is submitted

that the children of the Workman are suffering, it should have been kept in mind by the Workman before exercising

his illegal act of unauthorized absenteeism. Had the Workman not indulged in unauthorized absenteeism, he would

have been continued in service and earned promotions and enjoyed happy married life and would not have allowed

the children suffer as stated. If due to dismissal of the Workman, his family members are suffering, he should have

been careful in attending his duties while in service. That the Workman has not made out any case for interference of

the Court. It is submitted that since no records could be located pertaining to the Workman's case, because of long

delay, this Respondent is unable to file any documents along with counter. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim

petition as devoid of merits.

Perused written arguments filed by Respondent.

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, following issues are to be determined:-

Whether the departmental enquiry held against workman is legal and valid?

II.

Whether, present industrial dispute is bad for delay and inordinate delay and latches?

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

III.

Whether the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the workman vide order dated 21.5.1998 is

justified?

IV.

To what relief if any the workman is entitled for?

Findings:-

6. Point No.I:- Workman in his claim statement has a submitted that Respondent did not conduct the enquiry

properly and no document was given to the workman. Further, it is submitted that Respondent obtained thumb

impression on the enquiry report and conducted the enquiry. As the workman do not know the English language and

enquiry was conducted by the Respondent without mentioning the contents therein and in violation of the principles

of justice. Therefore, prayed to decide the validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue.

On the other hand, it is contended that because of the delay on the part of the workman raising in raising the

industrial dispute, the relevant documents pertaining to the case of the workman could not be located since the

Morgan spit mine, where the workman worked while in service was closed in the year 2000, i.e., 16 years back and

the old records are not available. Further, it is contended that in spite of the best efforts the records could not be

located and the efforts to locate the documents was still on. Further, it is contended that since the record concerned

also available with the Workman and he may kindly be directed to file all such relevant documents on which the

workman intends to rely upon the leading his case.

8. Perused the record. The docket reveals that Respondent has filed his counter on 21^st April 2016 and he sought

time to file the documents but as the matter of dispute has been raised by the workman after long time. Therefore,

despite of best efforts, documents pertaining to the enquiry of the workman could not be traced out. Further, record

reveals that a memo dated 20.8.2019 was filed by the Respondent before the Tribunal with the contention that

Morganspit Mine, where the workman had last worked, has been closed during the year 2001 and about 12 years

from the date of closure of the mine and about 15 years from the date of dismissal, workman has raised industrial

dispute with inordinate delay in time. Since the Mine was closed long back, hence records are not traceable in the

office due to long span of time has elapsed. However, the available documents has been filed herewith. Further, it

is contended that relevant documents were also issued to the workman and workman could have filed documents

along with his claim statement. It is submitted that workman be directed to submit the relevant records to prove his

case. Further, it is contended that Respondent company is making effort to search the documents and as and when

they are traced out it will be filed on record. The perusal of record reveal that workman has challenged his dismissal

order dated 21.5.1998 in the year 2013 after elapsed of long period of 15 years and due to closure of the mine, the

documents were not traceable in the Respondent office. Since the original documents has lost or not traceable due to

long span of time elapsed, it was the duty of the workman to file the documents to substantiate his claim made in the

claim statement. But despite sufficient opportunity, accorded, the workman could not file any document to

substantiate his claim pertaining to legality and validity of domestic enquiry.

9. However, Respondent has filed the copy of the dismissal order dated 21^st May, 1998 which goes to reveal that

chargesheet was served to the chargesheeted Workman and despite service of the chargesheet, the workman did not

submit his explanation. Therefore, enquiry was conducted and workman attended the enquiry and after extending

the full and fair opportunity of hearing to workman to defend his case, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report

finding workman guilty of the charges under Standing Order No.25.31. Thereafter, the copy of enquiry report was

also supplied to the workman. The Workman failed to submit any document or explanation to disprove the contents

of the dismissal order dated 21^st May, 1998. However, the Departmental Enquiry held against workman has also

been held legal and valid vide order dated 4.2.2020. Therefore, in view of the above, it is held that the domestic

enquiry held against the workman was legal and valid.

The issue is decided against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

10. Point No.II:- The Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that the present industrial dispute has been raised

by the workman with inordinate delay of 15 years from the date of his dismissal and the same cannot be entertained

in view of the provision of ID Act. Therefore, prayed that the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed on this

count alone. Further, it is contended that the workman has filed petition under Section 2A(2), whereas workman has

to approach the court within three years of his dismissal/termination. Admittedly, workman did not approach this

Court against dismissal order within stipulated time of three years, hence, the present petition has been filed with the

delay of 15 years from the date of dismissal and liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

11. The record reveals that the Workman has not furnished any explanation in his claim statement regarding the

inordinate delay of 15 years in raising the industrial dispute. Admittedly, workman was dismissed from services by

the Respondent vide order dated 21.5.1998 and the reference for adjudication has been made to this Tribunal vide

order dated 11^th November, 2013. There is a delay of about 15 years in raising the industrial dispute and workman

has not furnished any plausible explanation in his claim statement for such inordinate delay in raising the industrial

dispute. Therefore, in the instant case, the industrial dispute has been raised by the workman with an inordinate delay

of 15 years and such an inordinate delay in raising the dispute it will cause prejudice to the Respondent to defend the

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

case due to long period elapsed and he may not have record pertaining to the matter in his possession due to loss or

damage done to it.

12. In this context, I would like to make reference of few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where it has

been held that, if the industrial dispute is raised after an inordinate delay of 8 to 12 years, such a dispute is not

maintainable.

In K R Reddy Vs. Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Hon’ble Court held:

“The Supreme Court extensively considered the scope of relevant provisions and precedent decisions. The Supreme

Court held that there was inordinate, unexplained delay in referring the dispute.”

In Assistant Engineer, CAD, Kota and Dhan Kumwar, CA No.6473, 2006 III LLJ, the Hon’ble Apex Court

held:

“workman raising the dispute eight years after termination of service –relief by Labour Court should not have been

granted to workman.”

In the case of Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank and Neelam, 2005 I LLJ, the Hon’ble

Apex Court held:

“Though no time limit prescribed for raising industrial dispute, but stale claim, could not be entertained –

approaching Labour Court after delay of more than 7 years. Held:- justified refusal of relief in this case.”

Therefore, in view of the ongoing decisions, and also settled law laid down by Hon’ble Court, I am of the view that

industrial dispute raised by workman after inordinate delay of 15 years is bad and not maintainable due to delay and

latches in raising the industrial dispute.

This point is answered against the workman and in favour of Respondent.

13. Point No.III:-

Now, dealing with the matter on merit, in the instant matter, the workman in his claim

statement has submitted that he was appointed on 2.11.1987 in Respondent Company and was confirmed in the

service. Further, it is submitted that workman did not attend to his duties during the year 1997 due to his ill-health and

Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 25^th May 1997 and Workman has submitted reply dated 2^nd June, 1997.

But his reply was not considered by the Respondent company and he was dismissed from Service vide order dated

21.5.1998. Therefore, it is submitted that order of the removal of workman from service was rendered as illegal and

against the principles of natural justice.

14. On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the submission of the Workman that he could not attend the

duty in the year 1997 due to ill-health is not true and correct. It is contended that not a single document has been

filed which establishes the fact of illness. Further, it is contended that in the case of illness the workman has to

approach the respective hospitals of Respondent company which are located near the mines where the workmen were

employed and get treatment and certification of illness. It is not open to the employee to rely upon outside medical

treatment and without specific advice of the Respondent company as, in several cases, these certificates are obtained

only to get over the unauthorised absenteeism of the workmen. When the company hospitals are of the view that

more expert treatment is required to any workman, then at Respondent’s cost such a patient Workmen are referred to

super specialty hospitals located in Hyderabad and in such event, the Workman need not incur any financial

expenditure. However, no such concurrence or advice of the medical department of the Respondent company has

been filed to show that the workman required any expert treatment leave alone the proof of his having attended the

company hospital has been filed. The Workman was a habitual absentee and was not having interest in the post he

was working. Further, it is contended that workman clearly admitted that a show cause notice was issued on

25.5.1997 to him and to which he filed reply on 2.6.1997 and he was dismissed from service on 21.5.1998.

However, not a single document with regard to the show cause notice or the reply or even his dismissal letter has been

filed by the workman in proof of his allegations. Further, the workman has also appealed to higher authorities and

order of dismissal has been upheld.

15. In view of the submissions of the Learned Counsels of both parties, perused the record. Workman has not filed

any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that he was absent from duties due to illness. No medical

certificate from competent medical authority has been filed to substantiate his claim. Moreover workman has not

submitted any explanation as to why he did not report sick at the hospital of the Respondent company. Admittedly,

he remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave or sufficient cause for the alleged period during the year

1997 and that amounts to misconduct under Standing Order No.25.25 and 25.31 as extracted below-

25.25: “Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without any sufficient cause.

25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause for over staying beyond

sanctioned leave."

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

16. As regards, habitual absentee employee from duty without any sufficient cause, Hon’ble Apex Court have laid

down the principles in number of cases. Few of the decisions are quoted below:-

In State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh 1996 (1) SCC 302, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“Having notices the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several occasions,

we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not amount to such a

grave charge. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with

the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge' especially when

the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is

made out.”

In North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. v. Ashappa decided on 12 May, 2006 Hon’ble Apex Court have

held:-

“Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The Appellant runs a

fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the buses, the service

of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a

long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained

absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, his leave records were

seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, it

cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein has to be treated lightly.

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:

"11. Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence,

more particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was no negligence

and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the Standing Orders shows

the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement of prior permission. Only

exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-observance of which renders

the absence unauthorised."

Therefore, in view of the settled law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and provision contained in standing orders,

the workman remained absent from duty habitually without sanctioned leave or without any sufficient cause. Hence,

he has been rightly held guilty of misconduct under the Company’s Standing Orders No. 25.25 and 25.31.

17. As far as the question of interference by Tribunal in the finding and order of disciplinary authority is concerned,

I would like to refer the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed below:-

In the case of State of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya in Civil Appeal No.5861/2007 dated 1.3.2001

is relevant. Therein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“6. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the

domestic Enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the Enquiry

has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or

the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries.

Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such

findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether

a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will

however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations

have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous

considerations.

In State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 276], Hon’ble Apex Court have

held:-

“the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed

upon by the Respondent stating: "It is now well-settled that principles of law that the High Court or the Tribunal in

exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. Doctrine of

proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now well-settled that the High Court shall be very

slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment unless it is found to be shocking to one's conscience."

Further, in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, the 2022

LLR page 126, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held:

“once the Enquiry finding is held to be fair and proper, industrial Tribunal or Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to

interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of conduct.”

Further, in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Heem Singh, Civil Appeal No.3340/2020, (supra) Hon’ble Apex

Court have held:-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

33. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a

rule of restraint. The second defines when interference is permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of

judicial review. This is for a valid reason. The determination of whether a misconduct has been committed lies

primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The judge does not assume the mantle of the disciplinary

authority. Nor does the judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding of fact by the disciplinary authority

is a recognition of the idea that it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient conduct of their service.

Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of

evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which governs a

criminal trial, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities.

Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context and subject. That is to satisfy the

conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct and to guard against

perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings in a disciplinary Enquiry or to

substitute a view which appears to the judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first principle which

has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the judges’ craft is

in vain.”

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed

above, in the instant matter I do not find any ground or occasion to interfere in the finding or order of dismissal

passed by Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the order of dismissal dated 21.5.1998 passed by Disciplinary Authority

is held legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.

18.

Point No.IV: In view of the finding given in Point Nos. I,II & III, the claim petition of the Workman is

devoid of merits, and he is not entitled to get any relief, hence, same is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.

ORDER

The action of General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,, Bellampalli Area, Goleti

Township(P.O), Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Amabati Chandraiah, Ex-coal Filler, Morganspit,

SCC Ltd., Bellampalli Area vide order dated 21.5.1998 with effect from 26.5.1998 is held justified. As such, the

workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the

13^th day of November, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Workman

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Workman

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल् ली, 9 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 23.—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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान

la[;k 20/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@01@2025 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/4/2012-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2025

S.O. 23.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 20/2012) 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 04/01/2025.

[No. L-22012/4/2012 – 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 13^th day of November, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 20/2012

Between:

The State General Secretary

(Sri Revelli Rajaram)

Singareni Coal Mines Labour Union (INTUC),

INTUC Bhavan, Godavarikhani.

Karimnagar Dist.A.P.-505209.

….. Petitioner/Union

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

GDK-8 Inc., Colony (P.O.),

Karimnagar Dist.A.P.- 505 211.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy , Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjith Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/4 / 2012-IR(CM-II) dated

18.4.2012 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 workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-II

Area, Godavarikhani in terminating the services of Sri Thalla Mogilaiah, Ex.General Mazdpr/Acting LHD

Operator, GDK-9 Inc., Ramagundam-II Area with effect from 25.7.2001 is justified or not? To what relief

the concerned workman is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D No.20/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that, Sri Thalla Mallaiah was a member of Singareni Coal Mines Labour Union (INTUC). The

concerned workman was initially appointed on 22-12-1983 in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited and was

converted as General Mazdoor at GDK-9 Incline. It is submitted that, three kinds of workmen will be working in the

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, such as, monthly rated employees, daily rated employees and piece rated

employees. The post of General Mazdoor falls under the daily rated category. The nature of duties of General

Mazdoor are, wherever there is a requirement of daily rated employee, General Mazdoors will be posted to work in

such daily rated categories. Amongst the daily rated categories, General Mazdoor is the lowest cadre i.e. Category-I,

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

whereas, many other daily rated categories, such as, Coal Cutter, Timberman, Hauler Operator, LHD Operator, etc. all

the above categories are higher cadres and will be paid higher wages than that of the category of General Mazdoor.

Whenever, a General Mazdoor is posted to work in higher categories, they will be paid officiating allowance. Besides,

those officiating musters would be calculated for their promotion to the higher categories. The higher daily rated

categories would be filled in, on regular basis only basing on the more number of officiating musters put in by the

General Mazdoors. As a General Mazdoor, the concerned workman has worked as LHD Operator for more than 9

years i.e. from 1990 to 1999. It is submitted that, though the concerned workman has put in more number of

officiating musters, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of LHD Operator on regular basis, whereas,

many others, who are juniors to the concerned workman, who have got less number of officiating musters as LHD

Operators namely, Md.Kareem, Sattaiah, Burella Komraiah, etc. were conferred with promotion as LHD Operators on

regular basis. It is submitted that aggrieved by the discriminatory attitude on the part of the authorities of the

Respondent, workman has approached the authorities on several occasions requesting to promote him as LHD

Operator, but in vain. While so, workman was constrained to approach the Hon'ble High Court of AP by filing

W.P.No. 10963 of 2000, seeking promotion along with other similarly situated persons, which is still pending. As

the workman has approached the Hon'ble High Court of AP, seeking justice, having developed a grouse, workman

was not permitted to perform his duties. Though, he has approached the authorities requesting to consider his case

for performing his duties. It is submitted that, as a result of the arbitrary action of the authorities of the Respondent in

not conferring promotion and also not permitting him to perform his duties, the concerned workman was subjected to

great mental agony and he became sick and he has undergone treatment in several hospitals. In the

meanwhile,Respondent stated to have issued a charge sheet alleging unauthorized absenteeism. But, no such charge

sheet was served on the workman, even then, by conducting an exparte enquiry, workman was dismissed from service

w.e.f. 25-07-2001 vide office order No.P.RG.I/TM1570, dt.24-07-2001. It is submitted that as the workman was not

aware of either issuance of charge sheet or issuance of office order of dismissal from service, he could not agitate the

matter. When workman came to know about the issuance of impugned office order dt.24-07-2001, he has approached

the Respondent and submitted a representation dt.22-10-2010 categorically pleading all the factual aspects. It is

submitted that workman has also pleaded that, he was attacked with paralysis and was admitted in Singareni Area

Hospital, Ramagundam Area and was even referred to NIMS, Hyderabad, for treatment in June, 2010. After he was

discharged from NIMS, the workman approached the authorities for further treatment. At that juncture, i.e. in

October, 2010, he was informed that his services have already been terminated. Union initiated the conciliation

proceedings, which ended in failure, resulting in the present reference. It is submitted that the workman's inability to

attend for his duties was not willful on his part. It is submitted that as he was undergoing treatment in various out

station hospitals, he was not aware of either issuance of charge sheet or publication made by the Respondent in the

newspaper, hence, he could not participate in the enquiry. It is submitted that Respondent stated to have published

the notice of enquiry in the Vaartha News Paper dt.15-03-2001, but concerned workman had no knowledge about the

same. Had the Respondents followed the rules scrupulously, the workman could have participated in the enquiry or at

least he could have approached the Respondents informing the factum of his ill-health and also he could have made a

request to postpone the enquiry. It is submitted that workman is the lone earning member of his family, as a result of

his dismissal from service, workman and his family members are left with no source of livelihood. The contention of

the Respondents that there were no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view is also factually incorrect. It is

submitted that but for his sickness concerned workman could have attended for duties regularly. In these

circumstances, if this Hon'ble Court comes to a conclusion that enquiry conducted by the Respondents is proper and

the charges alleged against the concerned workman are rightly held proved, even then, concerned workman craves

indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to modify the punishment of dismissal from service is totally disproportionate and

excessive in nature. As such, the workman pray this Hon'ble Court to modify the punishment from dismissal to that

of any other lesser punishment by exercising powers conferred under Section 11A of ID Act, thereby providing

another opportunity to the concerned workman, to secure bread to himself and his family members, consisting of his

wife and children. It is therefore prayed to direct the Respondent to reinstate the workman into service with all

consequent benefits.

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

It is submitted that workman was initially appointed in the Company as Badli filler on 22.12.1993, and later was

drafted as General Mazdoor (Underground). While working at GDK.9 Incline, Godavarikhani, RG-ll Area he was

issued with a chargesheet vide Lr. No.Gdk-9/2001/CS/19, dated 07.02.2001 under Company's Standing Orders

No. 25.31 for the misconduct committed by him which reads as follows:

25(31): Absence from duties without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or over staying beyond sanctioned leave.

It is submitted that charge sheeted workman was not attending his duties continuously for a long time, as such the

charge sheet was sent to his native address by Registered post with Acknowledgement due. However, the Registered

post containing the charge sheet was returned undelivered by the postal authorities. Therefore, the chargesheet-cum-

enquiry notice was published in the Telugu daily news paper ‘VARTHA' dated 15.03.2001, advising the workman to

attend the enquiry in the Office of the Colliery Manager, Gdk-9 Incline on 28.03.2001at 10.00AM to defend his case

and informing that if he fails to attend the enquiry the enquiry proceedings will be held Ex-parte. However, inspite of

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

giving fair and full opportunity to the charge sheeted workman he did not attend enquiry on 28.03.2001, nor did he

sent any intimation expressing his inability in attending the enquiry, as such the enquiry was held ex-parte following

the principles of natural justice. The Presenting Officer and the management witness attended the enquiry and

deposed their evidence which was duly recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Further, the documentary evidence was

produced by the management to substantiate the charges leveled against the charge sheeted workman in the enquiry.

The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced in the enquiry and after appreciating all the evidence,

submitted his report in which the charge sheeted workman was held to be guilty of the charges leveled against him

under Company's Standing Order No.25.31. The Show Cause Notice No P.RG.II/TM/1179, dated 25.05.2001 along

with the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report was sent to his native address with Registered Post, advising him to

submit his representation if any, against the findings of the enquiry report, within seven days in receipt of the letter. It

is submitted that delinquent workman acknowledged the receipt of the same but did not submit any representation. It

is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings, and after evaluating

all the evidence on record concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and as the charges framed and proved

in the enquiry were grave and serious in nature warranting punishment with that of dismissal, and after considering

his past record found no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view, the delinquent workman was dismissed

from Company's Services with effect from 25.07.2001 vide letter No. RG./TM/1570, dated.24.07.2001. It is

submitted that the concerned workman was very irregular and continuously absented from duty from 23.06.2000, and

put in only 99 attendances in the year 2000 and remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave, sick or sufficient

cause. Further, the workman did not inform or communicate the reasons of his absence to the mine authorities at any

point of time, which clearly establish the fact that he was not interested in his job. The workman failed to correct

himself even though ample time was given from the time of issue of charge sheet till his dismissal and continued to

remain absent from duty unauthorized. It is submitted that the whenever there is a requirement to engage workmen

for daily rated jobs in the absence of the permanent workmen, the General Mazdoors are engaged on this higher

category jobs and acting allowance will be paid to them. The workman was engaged to work as LHD Operator as and

when required, and higher category wages of LHD Operator was paid to him. Further, as per the Company's

guidelines when ever daily rated vacancies are to be filled, the acting musters from the panel of the workman who are

engaged on that particular job will be taken into consideration. The allegation of the petitioner that the concerned

workman has worked as LHD Operator for more than 9 years i.e. from 1990 to 1999 is not correct. It is submitted

that while filling up of vacancies in daily rated jobs are done as per guidelines, based on acting musters put in by the

workman concerned in that particular job. Further, before issuing the office order, the details of the acting particulars

of all the workmen, who were engaged on that particular job will be displayed on the Notice Board inviting objections

if any, within the time specified before releasing the promotion order. As such, the allegations of the petitioner that

though the concerned workman has put in more number of officiating musters, his case was not considered for

promotion as LHD Operator and juniors to him with less number of musters were promoted as LHD Operators is

baseless, hence denied. Further, it is submitted that the concerned workman along with two others filed a Writ

Petition No.10963 of 2000 in the Hon'ble High Court, challenging the action of the management in regularizing the

LHD Operators, and ignoring the petitioners seniority while giving LHD Operator promotions. The Hon'ble High

Court of Judicature of AP dismissed the petition vide Order dated 26.11.2010. As such, the allegation of the

petitioner that the Writ Petition is still pending is false, hence denied. Further, the allegation of the petitioner that the

he was not permitted to perform his duties by the authorities and he became sick and took treatment in hospitals is

equally false, hence denied. If the workman was really suffering from ill health nothing prevented him from joining

in Company Hospital for treatment. In which case, other than availing medical facilities the workman will be kept on

the sick rolls of the Company, hereby the period he is under treatment will not be reckoned as unauthorized absent

from duty. However, the workman neither approached the office nor communicated the reasons for his absence from

duty to the mine authorities at any point of time. It is submitted that a copy of the dismissal letter was displayed on the

notice board at the mine, but the workman did not submit any representation. As such, the allegations of the petitioner

that the concerned workman was not aware of the issuance of charge sheet or dismissal order is not maintainable. It

is submitted that the workman after his dismissal from the services of the Company on proved charges, approached

the Company Area Hospital on 02.08.2010 for treatment. As his name was still figured in the Hospital Information

System, even after his dismissal necessary medical facilities were extended to him, and as his condition was

deteriorating he was referred to NIMS and Image Hospitals Hyderabad on emergency basis for further treatment by

Ambulance on 06.08.2010. However, as he was not eligible for referral to higher centre in Hyderabad for medical

treatment after his dismissal, an amount of Rs. 1,86,672/- was recovered towards medical charges incurred by the

Respondent from his terminal benefits. As such, the allegations of the petitioner that the concerned workman was

admitted in Singareni Hospital and even referred to NIMS, Hyderabad for treatment has no relevance to the case. As

such, the allegations of the petitioner that the concerned workman after obtaining the copy of the dismissal letter

approached the Respondent and pleaded all the aspects is not correct. It is submitted that the concerned workman

should have been more careful and conscious of his responsibilities, if he is the sole bread winner to his family.

Further, as to the allegations of the petitioner that as a result of his dismissal his whole family is without livelihood, it

is the workman himself who has to be blamed for this situation, with his negligent behavior towards his job. The

workman should have realized his responsibilities towards his family members and also as an employee in

Respondent Company and should have attended his duties regularly. It is submitted that the Respondent's Company

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employs more than 61,000 persons, and the production results will depend upon the overall attendance and

performance of each and every individual. They are inter-linked and inseparable as Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

continuous unauthorized absenteeism will have serious repercussions on the functioning of the underground mines, as

already planned work schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice and production and performance will get

affected, resulting in financial loss and liability to the Company besides effecting the safety of mine and persons

working therein. Thus, absenteeism is a serious misconduct and the management is compelled to take appropriate

action against the unauthorized absentees on proved charges. In the instant case, the workman concerned is one such

unauthorized absentee. Therefore, in this circumstances as stated supra, the punishment of dismissal justified the

gravity of misconduct proved. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of merits.

4. Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties as well as perused written arguments.

5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following points emerge for determination in the instant

matter:-

Whether the departmental enquiry held against the workman is legal and valid?

II. Whether the dismissal order passed by the Respondent against the Workman with effect from 25.

7.2001 is justified?

III. To what relief if any the workman is entitled?

Findings:-

6. Point No.I:- The departmental enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated 31.7.2023 by the Tribunal.

Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.II:- In the instant matter, Workman has filed claim statement seeking relief to declare the impugned

office proceeding No.P.RG.II/TM/1570 dated 24.7.2001 issued by Respondent as illegal and arbitrary. But the record

of enquiry proceeding reveals that there is no such order dated 24.7.2001 whereby the Workman has been dismissed

from service. It was the order dated 23.7.2001 passed by General Manager, Ramagundam Area-II, whereby the

Workman has been dismissed from service with effect from 25.7.2001. Therefore, as per record, the relief clause of

the claim statement as submitted by the Workman is defective. Further, in the instant matter Workman has challenged

his dismissal order from service with effect from 25.7.2001 passed by Respondent for misconduct of workman under

Company’s Standing Order No.25.31. Workman submitted that the charge sheet was not served upon him by the

Enquiry Officer before conducting the enquiry and dismissal order was passed on the basis of Ex-parte Enquiry.

Further, it is submitted that he has not received any communication from Respondent and Respondent is put to strict

proof of the same, that they have sent the charge sheet to the Workman.

8. Per contra, Respondent has contended that the charge sheeted Workman was not attending duties continuously

for a long time, as such, charge sheet was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. However, the

registered post containing the chargesheet was returned undelivered by the postal authorities. Therefore, charge sheet

cum enquiry notice was published in Telugu daily newspaper Vartha dated 15.3.2001, advising the Workman to

attend enquiry in the Office of the Colliery Manager, GK 9 Incline on 28.3.2001 at 10:00 AM to defend his case

informing that if he fails to attend the enquiry, the enquiry proceedings will be held ex-parte. Further, inspite of

giving fair and full opportunity to the chargesheeted Workman, he did not attend enquiry on 28/3/2001. Further, it is

submitted that the enquiry was conducted ex-parte on 28.3.2001 adhering to principles of natural justice. The

Presenting Officer and the management witness deposed their evidence which was duly recorded by the Enquiry

Officer. Further, the documentary evidence was produced by the management to substantiate the charges levelled

against the chargesheeted Workman in the enquiry. On the basis of the evidence adduced in the enquiry and after

appreciating all the evidence submitted, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in which the charge sheeted

Workman was held to be guilty of charges levelled against him under Company’s Standing Order No.25.31. Further,

it is submitted that the show cause notice dated 25.5.2001 along with the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report was

sent to his native address with registered post advising him to submit his representation, if any against the findings of

the enquiry report. The delinquent Workman acknowledged the receipt of the same but did not submit any

representation. Further, it is submitted that Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings

and after evaluating all the evidence on record concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and as the charges

framed and proved in the enquiry were grave and serious in nature, warranting punishment with that of dismissal and

after considering his past record, found no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view. The delinquent Workman

was dismissed from Company’s services with effect from 25.7.2001. Further, it is submitted that the concerned

Workman was very irregular and continuously absented from duty from 23.6.2000 and put in only 99 attendances in

the year 2000 and remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave, sick or sufficient cause. Further, it is

submitted that the Workman did not inform, communicate the reasons of his absence to the Mine authorities at any

point of time, which establishes the fact that he was not interested in his job.

9. In view of the submissions made by Learned Counsels for both parties, perused the record of enquiry proceeding.

As per charge sheet, the Workman was absent from duty without sanctioned leave, sick or sufficient cause from

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र :िनवरी 18, 2025/पौष 28, 1946

23.6.2000 upto the date of charge sheet 7.2.2001. Further, it reveals from the record that the Workman has put in

only 99 attendances in the year 2000 and remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause.

Workman has taken the plea that charge sheet was not served upon him and enquiry was conducted ex-parte. The

record of enquiry proceeding would reveal that the charge sheet was sent to the Workman’s address by registered post

acknowledgment due at the address of the Workman, available in the office record and the registered post returned

with the endorsement that the Postman attempted to deliver the charge sheet for 7 times at the given address of the

Workman and thereafter the registered post was returned to the sender undelivered. It clearly goes to show that

workman avoided the service of charge sheet. The record of the enquiry proceeding further goes to reveal that the

enquiry was initiated on 28/3/2001 by the Enquiry Officer and the Statement of witness Sri Y. Hanumantha Rao,

Office Superintendent was recorded and he has deposed in his statement that the Workman Sri T. Mogilaiah, General

Mazdoor remained absent from duty continuously from 23.6.2000 without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause till

the date of issue of the charge sheet dated 7.2.2001. Further, witness deposed that charge sheet dated 7.2.2001 was

sent to the workman by registered post acknowledgement due at his last known address of the Workman, available

on office record, but the envelope containing charge sheet cum enquiry notice was returned undelivered “ 7 days

absent hence returned to the sender.” The management has also published a paper notification of Charge sheet cum

enquiry notice in the largest circulated Telugu daily newspaper Vartha on 15^th March 2001 advising the Workman to

attend the enquiry on 28^th March 2001 at 10:00 AM along with his witnesses, to defend his case if any, at the office

of Colliery Manager, GDK 9 Incline, before the Enquiry Officer. Further witness has deposed that Workman did

not inform Enquiry Officer of his inability to attend the enquiry. The witness has also proved the undelivered and

returned registered post acknowledgement due envelope containing the charge sheet and enquiry notice. Thus, it is

established that Workman remained absent from duties from 23.6.2000, till the date of charge sheet. The charge

sheet and inquiry notice was sent to workman by registered post A/D, at the address given in the office record,

Workman did not turn up in response to the notice. Thus, it is presumed that the notice sent by registered post A/D

has been served upon the recipient. However, Respondent management has also published the notice in Telugu

newspaper Daily newspaper dated 15^th March 2001 Therefore, the plea of Workman that chargesheet was not served

upon him before conducting the enquiry is untenable. However, it is not the case of the Workman that the chargesheet

was not sent at his correct address. Therefore, plea of the Workman of non-serving the chargesheet is untenable.

10.

Further, Workman has taken the plea that his inability to attend the duty was not willful on his part and in fact

for quite sometime authorities of the Respondent at GDK 9 Incline have not permitted the Workman to perform his

duties as he has filed a Writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of AP seeking justice. Later, the concerned

Workman became sick and bedridden. Further, it is submitted that as a result of the mental agony being suffered by

the Workman, the factor of publication was also could not be observed by the workman.

11.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the concerned Workman was not attending his duties

continuously for a long time without sanctioned leave, sick or sufficient cause in the year 2000. The Workman failed

to atleast inform or communicate the reasons of his absence to the Mine authorities at any point of time. Further,

Respondent contended that the chargesheet was returned undelivered by the postal authorities. Therefore, chargesheet

cum enquiry notice was published in Telugu daily newspaper Vartha on 15.3.2001. Respondent has contended that

delinquent Workman neither attended the enquiry nor communicated his inability to attend the Enquiry, as such, the

enquiry was held ex-parte. Further, it is contended that the allegation of the petitioner that he has not received any

charge sheet and not observed the publication or received show cause notice is not correct. Further, the allegation

that because he has filed petition before the Hon’ble High Court, he was not permitted to perform the his duties is

also not true, hence denied. The Workman is put to strict proof of the same.

12.

The perusal of the record reveals that the Workman has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate

his contention that the Respondent did not permit him to perform his duty, because he has filed petition before the

Hon’ble High Court seeking justice. Further, workman has not submitted any documentary evidence of his illness

during the absence period from duty as alleged in the charge sheet. Therefore, the plea of the workman in this respect

is not acceptable for the want of any evidence.

13.

The perusal of the enquiry proceedings reveals that in support of the chargesheet, the Respondent management

has examined two witnesses Sri Y.l Hanumantha Rao and another one is Sri P Vijay Kumar, Pay sheet clerk, who

have deposed during the enquiry that the Workman remained absent from 23^rd June 2000 till the date of charge sheet

without any cause or without any sanctioned leave and despite the fair opportunity of hearing accorded by Enquiry

Officer, the Workman failed to avail it. Therefore, Enquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence recorded during the

enquiry found workman guilty of the charges of Company Standing Orders No. 25.31. Thus, in view of fore gone

discussion, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the dismissal order dated 23.7.2001 of the

Workman. As regards the nature of misconduct of the absenteeism from the duty, it is settled law that, it is a serious

and grave misconduct for which the employer is under obligation to dismiss the delinquent employee. In this

context, I would like to make reference of relevant decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court which are discussed below:-

In State of U.P. V. Ashok Kumar Singh 1996 (1) SCC 302, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“Having notices the fact that the first Respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several occasions,

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JANUARYR 18, 2025/PAUSHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not amount to such a

grave charge. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with

the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge' especially when

the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is

made out.”

In the case of North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. v. Ashappa decided on 12 May, 2006 wherein, the Apex