862 GI/2025

(463)

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. 05]

नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 9—फरवरी 15, 2025, िजनवार/माघ 20—माघ 26, 1946

No. 05]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 9—FEBRUARY 15, 2025, SATURDAY/MAGHA 20–MAGHA 26, 1946

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

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्राल

(रािस्ट्व जवभाग)

(केन्री प्रत् क्ष कर बोडड)

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 166.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10 के

उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, जनम्नजलज त का ाडल ों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमडचारर ों ने

जिन्िी का का ड सािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:

प्रिान मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त, बेंगलूरु क्षेत्र

का ाडल प्रिान मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (प्रिा.एवं करिाता सेवाएं), बेंगलूरु

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-21022025-261209

CG-DL-W-21022025-261209

464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (ऑजडट), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (न् ाज क), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृीली अजिकरण (आईटीएटी), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल मु.आ.आ. (आरईएफएसी), ृट्टो

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (आरईएसी) (जन. ू.)-1, ृट्टो

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (आरईएसी) (जन. ू.) -1(1), ृट्टो

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (आरईएसी) (जन. ू.) -1(2), ृट्टो

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (आरईएसी) (जन. ू.) -1(3)¸ ृट्टो

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (आरईएसी) (जन. ू.) -1(4), ृट्टो

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (आरएफएसी) (वी. ू.) -1, ृट्टो

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त, रेंि -1, ृट्टो

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (आरईएफएसी) (समीक्षा ूजनट), ृट्टो

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त, आरईएसी (समीक्षा ूजनट) – 1, ृट्टो

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त, आरईएसी (समीक्षा ूजनट) - 1 (2), ृट्टो

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त, आरईएसी (समीक्षा ूजनट) - 1 (3), ृट्टो

का ाडल राष्ट्री प्रत् क्ष कर अकािमी, क्षेत्री ृररसर, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर मिाजनिेिक (अन्वेषण), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (केंरी )(मु.), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त,(केंरी ) रेंि-1, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त,(केंरी ) रेंि-2, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त,(केंरी ) रेंि-1, ृणिी

का ाडल आ कर उृ आ ुक्त,(केन्री ) रेंि-1, बेलगावी

का ाडल आ कर सिा क आ ुक्त,(केंरी ) सकडल, हुब्बल्ली

का ाडल आ कर उृ आ ुक्त ,(केन्री ) सकडल, बल्लारी

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,(केंरी ), मंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,(केंरी ), मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,(केंरी ), िासन

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर जनिेिक, ृणिी-गोवा

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील)-2,ृणिी

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त(अृील)-11, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर जनिेिक(अन्वेषण) (मु्‍ ा.),बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर जनिेिक(अन्वे.), ू-1, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर जनिेिक(अन्वे.), ू-2, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर जनिेिक(अन्वे.), ू-3,बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर जनिेिक(अन्वे.),बी.ृी. ू, बेंगलूरु

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

465

का ाडल आ कर अृर जनिेिक(अन्वे.), एफ.ए.आइ. ू, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर जनिेिक(अन्वे.), मंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर उृ जनिेिक(अन्वे.), मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर सिा क जनिेिक(अन्वे.), िासन

का ाडल आ कर जनिेिक आ ुक्त,(सी.ृी.सी.), बेंगलूरु

मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त, बेंगलूरु - 2 क्षेत्र

का ाडल मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त, बेंगलूरु - 2

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1(1), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1(2), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1(3), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1(4), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-2, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-3, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-3(1), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-3(2), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-3(3), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-3(4), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक् त, (स.ई.)-1,बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (वी. ू.)-1, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1, मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1(1),मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1(2), मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1(3), मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (जन. ू.)-1(4), मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -1, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -2, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -3, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -4, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -5, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -6, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -7, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -8, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -9, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -10, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (अृील) ूजनट -11, बेंगलूरु

466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त, बेंगलूरु -1 क्षेत्र

का ाडल मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त -1 (मु्‍ ा.), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त -1, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त , रेंि - 1(1), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त, रेंि - 6(1),

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त – 2, बेंगलूरु (मु्‍ ाल )

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,रेंि-2(1),बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1,तुमकुरु

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी,जतृतूर

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,रेंि-2(2),बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,रेंि-4(1),बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1,कोलार

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,रेंि-4(3),बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,रेंि-7(1),बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त– 3,(मु.) बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,रेंि-3(1),बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड – 1, रामनगरा

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,रेंि-3(3),बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर/सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,रेंि-1,मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1,चमरािनगर

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1,मांड्या

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1,िासन

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1,जचक्कामंगलुरु

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1,मदिकेरी

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त,हुब्बल्ली

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त, ृणिी

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त,रेंि-1,ृणिी

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त,रेंि-1,मंगलूप

मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.कें),बेंगलूरु क्षेत्र

का ाडल मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.कें),बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1(1), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1(2), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1(3), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1(4), बेंगलूरु

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

467

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-2, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-3, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-3(1), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-3(2), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-3(3), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-3(4), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक् त, (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(स.ई.)-1,बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(वी. ू.)-1, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल प्रिान आ कर आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1, ,मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1(1),मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1(2), मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1(3), मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (क्षे.ृ.जव.जन.के.)(जन. ू.)-1(4), मजसूरु

आ कर जनिेिक (आसूचना एवं आृराजिक अन्वे.), बेंगलूरु क्षेत्र

का ाडल आ कर जनिेिक (आसूचना एवं आृराजिक अन्वे.), बेंगलूरु

आ कर आ ुक्त (छूट), बेंगलूरु क्षेत्र

का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (छूट) , बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1 (छूट) ूजनट, मंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1 (छूट), मजसूरु

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1 (छूट) कलबुगी

का ाडल आ कर अजिकारी, वाडड-1 (छूट) ृणिी

मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त (टी.डी.एस.), बेंगलूरु क्षेत्र

का ाडल मु्‍ आ कर आ ुक्त (टीडीएस) (मु्‍ ाल ), बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (टीडीएस), रेंि-1, बेंगलूरु

का ाडल आ कर अृर आ ुक्त (टीडीएस), रेंि-2, बेंगलूरु

4 का ाडल आ कर आ ुक्त (टीडीएस), ृणिी

5 का ाडल आ कर सं ुक्त आ ुक्त (टीडीएस), रेंि हुब्बल्ली

[फा. सं. ई-30018/1/2024- डीडी (ओएल) डीओआर]

जिजिर िमाड, सं ुक्त जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2025

S.O. 166.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union)

Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under Department of Revenue where more than

80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU REGION

O/o The PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Bengaluru

O/o The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (Admin & TPS), Bengaluru

O/o The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (Audit), Bengaluru

O/o The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (Judicial), Bengaluru

O/o The INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT), Bengaluru

O/o The CCIT (REFAC), Patto

O/o The PCIT (REAC) (AU)-1, Patto

O/o The Addl.CIT/JCIT (REAC) (AU)-1(1), Patto

O/o The Addl.CIT/JCIT (REAC) (AU)-1(2), Patto

O/o The Addl.CIT/JCIT (REAC) (AU)-1(3), Patto

O/o The Addl.CIT/JCIT (REAC) (AU)-1(4) , Patto

O/o The PCIT (RFAC)(VU)-1, Patto

O/o The Addl.CIT, RNG-1, Patto

O/o The PCIT (ReFAC) (RU) , Patto

O/o The Addl.CIT,REAC (RU)-1, Patto

O/o The Addl.CIT,REAC (RU)-1(2) , Patto

O/o The Addl.CIT,REAC (RU)-1(3) , Patto

O/o The National Academy of Direct Taxes, Regional Campus, Bengaluru

O/o The DGIT(INV.)(HQ),BENGALURU

O/o The Pr.CIT(Central)(HQ),BENGALURU

O/o The Addl.CIT(Central),Range-1,BENGALURU

O/o The Addl.CIT(Central),Range-2, BENGALURU

O/o The Addl.CIT(Central),Range-1, PANAJI

O/o The DCIT(Central),Renj-1, BELAGAVI

O/o The ACIT(Central),CIRCLE, HUBBALLI

O/o The DCIT(Central),CIRCLE,BALLARI

O/o The JCIT(Central), MANGALURU

O/o The JCIT(Central), MYSURU

O/o The JCIT(Central), HASSAN

O/o The Pr.DIT, PANAJI, Goa

O/o The CIT(APPEAL)-2, PANAJI

O/o The CIT(APPEAL)-11, BENGALURU

O/o The Pr.DIT(INV.)(HQ), BENGALURU

O/o The Addl.DIT(INV.), UNIT-1, BENGALURU

O/o The Addl.DIT(INV.), UNIT-2, BENGALURU

O/o The Addl.DIT(INV.), UNIT-3, BENGALURU

O/o The Addl.DIT(INV.), BPU,BENGALURU

O/o The Addl.DIT(INV.), FAIU,BENGALURU

O/o The Addl.DIT(INV.), MANGALURU

O/o The DCIT(INV.), MYSURU

O/o The ACIT(INV.), HASSAN

O/o The DIT(CPC), Bengaluru

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2 REGION

O/o The CCIT, Bengaluru-2

O/o The Pr.CIT (AU)-1, Bengaluru

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

469

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-1(1),Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-1(2),Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-1(3),Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-1(4),Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT (AU)-2,Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT (AU)-3,Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-3(1),Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-3(2),Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-3(3),Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-3(4),Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT (RU)-1,Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT (VU)-1,Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT (AU)-1,Mysuru

O/o The JCIT (AU)-1(1),Mysuru

O/o The JCIT (AU)-1(2),Mysuru

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-1(3),Mysuru

O/o The Addl.CIT (AU)-1(4),Mysuru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit – 1,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit - 2,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit - 3,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit - 4,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit - 5,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit – 6,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit - 7,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit - 8,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit - 9,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit - 10,Bengaluru

O/o The CIT (Appeal) Unit - 11,Bengaluru

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1 REGION

O/o The CCIT, Bengaluru-1(HQ)Bengaluru

O/o The PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, Bengaluru

O/o The ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RNG-1(1), Bengaluru

O/o The ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RNG-6(1), Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT-2,(HQ)Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT/JCIT ,Range-2(1),Bengaluru

O/o The ITO,Ward-1,Tumkuru

O/o The ITO, Tiptur

O/o The Addl. CIT/JCIT ,Range-2(2), Bengaluru

O/o The Addl. CIT/JCIT ,Range-4(1), Bengaluru

O/o The ITO, Ward-1,Kolar

O/o The Addl. CIT/JCIT ,Range-4(3), Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT/JCIT ,Range-7(1),Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT-3, (HQ)Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT/JCIT, Range-3(1), Bengaluru

O/o The ITO, Ward-1, Ramnagara

O/o The Addl.CIT/JCIT, Range-3(3), Bengaluru

470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

O/o The Addl.CIT/JCIT, Range-1Mysuru

O/o The ITO,Ward-1, Chamrajnagar

O/o The ITO,Ward-1, Mandya

O/o The ITO,Ward-1, Hassan

O/o The ITO,Ward-1, Chikkamangaluru

O/o The ITO,Ward-1, Madikeri

O/o The Pr.CIT, HUBBALLI

O/o The Pr.CIT, Panaji

O/o The JCIT,Range-1,Panaji

O/o The Addl.CIT,Range-1, Mangluru

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (RE.F.A.C), BENGALURU REGION

O/o The CCIT(Re.F.A.C), Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1, Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1(1), Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1(2), Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1(3), Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1(4), Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-2, Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-3, Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-3(1), Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-3(2), Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-3(3), Bengaluru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-3(4), Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(RU)-1, Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(VU)-1, Bengaluru

O/o The Pr.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1, Mysuru

O/o The JCIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1(1), Mysuru

O/o The JCIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1(2), Mysuru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1(3), Mysuru

O/o The Addl.CIT(Re.F.A.C)(AU)-1(4), Mysuru

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ( INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

REGION

O/o The DIT( Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Bengaluru

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU REGION

O/o The CIT (Exemption), Bengaluru

O/o The ITO, Ward-1 (Exemption Unit), Mangaluru

O/o The ITO, Ward-1 (Exemption) Mysuru

O/o The ITO , Ward-1 (Exemption) Kalburgi

O/o The ITO Ward-1 (Exemption) Panaji

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), BENGALURU REGION

O/o The CCIT (TDS) (HQ), Bengaluru

O/o The Addl. CIT(TDS), Range-1, Bengaluru

O/o The Addl. CIT(TDS), Range-2, Bengaluru

O/o The CIT(TDS), Panaji

O/o The JCIT (TDS) , Range Hubballi

[F. No. E-30018/1/2024- DD (OL) DOR]

SHISHIR SHARMA, Jt. Director (OL)

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

471

जविेि मन्त्राल

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 167.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारती उच्चा ोग,ब्रुनेई िारुस्ट्सलाम में श्री अरववंि कुमार,कजनष्ठ सजचवाल सिा क

को 04 फरवरी, 2025 से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवडिन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती

िज।

[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2025(03)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2025

S.O. 167.—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 Shri Arvind Kumar, Junior

Secretariat Assistant in the High Commission of India, Brunei Darussalam as Assistant Consular Officer to perform

Consular services with effect from February 4, 2025.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2025(03)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV)

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 168.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा,सरकार भारत के िूतावास, िूबा (िजक्षण सूडान) में श्री िीवेि लाकड़ा, आिुजलजृक,को

फरवरी 07, 2025 से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवडिन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(04)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी)

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2025

S.O. 168.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Jeevesh Lakra, Steno

as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Juba (South Sudan), to perform the consular services as

Assistant Consular Officer with effect from February 7, 2025.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2025(04)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV)

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 169.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारती उच्चा ोग,नजरोबी में श्री िंकर वसंि िाडेिा, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी,को

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(05)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी)

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2025

S.O. 169.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shankar Sinh Jadeja,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India, Nairobi, to perform the

consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from February 7, 2025.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2025(05)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV)

कार्मडक, लोक जिका त और ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मडक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 4 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 170.—केंरी सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की

उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार कार्मडक, लोक जिका त और ृेंिन मंत्राल (कार्मडक

और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग) की अजिसूचना सं. का.आ. 934 तारी 7 िून, 2018, िो भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II, ंड 3,

उृ ंड (ii), तारी 16.06.2018 में प्रकाजित हुई ी, में जनम्नजलज त संिोिन करती िज, अ ाडत्:-

2. उक्त अजिसूचना,-

(क) क्रम सं. (2) में “आरसी 3 ई 1998” अक्षरों, अंकों और कोष्ठक के स्ट् ान ृर “आरसी-2 (ई)/1998” अक्षर, अंक और

कोष्ठक र े िाएंगे और 7 िून, 2018 से र े गए समझे िाएंगे।

( ) क्रम सं. (6) और उससे संबंजित प्रजवजि ों के स्ट् ान ृर जनम्नजलज त क्रम सं. और प्रजवजि ां र ी िाएंगी, और 7 िून,

2018 से र ी गई समझी िाएंगी, अ ाडत्:-

“(6) आरसी-6 (ई)/2006-ईओडब्ल ू-II, मजससड िुगाड ओवरसीि प्राईवेट जलजमटेड सीबीआई बनाम प्रवीण चुघ” ।

[फा. सं. 225/14/2017-एवीडी-II]

सत् म श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

स्ट्ृिीकारक ज्ञाृन–अजिसूचना का.आ. 934 तारी 7 िून, 2018 में क्रम सं. 2 और क्रम सं. 6 तक कजतृ टंकण संबंिी

त्रुरट ां िो गई िैं। उन्िें िूर करने के जलए उक्त अजिसूचना का 7 िून, 2018 से भूतलक्षी प ृ से संिोिन दक ा िा रिा िज।

रटप्ृण–मूल अजिसूचना भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II, ंड 3, उृ ंड (ii), तारी 16.06.2018 में प्रकाजित हुई ी।

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department Of Personnel And Training)

New Delhi, the 4th September, 2024

S.O. 170.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the

notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

473

Personnel and Training) vide number S.O. 934, dated 7^th June, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Part-II,

Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated 16.06.2018, namely:-

2. In the said notification, -

(a) in serial number (2), for the letters and figures “RC 3 E 1998”, the letters, figures and brackets “RC-

2(E)/1998” shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from 7^th June, 2018;

(b) for serial number (6) and the entries relating thereto, the following serial number and entries shall be

substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from 7^th June, 2018, namely: -

“(6) RC-6(E)/2006-EOW-II, M/s Durga Overseas Pvt. Ltd. CBI Vs. Praveen Chugh”.

[F. No. 225/14/2017-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

Explanatory Memorandum.⸺In the Notification S.O. 934, dated 7^th June, 2018, certain typographical errors have

been occurred at serial numbers (2) and (6). In order to rectify the same, the said notification is being amended with

retrospective effect from 7^th June, 2018.

Note.- Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 16^th June,

2018 vide S.O. 934 dated 7^th June, 2018.

नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 171.—केन्री सरकार, आतंकवािी और जवध्वंसकारी दक्र ाकलाृ (जनवारण) अजिजन म, 1987 (1987

का 28) की िारा 13 की उृिारा (1) के ृरंतुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, आतंकवािी और जवध्वंसकारी

दक्र ाकलाृ (जनवारण) अजिजन म, 1987 की िारा 9 के अिीन गर त माननी अृर सेिन न् ा ािीि के न् ा ाल ,

अजभजित न् ा ाल िम्मू, िम्मू-कश्मीर संघ राज् क्षेत्र में दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केंरी अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा

संजस्ट् त मामले आरसी 08(एस)/1990-एससी ू.वी/एससी.II/सीबीआई/नई दिल्ली त ा तत्संबद्ध मामले से संसक्त ा उसके

आनुषंजगक दकसी अन् जवष के अजभ ोिन का संचालन करने के जलए, श्री िजल कुमार भट्ट, अजिवक्ता को जविेष लोक

अजभ ोिक के प ृ में मामले के जनृटारे तक ा अगले आिेि तक, िो भी ृूवडतर िो, जन ुक्त करती िज।

[फा. सं. 225/28/2024-एवीडी-II]

रािीव कुमार रे, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2024

S.O. 171.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub section (1) of section 13 of the Terrorist

and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shaila

Kumar Bhat, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor, for conducting prosecution of case RC. 08/(S)/1990-

SCU.V/SC.II/CBI/New Delhi and any other matter connected therewith or incidental thereto, instituted by the Delhi

Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Designated

Court at Jammu, union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under section 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive

(Prevention) Act, 1987, till the disposal of the case or till further order, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/28/2024-AVD-II]

RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 172.—केंरी सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की

उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, श्री सजकत नाग ,अजिवक्ता को, जविेष न् ा ािीि, िीमाृुर,

नागालैंड के न् ा ाल के दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन ) केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो (द्वारा संस्ट् ाजृत मामलों के अजभ ोिन का

संचालन करने के जलए, उनके ृिग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वषड की अवजि के जलए ा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले

िो, जविेष लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में जन ुक्त करती िज।

[फा. सं. 225/34/2024-एवीडी-II]

सत् म श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th December, 2024

S.O. 172.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Saikat Nag, Advocate as Special

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

(Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Court of Special Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland for a period of three years from

the date of assumption of charge or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/34/2024-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 173.—केंरी सरकार, भारती नागररक सुरक्षा संजिता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की िारा 18 की

उृिारा (8) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, दकसी राज् ा संघ राज् क्षेत्र प्रिासनों के जवचारण न् ा ाल ों में

दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृन (केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् त मामलों में अजभ ोिन संचाजलत करने त ा जवजि द्वारा

स्ट् ाजृत दकसी ृुनरीक्षण न् ा ाल ा अृील न् ा ाल में इन मामलों से ा उनसे संबंजित दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण ा

अन् मामले के जलए नीचे सारणी में उजल्लज त केन्री अन्वेषण ब् ूरो के जनम्नजलज त अजभ ोिन अजिकारर ों को जविेष

लोक अजभ ोिक के प ृ में अगले आिेि िोने तक जन ुक्त करती िज, अ ाडत्:-

सारणी

क्र. सं.

सवडश्री/श्रीमती/सुश्री

क्र. स.

सवडश्री/श्रीमती/सुश्री

जववेक कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव

िे. के. िमाड

मनोि कुमार

रािेि कुमार

ृंकि कुमार रािृूत

अरववंि कुमार

अिुडनन िी.

तेिस्ट्वी प्रकाि नेगी

तिववंिर वसंि

ओम प्रकाि

ोगेि कुमार करिाना

नवीन कुमार जगरी

डॉ. ज् ोत्सना िमाड ृांडे

ृंकि गुप्ता

जवन कुमार ओझा

ू. सी. सक्सजना

अि कुमार राव

प्रणीत िमाड

आिुतोष िमाड

ि दकिन

सज ि सलमान अिमि

रामबाबू कनौजि ा

ब्रिेि कुमार ािव

आिीष कुमार सक्सेना

ृूर्णडमा गुप्ता

िोजभत वसंि

उमा िंकर जत्रृा ी

अि ृाल

लाल चंि ृाल

जप्र ांिु वसंि

कुलिीृ ृु्‍कर

संिीृ गौरव

अजनल बंसल

भानु प्रकाि

जवकास त्री

गुफरान अिमि

ृवृंिर कुमार

मुरारी कुमार आ ड

नवनीत िावा

नील मणी

प्रमोि वसंि

वबंिु

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

475

ि विंि

मंिीृ वसंि मान

सा बा. एस

रचना साहू

नौिाि ृीएम

ू. अज ला

मनफूल जबश्नोई

जववेक जसन्िा

िगिीि िा मा

सतीि कुमार

अजभषेक अरोड़ा

संिीृ चौिरी

सुिील कुमार ृांडे

िीृ नारा ण

अतुल कुमार

िािस. सी

राम् ा प्रसाि

जलसा ग्रोवर

अनुि िमाड

जवक्रमिीत ािव

मंिीत वसंि

अंिजल लो ंडे

[फा. सं. 225/31/2024

एवीडी

II]

सत् म श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2025

S.O. 173.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Prosecuting Officers of

Central Bureau of Investigation, mentioned in the Table below, as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting

prosecution in cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in trial courts

in any State or Union Territory Administrations and any appeal, revision or other matter arising out of or connected

with these cases in any revisional or appellate Court, established by Law, till further order, namely:-

TABLE

Sl. No.

S/Shri/Smt./Ms

S. N.

S/Shri/Smt./Ms

Vivek Kumar Srivastava

J. K. Sharma

Manoj Kumar

Rajesh Kumar

Pankaj Kumar Rajput

Arvind Kumar

Arjunan G.

Tejasvi Prakash Negi

Tajvinder Singh

Om Prakash

Yogesh Kumar Karhana

Navin Kumar Giri

Dr. Jyotsna Sharma Pandey

Pankaj Gupta

Vinay Kumar Ojha

U. C. Saxena

Ajai Kumar Rao

Praneet Sharma

Ashutosh Sharma

Jai Kishan

Sayed Salman Ahmad

Rambabu Kanaujiya

Brajesh Kumar Yadav

Ashish Kumar Saxena

Poornima Gupta

Shobhit Singh

Uma Shankar Tripathi

Ajay Pal

Lal Chand Pal

Priyanshu Singh

Kuldeep Pushkar

Sandeep Gaurav

Anil Bansal

Bhanu Prakash

Vikas Khatri

Gufaran Ahamad

Papinder Kumar

Murari Kumar Arya

Navneet Jawa

Neel Mani

Pramod Singh

Bindu

476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Jai Hind

Mandeep Singh Mann

Syba. S

Rachna Sahu

Noushad PM

U. Akhila

Manphool Bishnoi

Vivek Sinha

Jagdish Dayma

Satish Kumar

Abhishek Arora

Sandeep Chaudhary

Sushil Kumar Pandey

Dip Narain

Atul Kumar

Shadas. C

Ramya Prasad

Lisa Grover

Anuj Sharma

Vikramjeet Yadav

Manjit Singh

Anjali Lokhande

[F. No. 225/31/2024-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

स्ट्वास्ट्् एवं ृररवार कल् ाण मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 174.—केन्री सरकार सरकारी स्ट् ान (अप्राजिकषत अजिभोजग ों की बेि ली ) अजिजन म, 1971

(1977 का 40 ) की िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (1) में उजल्लज त

अजिकारी, िो सरकार का रािृजत्रत अजिकारी िज, की उक्त अजिजन म के प्र ोिनों के जलए संृिा अजिकारी जन ुक्त करती

िज, िो उक्त सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में तत्स् ानी प्रजवजि में जवजनर्िडि सरकारी स्ट् ान के सम्बंि में अृने अजिकार क्षेत्र की

स्ट् ानी सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अजिजन म द्वारा ा उसके अिीन संृिा अजिकारर ों को प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करेगा,

और उन ृर अजिरोजृत कतडव्यों का ृालन करेगा।

सारणी

अजिकारी का ृिनाम

सरकारी संस्ट् ान की श्रेजण ााँ और अजिकार क्षेत्र की स्ट् ानी सीमाएं

सीएमओ (एनएफएसिी) डॉ. एम ृुनीता, केन्री कुष्ठ

रोग जिक्षण एवं अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, चेंगलृट्टु,

तजमलनाडु।

चेंगलृट्टु, तजमलनाडु में जस्ट् त केन्री कुष्ठ रोग जिक्षण एवं अनुसंिान

संस्ट् ान, चेंगलृट्टु, तजमलनाडु के प्रािासजनक जन ंत्रण के अंतगडत सभी

भू ंड और भवन।

[फा. सं्‍ ा ए-11011/47/2023-लेप्रो.]

श्रीकांत वसंि कुिवािा, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2025

S.O. 174.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1977, the Central Government hereby, appoints the officer mentioned in

column (1) of the Table below, being a gazetted officer of the Government, to be an estate officer for the purposes of

the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on estate officers by or under

the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding

entry in column (2) of the said Table.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

477

TABLE

Designation of the officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of

jurisdiction

CMO(NFSG) Dr. M. Punitha

All lands

and

buildings

under

the

Central Leprosy Teaching and Research

administrative

control

the

Central

Institute, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu.

leprosy Teaching and Research Institute,

Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu, situated in

Changalpattu, Tamil Nadu.

[F. No. A-11011/47/2023-Lep.]

SRIKANT SINGH KUSHWAHA, Under Secy.

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 175.—केंर सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10

के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में िूरििडन मिाजनिेिाल के अिीनस्ट् का ाडल ा िूरििडन केंर, भोृाल जिनके 80%

से अजिक कमडचारर ों ने विंिी का का डसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/02/2025-विंिी]

िसवंत वसंि, सिा क जनिेिक (रािभाषा)

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2025

S.O. 175.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the subordinate office of Directorate General,

Doordarshan namely Doordarshan Kendra, Bhopal whereof more than 80% of the staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/02/2025-Hindi]

JASWANT SINGH, Assistant Director (O.L.)

सड़क ृररविन और रािमागड मंत्राल

(रािभाषा अनुभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 176.—केंरी सरकार रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 के

जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में क्षेत्री का ाडल , भारती राष्ट्री रािमागड प्राजिकरण, ि ृुर, जिसके 80%

से अजिक कमडचारर ों ने विंिी का डसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[फा. सं. ई.-12012/1/2023-जवजवि/विंिी]

कमलेि चतुवेिी, सं ुक् त सजचव (रािभाषा)

478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

(Official Language Section)

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2025

S.O. 176.—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 notify Regional Office, National Highway Authority of India,

Jaipur, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E. 12012/1/2023-Misc./Hindi]

KAMLESH CHATURVEDI, Jt. Secy. (O.L.)

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 20 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 177.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, अिमिनगर, मिाराष्ट्र, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री

अमोल सुिाकर िोिी,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि औद्योजगक न् ा ाल , अिमिनगर, ृंचाट(संिभड सं्‍ ा

Reference (I.T)No.05/2019(CNR-MHLC-160000712019)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा

िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल – 40012/14/2018-आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2025

S.O. 177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference(I.T)No. 05/2019(CNR-MHLC-160000712019) of the

Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Ahmednagar, Maharashtra , and Shri Amol

Sudhakar Joshi, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 17.01.2025.

[No. L-40012/14/2018-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR. BEFORE SAMEENA KHAN, MEMBER.

Reference (I.T.) No. 05/2019.

(CNR – MHIC-160000712019)

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

DTO Compund Near GPO,

Ahmednagar, Maharashtra – 414001. … First Party.

VERSUS

Sh. Amol Sudhakar Joshi,

Post. Naour, Tal. Shrirampur,

Distt. Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar – 414001

….Second Party.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

479

APPEARANCE :- Shri. A. V. Patil, Ld. Adv. for First Party.

Shri. K. Y. Modgekar, Ld. Adv. for Second Party.

Reference (I.T.) No. 05/2019.

AWARD

(Delivered on 18/12/2024)

1. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has referred the dispute between the parties for adjudication. Initially,

the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Pune (Maharashtra). However, vide order dated 06.06.2019 in

Transfer Application, the Hon’ble President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai has transferred the matter to this

Industrial Tribunal.

2. The dispute between the parties as per the terms of Reference and Order dated 13.02.2019 is Scheduled as

follows :-

"Whether the Industrial dispute raised by Shri Amol Sudhakar Joshi against M/s Siena Buildcon (Contractor) and the

BSNL, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra (Principal Employer) seeking for permanency / regularization, with continuity of

services and full back wages as an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of ID Act 1947 and the workman who has

raised the dispute is a workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act 1947? 2. Whether the various Contracts awarded by the

Principal Employer ie. BSNL Ahmednagar Maharashtra in favour of contractors since 2014 for hiring services in

store department are valid in law? 3. Whether the appointment of Contractor since 2014 for hiring services in store

department is valid in law. 4. Whether the applicant Sh. Amol Sudhakar Joshi is an employee of M/s. Siena Buildcon,

or the Principal Employer ie. BSNL Ahmednagar? 5. Whether there are any violations of labour laws like Minimum

Wages Act, 1948, the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 by M/s. Siena

Buildcon, Ahmednagar (Contractor) and the Principal Employer i.e. BSNL, Ahmednagar? 6. Whether the claim of the

applicant workman for permanency/regularization with continuity of service and full back wages is legal, justified and

proper? and if yes, the relief entitled thereto?"

3. Second Party to the Reference / Workman has filed Statement of Claim at Exh. U-1, claiming the relief of

permanency along with consequential benefits, and also reliefs on the basis of equal pay for equal work. It is also

claimed by the Second Party that his oral termination since 01.07.2014 be set aside and he may be reinstated in

service with continuity and full back wages.

4. The Second Party submits that he was in employment with the First Party i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for

short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the BSNL’), in its Shrirampur Gramin Division in Store Department, since

01.07.2010. The nature of work performed by him is permanent and he is in continuous service with the BSNL since

01.07.2010 till 01.07.2014, when he was orally terminated from service. He has completed continuous service of 240

days in each year during his service tenure.

5. It is submitted that the Second Party was appointed by the BSNL and also he was allotted work by the BSNL. He

was paid wages by the BSNL and his work was also controlled by the BSNL. Other permanent employees of the

BSNL were granted wages and other benefits as per Government employees. However, the Second Party was paid

only Rs. 3,000/- per month without any benefit of leave, etc.

6. It is further submitted that, since the initial appointment, the Second Party was shown to have been appointed

through various Contractors. However, the Second Party submits that he was an employee of the BSNL. Since

01.07.2014, the Second Party is not allotted with any work and hence, he was orally terminated from service without

any notice or compensation as required by the law. Juniors to the Second Party are still in service. Therefore, the

Second Party submits that his termination be set aside by granting him reinstatement, continuity and full back wages

along with grant of permanency in employment with the BSNL, with consequential benefits.

7. The BSNL appeared in the matter and filed its Written Statement at Exh. C-7, inter alia objecting the Reference as

illegal and untenable in law. It is submitted that majority of demands of the Second Party are not subject matter of the

Reference and this Tribunal cannot enlarge the scope of Reference. It is further submitted that the demands raised by

the Second Party in the Statement of Claim are not supported by any legal and factual justification, nor the demands

are supported by any documentary evidence. According to the BSNL, it is a Central Government undertaking and

bound by law to follow the Rules of recruitment and procedure of appointment on any sanctioned post within the

framework of approved staffing pattern. The Second Party was never appointed by the BSNL, nor he was specifically

designated on any post, and there is no privity of contract of employment between the BSNL and the Second Party.

8. It is further submitted by the BSNL that independent agencies / Contractors are entrusted with the work of

providing cable maintenance / line maintenance / housekeeping. The Second Party was appointed by such

independent agency / Contractor. Independent Contractor used to control and supervise the work of Second Party as

well as pay his salary and other service benefits. The appointment of Contractor was on the basis of agreement

480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

between the BSNL and the respective Contractor, and 5 Reference (I.T.) No. 05/2019. in stipulation of the terms and

conditions in the said agreement, the respective Contractor has undertaken the entire liability and responsibility of

employees deployed by him. Therefore, since the Second Party was engaged through independent Contractor and

discharging work as a Contract labourer for temporary duration, he is not entitled for any reliefs as claimed. With

detailed contentions in the Written Statement, the BSNL has made submission in respect of its contentions that the

Second Party cannot be treated as its employee.

9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, Issues have been framed by my Learned Predecessor at Exh. O-12,

and I have given my findings on them, for the reasons stated below, are as under :-

No.

Issues

Findings

Whether there exists employer-employee relationship in between First Party and Second

Party?

Does the Second Party prove that, the First Party has illegally and improperly and without

following the due procedure of law, terminated his services w.e.f. 01.07.2014?

Whether the Second Party is entitled for the relief claimed?

What Award?

As per final

Award.

REASONS

As to Issue Nos. 1 to 4 :-

10. The Second Party / Workman did not appear in the matter after the Written Statement was filed. The Second

Party/Workman was 6 Reference (I.T.) No. 05/2019. granted with ample and reasonable opportunity. The matter is

old and was at the same stage, awaiting evidence of the Second party. However, since there was no presence of the

Second Party, the matter is taken up for passing of Award by considering the material on record. A specific order to

that effect is also passed below Exh. O-1 on 05.12.2024. Even today when the matter was called from time to time,

the Second Party did not appear in the matter.

11. Considered the order of Reference, Statement of Claim, Written Statements and the entire material on record. In

respect of his contentions in the Statement of Claim and notice of demand, the Second Party has not filed any

documentary evidence on record. There is no oral evidence led by the Second Party to substantiate his claim.

12. The BSNL has filed documents on record to show that the work in the Sub Division was closed between the

period from 2009 to 2019. The BSNL has filed documents which shows that many numbers of Exchanges have been

closed during the span of time. There is no document on record to show relation of the Second Party in terms of

employer-employee relationship with the BSNL. Therefore, the Second Party has failed to prove employer-employee

relationship between himself and the BSNL.

13. The Second Party has claimed benefits of permanency in service with continuity and full back wages against the

BSNL. Therefore, in absence of relationship between the BSNL and Second Party – Workman, the Second Party is

not entitled for any relief as claimed.

14. In view of the above, Issue Nos. 1 to 3 are answered in 7 Reference (I.T.) No. 05/2019. negative, and therefore,

the dispute between the parties referred by the Central Government is adjudicated and decided in negative. Hence, for

issue No. 4, I pass the following Award.

AWARD

1. The Reference is answered in negative.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies of this Award be sent to Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for publication and further

necessary action.

SAMEENA KHAN, Member

Date : 18.12.2024.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

481

नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 178.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार रेजिडेंट मजनेिर, ूरटजलटी ृावर टेक जलजमटेड, एनटीृीसी, ज् ोजत नगर, ृेद्दाृल्ली, तेलंगाना; मिाप्रबंिक,

रामागुंडम सुृर ृावर मडल ृावर स्ट्टेिन, एनटीृीसी, ज् ोजत नगर, ृेद्दाृल्ली, तेलंगाना, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों

और श्री मन बिािुर, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -

िजिराबाि ृंचाट(संिभड सं्‍ ा LC 7/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-37-आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025

S.O. 178.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 7/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation The Resident Manager, Utility Power Tech Limited, NTPC, Jyothi Nagar, Peddapalli, Telengana ;The

General Manager, Ramagundam Super Power Tharmal Power Station, NTPC, Jyothi Nagar, Peddapalli,

Telangana and Shri Man Bahadur, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 27.01.2025.

[No. L-42025-07-2025-37-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6^th day of November, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.7/2022

Between:

Man Bahadur,

S/o Late N Bahadur,

Aged :- 64 years, Occ: Ex-Loco Driver,

Emp Code. UA025220, R/o H.No. 7-2-43,

Kokumanuvarithota, 1^st Lane, 2^nd Cross,

Donka Road, Guntur-522002.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. The Resident Manager,

Utility Power Tech Limited,

Ramagundam Super Tower

Tharmal Power Station,

Beside TAD Electrical Office,

PTS, NTPC, Jyothi Nagar,

Peddapalli Dist, Telengana-505215.

482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The General Manager,

Ramagundam Super Power

Tharmal Power Station,

NTPC, Jyothi Nagar,

Peddapalli Dist, Telangana -505215.

….. Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M.V.L.Narsaiah, Advocates

For the Respondent:

None

AWARD

Sri Man Bahadur, who worked as Loco Driver (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the 1^st Respondents in terminating the services

of petitioner vide orders dated 06.06.2022 as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional, untenable and unjustified and

consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner and duly granting all other consequential

benefit, such as continuity of service, deference of back wages, pending allowances.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for exparte Evidence. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded

Petitioner remained absent and none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of any substantiated

evidence by Petitioner, the case is ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 6^th day of

November, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 27 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 179.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार जनिेिक, राष्ट्री ृोषण संस्ट् ान, िमाई ओरमाजन ा, तरनाका, िजिराबाि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

श्री ृी. िुगाड प्रसाि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -

िजिराबाि ृंचाट(संिभड सं्‍ ा LC 147/2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 27.01.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-33-आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2025

S.O. 179.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID. No. LC 147/2013) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

483

employers in relation to The Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Jamai Ormania, Tarnaka, Hyderabad,

and Shri P. Durgaprasad, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 27.01.2025.

[No. L-42025-07-2025-33-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 31^st day of December, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.147/2013

Between:

P. Durgaprasad, S/o. Late P. Krishna,

Aged about 23 years,

Occ: Casual Labourer,

National Institute of Nutrition,

Jamai Osmania, Tarnaka,

Hyderabad.

..….Petitioner

AND

National Institute of Nutrition,

Rep by its Director,

Jamai Ormania, Tarnaka,

Hyderabad-07.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

T. Poorrna Chanderr Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Narasimha Sharma, Advocate of R1

Dr K K H M Syam Sundar, Advocate of R4

AWARD

Sri P. Durgaprasad, who worked as Contract Labourer (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed

this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents to declare the so-called

Contract invoked by the respondents as bogus, sham, ruse and camouflage only to deny the rightful benefits to the

petitioners both in terms of payment of minimum wages and in terms of their eligibility for grant of regularization,

while declaring the oral termination of the services of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act and that their actions are unfair labour practices as defined under the I.D Act and

Section 25-T, U and Schedule-V of the ID Act and as such consequently declare that the petitioner is the casual

labourer of the respondent organization and the termination of the petitioner is bad in law, arbitrary and violative of

Section 25-F of the ID Act and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages

and eligible for grant of regularization and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may

deem fit.

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

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

passed for want of evidence.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 31^st day of

December, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 28 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 180.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

इलािाबाि बैंक ऑफ इंजड ा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कमडकार श्री संि सेनगुप्ता ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कोलकाता ds iapkV (03/2015) izdkf”kr djrh

gSA

[सं. एल – 39025/01/2024-आईआर (ch- II)-49]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2025

S.O. 180.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allahabad

Bank of India and Shri Sanjay Sengupta.

[No. L-39025/01/2024-IR(B-II)-49]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

CGIT-03 OF 2015

Shri Sanjay Sengupta

…….. Applicant/Employee

Versus

Allahabad Bank of India

… Opp. Parties

Appearance

On behalf of the Appellant: Mr. Kausik Pradhan, Advocate

On behalf of Opp.Party

: Absent.

Date: 26th July, 2023.

AWARD

This application under section 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 filed by Sri Sanjay Sengupta against

the authorities of the management of Allahabad Bank claiming reinstatement with back wages after declaration his

retrenchment on 30-04-2013 to be illegal, void abinitio.

It is the case of the applicant that he was engaged as a casual employee by Allahabad Bank of India, Harish

Mukherjee Road Branch on 23^rd November, 1999. That he was made to work as a Peon on regular basis of Allahabad

Bank without any break. That he rendered his continuous service for more than 240 days in a calendar year. He

discharged his duty sincerely and diligently with a hope and legitimate expectation that his engagement will be

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

485

regularised before he exceeds the age limit for regular employment as a permanent staff of the bank. But all on a

sudden he was refrained from discharging his service as a casual Peon w.e.f. 30-04-2013. He alleged that his service

has been terminated or he was retrenched without following the procedure laid down in section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

That on such termination of his service he moved the Hon’ble High Court and filed Writ Petition No. W.P.

4634 (W) of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the bank to consider the representation made by

him, but the authority of the bank rejected his representation. He, therefore, filed a complaint before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta in the year 2015, who could not settle the matter. Thus he has to file the

present application under section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act.

The bank has contested such claim of the applicant by filing written objection and where it has been alleged

that the applicant Sri Sanjay Sengupta was never appointed by the bank at its Harish Mukherjee Road Branch,

Kolkata as a Gr.-D staff. Therefore, the question of termination of his service by the bank does not arise.

That there exists no relationship of employer and employee between it and the concerned applicant. The

applicant by filing writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, representation before the bank authority, raising

industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner has adopted a procedure to get himself employed in the bank

through back door or by hook or crock without facing the recruitment process. Therefore, the bank has prayed for

dismissal of the application. Ultimately, the bank failed to pursue the case after cross examining the applicant.

The applicant in order to prove his case has examined himself as W.W. No.1. He also examined one Sri

Amal Nath, a person having an account with the Allahabad Bank, Harish Mukherjee Road Branch as W.W. No.2. The

bank pass book of W.W. No.2 has been marked as Exhibit- W/1. No document whatsoever has been filed by the

applicant to substantiate his claim and case as made out in his application under section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act.

That in order to raise an industrial dispute the applicant has to prove that there exists a relationship of

employer and employee between him and Allahabad Bank. But, no iota of documentary evidence has come on record

to prove that the applicant Sri Sanjay Sengupta was employed by Allahabad Bank, Harish Mukherjee Road Branch to

work as casual Gr. D. Peon in the year 1999 and he continuously worked till 30-04-2013. He has failed to examine a

single staff of the bank of Harish Mukherjee Road Branch, to prove indeed he used to work as a casual Peon in the

bank.

The applicant during cross examination by the bank has stated that he was unemployed and he used to visit

the bank. One day he was called by the Sr. Manager Mr. Asit Chakraborty and told him that he would give him

employment. That without giving any appointment letter by the bank, he was engaged to work as a casual Gr.D. Peon.

That he was paid Rs.510/- per week through vouchers issued in the name of permanent employee of the bank and

after withdrawal payment used to be made to him by the said bank employee. That he was directed by the Sr.

Manager of the bank to work so he believed that he was a workman of Allahabad Bank. That while he was

discharging his duty as a casual Peon of the bank, he was authorised in writing by the Manager to collect LIC policies

of bank customers.

Unfortunately, his evidence is totally silent about the names of those bank staff in whose names the cash

vouchers used to be prepared for making payment to him. He has also failed to produce the copy of those authorised

letters issued by the Manager, Allahabad Bank, authorising him to collect LIC policies on behalf of the bank

customers. He has stated that Branch Manager Mr. Mrityunjay Singh refused to give him appointment letter.

It is very interesting to note that he tried to prove that he was an employee of the bank through W.W. No.2

Sri Amal Nath, a customer of Allahabad Bank having S.B. A/c. No. 20790396080 and who in his evidence has stated

that whenever he used to visit the bank he had seen the applicant working in the bank. That the applicant used to

update his Pass Book and renewed his F.D. certificates. That he had seen the applicant Sri Sanjay Sengupta working

in the bank since 1999 to 2002. This Tribunal is afraid to accept evidence of such got-up witness produced by the

applicant only for the purpose of this case. Had the applicant been employed by the bank as a casual workman then

the best witnesses to prove his employment would have been the bank official/staff or the representative of the trade

union of the bank and not a customer. But in the present case the concerned workman has failed to produce such

reliable and trustworthy witnesses. Therefore, in the absence of any iota of documentary evidence to prove

employment of the applicant as a casual Peon in Allahabad Bank, Harish Mukherjee Road Branch and in absence of

reliable and trustworthy witness to prove his employment this Tribunal is unable to accept his case, his oral testimony

and as well that of his got up witness.

Further his evidence in cross makes his case a doubtful as he has stated that he was unemployed and he used

to visit the bank and one fine day Mr. Asit Chakraborty, Sr. Manager told him whether he wants to work in the bank

or not and when he gave answer in affirmation he was engaged by Sri Asit Chakraborty as a casual Peon of the bank.

It is true the bank can engage casual daily rated workman to do casual nature of works but the Bank Manager has no

authority to give employment to any person against a sanctioned vacant post without following the recruitment rules

and regulations to which the bank is governed. Further, the eligible candidates have to undergo the selection process

by appearing in written examination, interview and medical test provided the candidate has requisite educational

qualification and other qualification for the post.

486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of the witness it appears to this Tribunal

the applicant very cleverly by filing writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, representation before the bank

authority, raising industrial disputer before the Labour Commissioner and by filing the present application under

section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, has set up a false case of employment as a casual Peon in Allahabad Bank, Harish

Mukherjee Road Branch, Calcutta and a false allegation of retrenchment just to get an employment in the bank.

Therefore, the case as made out by the applicant appears to be frivolous and baseless.

Accordingly, the present case under section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act filed by the applicant filed for

reinstatement with back wages is dismissed. Consequently, CGIT-03 of 2015 is disposed of and award of dismissal is

passed.

Justice K.D.BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 181.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

अजववा लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कंृनी इंजड ा जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अिेि कुमार टंडन के बीच अनुबंि

में जनर्िडि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 34/2015) को िजसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 10.02.2025 को प्राप्त

हुआ ा l

[सं. एल – 17012/5/2016-आईआर (एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2025

S.O. 181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited and Sri Ajesh Kumar Tandon which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.02.2025.

[No. L-17012/5/2016-IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam.

ID No. 34/2015

Registered on 25.02.2016

Ajesh Kumar Tandon S/o Sh. Om Parkash Tandon R/o #1427, Urban Estate, Phase II, Jalandhar City-144022.

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Managing Director & CEO, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, Aviva Tower Sector Road, Opp. Golf

Course, DLF Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122003.

2. Director-Direct Sales Force, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, Aviva Tower Sector Road, Golf Course,

DLF Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122003.

3. Cluster Manager DSF, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, F 2^nd Floor, SCO 45-46-47, Sector 17-A,

Chandigarh-160017.

........Respondents

Sh. Ajesh Kumar Tondon (Workman in Person)

Sh. Prateek Narang (Manager Legal) for Respondent No.1 to 3

Judgment reserved on 8^thJanuary, 2025

Judgment Pronounced on 23^rdJanuary, 2025

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

487

JUDGMENT/ AWARD

Present industrial dispute case traces its root to Central Government Ministry of Labour and Employment

Reference vide Notification No. L-17012/5/2016-IR(M) dated 15.02.2016/ 17.02.2016, under clause (d) of Sub-

Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the

Act), which was sent for adjudication to this Tribunal, reads as :-

“Whether the action of the management of AVIVA Life Insurance Company India Limited in terminating the

services of workman Shri Ajesh Kumar Tendon S/o Om Parkash Tandon w.e.f. 07.10.2009 is legal, fair and

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

After receiving the said reference notices were issued to the parties, whereupon workmen Ajesh Kumar Tandon

appeared in person and filed his claim statement on 22.03.2016.

The case of Workman/ Petitioner- the brief facts of the case as unfolded from the claim statements are that the

workman was employed with the respondent company since 10^th July, 2006 on the post of Sales Manager. As per

appointment letter dated 26.06.2006, the claimant-workman was assigned role of achieving and exceeding sales

targets and managing financial planning and also was required to perform such tasks which were not directly

associated with Job Title. The respondent company was to review role and responsibilities of the claimant from time

to time. The further case of workman has been that he was a whole time employee of the respondent company and his

operational area was restricted to Jalandhar, however, as per employment condition the workmen was liable to be

transferred anywhere. It is stated by the workman that during the employment tenure he rendered his services to the

best of his ability and full satisfaction to his superiors. In the end of December, 2008 sales performance was judged as

the highest. It is alleged that reporting officer of the workman Mr. Vikram Bali the Branch Manager of Jalandhar

Branch became inimical for unknown reasons and he scuttled promotion of the workman based on his extra ordinary

performance in the company. It is further stated in the claim petition that said Mr. Vikram Bali issued a show cause

notice on a trivial matter which was duly replied by the claimant-workman and no action was taken but monthly

reimbursement claim was not paid to him. The claimant represented against the vindictive and prejudicial attitude of

the Branch Manager but no action was taken by the Cluster Manager of the company. It is further alleged in the claim

petition that without giving any opportunity of hearing, without serving of any show cause notice or charge sheet and

without holding any in house enquiry, the management of the company terminated the services of workman-claimant

in an illegal, arbitrary and malafide manner vide letter dated 07.10.2009. Those persons who were Junior to the

claimant have been retained in employment and other person has also been employed in place of claimant-workman.

Against the termination order the claimant-workman had moved a demand notice dated 27.01.2010 before the

Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Circle-II, Jalandhar whereupon the matter was referred to Industrial Tribunal,

Jalandhar for adjudication by Government of Punjab. In the said proceeding question of jurisdiction was raised by the

management and Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar vide order dated 14.11.2014 came to the conclusion that it lacks the

jurisdiction to decide the dispute as appropriate Government is the Central Government and not the State of Punjab

Government. The claimant thereafter, approached Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Labour-cum-Conciliation

Officer, Jalandhar and the matter was thereafter, referred for an adjudication before this Tribunal as referred

hereinabove. Prayer has been made that termination order be set aside and respondents be directed to reinstate the

workman in service along with all consequential benefits with full back wages.

4. The case of Management-In response to notices issued, Respondent No.1 to 3 appeared and filed written

statement/ reply to the claim petition of workman. According to the case of Management the instant claim petition is

false, malicious, incorrect and malafide. The employment of the claimant with the respondent company was strictly

governed by the (Appointment Letter) and does not fall under the purview of Industrial Disputes Act. The claimant

admittedly worked on the managerial position and as such does not fall under the definition of the ‘Workman’ under

Section 2(s) of ID Act. The claim filed by the petitioner does not fall under the definition of the ‘Industrial Dispute’ as

defined in section- 2 (k) of ID Act.The primary duties of sale managers are appointment of the agents, training and

monitoring their works and thus, the dominant nature of the duties of the Sales Managers is not manual, unskilled,

skilled, technical operational or clerical, therefore the claimant would not be workman as defined under Section 2(s)

of ID Act. Sh. Ajesh Kumar Tandon was appointed as Sales Manager (SM) vide appointment letter dated 26.06.2006

wherein the place of work allocated was Jalandhar and the claimant was required to report the Deputy Branch

Manager-Ludhiana-Direct Sales force of the answering respondent company. It is submitted that as per clause 13 of

the Appointment Letter the company had right to terminate the services of the claimant by giving one month salary.

As per the job description of the Sale Manager, his role primarily comprises the advisors sales team to achieve desired

sale objectives and the main priorities includes achieving sale targets as per budgets, development of professional

standards in the advisor’s team and review of Sale efforts of the advisor Team. At the time of joining each of the

Sales Managers also signs on a commitment to achieve a minimum business targets and performance is evaluated on

the annual basis. According to the further case of management the claimant was not achieving his targets and as a

process he was put on capability period of 1 month by the company from 13.04.2009 to 13.05.2009. Capability

process is a guide for supervisors and Managers to assist the employees who are not able to meet the expected job

performances standard and it is an opportunity provided to the employees to improve his performance. During his

488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

capability the claimant was given a target of collecting premium of 7,00,000/- to be achieved but the claimant could

only collect premiums of Rs.1.16 lacs. It is admitted by the answering respondent that the company as per Clause

13(a) of the Appointment Letter dated 26.06.2006, terminated the services by paying one month salary and the one

month salary which was credited to the account of the claimant on 30.10.2009. While replying para wise contention

of the claimant/petitioner, the contesting management has admitted the facts of appointment, area and place of

service, but it is denied that the petitioner had no authority to bind the company and that he was not employed in any

administrative managerial or supervisory work. It is stated by the management that the performance of petitioner was

not up to mark and he was not achieving his targets inspite of his understanding capability process to guide

supervisors and managers to assist the employees who were not able to meet the expected job performance standard.

It is denied that the sale performance of the petitioner was judged to be highest by the end of December 2008. It is

also denied that Mr. Vikram Bali Branch Manager became inimical to the petitioner and managed to scuttle the

promotion of the claimant. The management has denied the contents of para 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the claim petition.

According to the management provisions of the ID Act do not apply in the case of petitioner therefore there is no

question of payment of retrenchment or compensation. There is no cause of action against the management and the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Issues- Vide order dated- 13-08-2018 following issues were framed based on the pleadings of the parties-

(1) Whether the reference is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?

(2) In terms of reference.

(3) Relief.

6. Evidence- During hearing proceedings of this reference, on behalf of the petitioner evidence by way of affidavit

of Ajesh Kumar Tandon was filed on 27-11-2018. Several documents were also tendered by the deponent-the

petitioner which were numbered as W/1-1 Offer of Appointment, W/1-2 Agency Agreement, W/1-3 Letter dt.

December 31, 2006 by Director to Ajesh Kumar Tandon, W/1-4 Show cause notice, W/1-5 Performance enhancement

Program, W/1-6 Termination Letter dt. October 7, 2009, and W/1-7 Statement of Petitioner. It may be noticed that

several opportunity for cross examination of the petitioner was given to the management and ultimately opportunity

was closed. However by the order of Hon’ble High Court passed in the CWP no. 7040-2024 the management was

permitted to cross examine the petitioner in this case. It is to be further noted here that petitioner claimant has also

submitted certain documents as additional evidence which have been taken on the record and are marked as Ex W/1-8

copy of FPA selection colly page containing 6 pages, Ex.W/1-9 Colly pages 1-80 i.e. copy of several e-mails and

certain letters.

7. On behalf of the management also evidence by way of affidavit of Thejas Babu a Senior Manager HR in the

respondent company has been filed on 18-06-2024 and some documents have been tendered as documentary evidence

which are marked as Exhibit R-1 Authority Letter dt 13 May 2014, Exhibit R-2 is copy of employment application

form, Exhibit R-3 copy of vitae of claimant/petitioner, Exhibit R-4 copy of offer letter dt 26-06-2006 as accepted by

claimant petitioner on 29-06-2006, Exhibit R-5 copy of agreement and interview evaluation conducted by the

claimant petitioner, Exhibit R-6 copy of PEP Form, Exhibit R-7 copy of termination letter dt 07.10.2009 and Exhibit

R-8 copy of F& F sheet.

8. Submissions/ argument on behalf of Workman-Petitioner: The workman-petitioner appeared in person during

the entire proceeding and he also argued his case. He submitted that his termination letter shows that it has been

issued as per Clause 13 (a) of the Appointment Letter dated 26.06.2006 which is not applicable in the petitioner’s

case. According to him his termination is infact has been done under Clause 13-B as the work performance was not

found satisfactorily by the Management and also there has been allegation of misconduct and negligence against him.

According to the petitioner a PEP (Performance Enhancement Program) was scheduled from 08.10.2009 to

09.10.2009 and he was intimated about this program but just before the day of commencement of this program a

termination letter dated 07.10.2009 was issued and remarkably that very later has been got received to the petitioner

even a day before i.e. on 06.10.2009. There was no requirement by the intimation letter of PEP Program to

acknowledge or intimate regarding taking part in the said program but stand of company has been that petitioner

refused to participate the petitioner raise a question if he was terminated a day earlier how he can refused to

participate in the said ground. It is also argued by workman-petitioner that a show cause notice dated 10.06.2009 was

also issued to him making allegation therein about transgression in claiming local convenience on an election holiday

i.e. 13.05.2009. It is argued that although convenience allowance for that day was raised but no payment was made

for that declared holiday. A detailed reply against said show cause notice was also submitted by petitioner and no any

further action was taken. The workman/ petitioner has further argued that the stand of company about performance

not being satisfactory is concerned infact his performance was good in comparison to others as he was placed at 3^rd

Rank in the Target Achievement Chart and it can’t be said that performance was not satisfactory. The petitioner has

also argued that he was shown taking interview and filing format for engaging agents but infact his signature were

forged on those documents which management treated as evidence against the petitioner. It is vehemently argued that

no in house enquiry was ever held before termination of the services and therefore, the Act on part of management in

terminating service is Arbitrary, illegal and same is in violation of established service law. The petitioner has also

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

489

argued that a preliminary objection has been raised by management regarding the reference not maintainable as the

petitioner is not covered under the definition of workman. In this regard it is submitted by the petitioner that the

designation is only a glorified titled but the nature of work remained clerical and operational and therefore petitioner

is well within the definition of workman. It has been also pointed out that during the cross examination the petitioner

has confirmed that he possessed no specialized skills and his salary was determined in accordance with the terms of

his appointment. The workman has relied on certain decisions of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of

Ripudaman Bhanot Vs Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Ludhiana and submitted that the Hon’ble Court had held by

interpreting definition of workman given under Section 2(s) of the ID Act that the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act

is applicable to sales promotion employees. It is argued that there is no proof on record that nature of duties of

Development Officer of LIC and that of Workman-Petitioner is similar. The petitioner further contended that he was

not engaged with any duty of supervisory or administrative nature. He also relied on a decision of Supreme Court

rendered in S.K. Verma Versus Mahesh Chander & Anr. AIR 1984 SC 1462, Devinder Singh Versus Municipal

Council (2011) 6 SCC 584, LKP Merchant Financing Ltd. V. Govt of NCT & Ors. (2003), John Joseph Khokar V.

Bhadange B.S. & Ors [1998 (1) LLJ 447 (Bom)], Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. V. Burmah Shell

Management Staff Assn. (AIR 1971 Sh. S.C. Gupta 922), MIRC Electronics Ltd. V. Shashank Gupta (Delhi High

Courtm 2023), Delta Jute & Industries Ltd. Staff Assn. V. State of West Bengal [2015(145) FLR 105], The

Workmen V. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. [1972 SCR 1373], Chandrasekhara Sharma V. C. Krishnaiah Chetty

Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (4) Kar LJ 279], Delhi Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd. V. S.L Thakural

(Delhi High Court), Gobind V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr. (2012 ILR 2 Punjab and Haryana 637).

9. Submissions/ argument on behalf of Management: Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of management has

submitted that at the time of joining the Post of Sales Manager the salary of claimant-petitioner was more than

Rs.10,000/- per month which is the maximum limit for a person to be covered under the term workman. It is further

argued that respondent-company is a Private Company and terms and condition of the Private Company for

employment is as per agreement between company and the employee. The petitioner has been legally terminated as

per terms and conditions of the appointment. The Ld. Counsel has relied his argument on reported decisions- Burmah

Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company Versus Burmah Shell Management, Chauhariya Tripathi & Ors.

Versus LIC of India MANU/SC/0305/2015, Lenin Kumar Ray Versus M/s Express Publication decided on

21.10.2024 MANU/SC/1131/2024, Pear Lite Liners Pvt. Ltd. Versus Manorma Sirsi (2004)3 SCC 172, Shri Satya

Narain Garg through his legal heirs Versus DCM Limited and Ors. In AIR No.566/2002 decided on 05.12.2011 by

Delhi High Court, another Delhi High Court Decision in Sh. Naresh Kumar Versus Sh. Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors.

CLAIM STATEMENT (OS) No.393/2010 decided on 05.11.2015.

10.

Finding: Points No.(i)-Whether the reference is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent-management a preliminary objection regarding the

maintainability of present Industrial Dispute arising out of reference has been raised and during the argument the Ld.

Counsel for respondent has raised this point with a force and therefore, it becomes imperative for this Court to first

decide this issue as to the maintainability of present reference. According to the Ld. Counsel for the respondent

management the appointment of the claimant petitioner is strictly governed by the appointment letter and does not fall

under the purview of Industrial Dispute Act. The claimant petitioner has worked on the managerial position and as

such he cannot be covered under the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of Industrial Dispute Act. The Ld.

Counsel for respondent in support of his contention has referred several decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court & High

Court as referred hereinabove- Sonipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Ajit Singh 2005(3) SCC 232. The Ld.

Counsel has further submitted that primary duties of sale managers are appointment of agents training and monitoring

their works and therefore, the petitioner claimant cannot be said to be a workman as defined under Section 2(s).

Against this preliminary objection the claimant petitioner (in person) has pointed out that only because name of

designation a person cannot be treated as non-workman. He also has referred several cases during his argument which

are referred hereinabove. Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act defines ‘workman’ as-

2(s) ‘Workman’- means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any Industry to do any manual, unskilled,

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

expressed or employed and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an Industrial Dispute

includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as consequence of

that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has laid to that dispute but does not include any such

person-

(i)… (Not applicable in present case).

(ii)… (Not applicable in present case).

(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or

(iv) Who being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Ten Thousand Rupees per mensem or

exercises either by the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of powers vested in him, functions mainly of

a managerial nature.

490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

From above said definition of workman it reflects that job of person employed in Industry may be manual, unskilled,

skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory but if a person is employed in a Managerial or administrative

capacity or employed in Supervisory Capacity and draws wage exceeding Ten Thousand Rupees per month is not

included in the definition of workman. In the reported decision Sonipat Co-operate Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Ajit

Singh (2005) 3 SCC 232 it has been held that a bare perusal of above mentioned provision clearly indicates that a

person could come within the purview of said definition if he (i) is employed in any industry (ii) performs any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, clerical, operational and supervisory work. In the present case the appointment

letter issued by respondent management indicates that claimant petitioner was appointed on the position of Sales

Manager. The role assigned as per appointment letter has been responsibility for achieving and exceeding sales targets

and managing Financial Planning Advisors reporting to the claimant-petitioner. This nature of assigned role indicates

that the claimant petitioner was in fact doing a job of supervisory nature as financial planning advisors were supposed

to report him and he was supposed to achieve and exceed the sale targets. As per the definition of workman in

Industrial Disputes Act has quoted above the supervisory work is also one of the nature of job given therein but the

rider in the Section itself has been that if a person is employer in a supervisory capacity his wages should not exceed

‘Ten Thousand Rupees’ per month. This ‘Ten Thousand rupees’ per month has been inserted by amendment in year

2010 and before amendment it was ‘One Thousand Six Hundred Rupees’. Now it is to be seen as to what was the

wages of the claimant petitioner at the time of his appointment with respondent. As per the appointment letter issued

on 26.06.2006 his annual remuneration package was fixed as Rupees Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand. This

amount was including basic salary, taxable and non-taxable allowances and benefits and other payments payable as

per the Designated Acts. In the said appointment letter a breakup to this annual remuneration package has been given

vide Annexure-A which further shows that the basic component has been Rs.1,68,750/-, Provident Fund Contribution

by Employer 12% of basic salary per month and Gratuity of Rs.8,113/- for every completed year of service, in

addition to these the further flexible compensation were also there which included house rent allowances medical

reimbursement, leave travel allowance and special allowance. If we consider the basic salary component which is

mentioned in the detailed description of the fixed remuneration as Rs.1,68,750/- the wage is certainly exceeded

Rs.1,600/- rupees which was the upper limit at the time of appointment of claimant petitioner. In other words in the

year 2006 when claimant petitioner was given appointment as Sales Manager he was drawing his basic salary more

than one thousand six hundred rupees per month and therefore he cannot be covered under the definition of workman

given in Section 2(s) of the ID Act. In the reported decision of Supreme Court of India Chauhariya Tripathi & Ors.

Versus LIC of India & Ors. the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to several decisions has upheld the decisions of

Hon’ble High Court whereby award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur

(Tribunal) was overturned on the sole ground that the persons on whose instance a reference was made under Section

10(1) and 2(a) of the ID Act was not adjudicable by the Tribunal for the reason that aggrieved persons were working

as Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation and they cannot be treated as workman under the

Industrial Dispute Act, and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In another reported decision

Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution Company of India Ltd. Versus Burmah Shell Management Staff & Ors

(1970) 3 SCC 378, it has been held that the work of canvassing and promotion shells cannot be included in any of the

four classifications given in the definition of workman in the Industrial Dispute Act. In reported decision T.P.

Srivastava Versus National Tobacco Company of India Ltd. AIR 1991 SC 2294 it has been held that duties involved

suggesting of wage and means to improve the sales require the imaginative and creative mind which could not be

termed as either manual, skilled, unskilled, technical and clerical in nature and such persons being a Section Salesman

cannot be covered under definition of workman. The claimant workman has cited some decisions in his favor as S.K.

Verma Versus Mahesh Chander & Anr, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1462 wherein Development Officers were held

covered under the terms ‘workman’ but this decision has been held per incuriam in Chauhariya Tripathi & Ors.

referred hereinabove. In the evidence adduced by claimant petitioner he himself has stated that he was a whole time

employee of respondent company and his operations were restricted to a definite area that is Jalandhar being the Head

Quarter. As per employment conditions the claimant was also liable to be transferred. As per claimant himself, in his

affidavit of evidence principal duty was to organize and develop the business of company in the area allotted to him

and for that purpose to find active and reliable agents (Financial Planning Advisors). In further evidence the claimant

petitioner has stated that he was supposed to support these agents (Financial Planning Advisors) to canvass new

business and to render effective after sales service to policy holder. Although the claimant has deposed in his

evidence that he was not employed in any administrative, managerial or supervisory work but finding active and

reliable agents and to support them to canvass new business itself is a supervisory Act. In addition to it the

appointment letter itself in no unclear terms states that responsibility of claimant petitioner was to achieve and exceed

sales targets. Certainly the nature of job and the duty given to claimant petitioner was that of supervisory nature and a

person employed in a supervisory capacity if is drawing wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees in the year

2006 when the petitioner claimant was given appointment, he is excluded from the definition of workman under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

11.

In the light of discussion made hereinabove and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is held that

claimant-petitioner Sh. Ajesh Kumar Tandon is not covered under the definition of ‘Workman’ as given in Section

2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and whose instance the Reference vide Notification No. L-17012/5/2016-IR(M)

dated 15.02.2016 / 17.02.2016 sent to this Tribunal under Section 10 (1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

491

Act, 1947 is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent Management.

Since the reference itself is held not maintainable, this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the lis in question and

record any finding and adjudicate the same as to whether the termination of claimant-petitioner Sh. Ajesh Kumar

Tandon w.e.f. 07.10.2009 is legal, fair and justified?

12. It is therefore,

ORDERED

That the present ID No.34/2015 titled as Ajesh Kumar Tandon Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company & Ors registered

on the basis of Reference vide Notification No. L-17012/5/2016-IR(M) dated 15.02.2016 / 17.02.2016 is dismissed.

13. Let copy of this Judgment be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

Dated: 23.01.2025

B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 182.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार मेससड एसएमएम इंिीजन ररंग सर्वडसेि; जमश्रा िातु जनगम जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

श्री एस. मिुसुिन राव के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 35/2024) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 10.02.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर (एम)-5]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2025

S.O. 182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s SMM Engineering Services; Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited and Sri S Madhusudhan Rao which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.02.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-5]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 29^th day of October, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 35/2024

Between:

Sri S Madhusudhan Rao,

H.No.1-7-510/5, Hari Nagar,

Ramnagar, Hyderabad-500048.

..…. Petitioner

492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

1. M/s SMM Engineering Services,

5-112, Shivaji Nagar, Meerpet,

Balapur, Rangareddy-500097.

2. The General Manager, HR.

Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited,

Presiding Officer Kanchanbagh,

Telangana-500058.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

None

For the Respondent: Smt. V. Uma Devi & N. Srinivas & Kiran Kumar, Advocate of R2

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/23/2024-B1 dated 10.07.2024 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 SMM Engineering Services & Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, and their workmen. The reference

is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the contractor M/s SMM Engineering Services, Rangareddy in termination of

services of Sri S.Madhusudhan Rao in the establishment of Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, Hyderabad is

justified? If not, what relief Sri S.Madhusudhan Rao is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 35/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent. Record shows that, on previous date, notice issued to petitioner returned with endorsement

“addresses left” without intimation and no other address of the petitioner is available. Today also petitioner not

present not filed claim statement. In view of absence of petitioner and non-filing of Claim statement, ‘No-Claim’

award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 29^th day of

October, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 183.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार के र िेल् इन्सुरेंस जलजमटेड, रेजलगरे िेल् इन्सुरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

493

श्री अज लेि िुबे के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- सीिीआईटी/एलटी/-आरसी/14/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 10.02.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर (एम)-6]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2025

S.O. 183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. CGIT/LC/-RC/14/2022) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Care Health Insurance Limited, Religare Health Insurance Company Limited and Sri

Akhilesh Dubey which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.02.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-6]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/RC/14/2022

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

AkhileshDubey, S/o Shriram Sharma,

R/o Care of Shankar Singh Parihar,

South of Kendra Vidhyalay, Ward -10,

Sidhi (M.P.)

Workman

The Care Health Insurance Limited

(Formerly known as Religare Health

Insurance Company Limited) through

Its Managing Director, 5^th Floor, 19

Chawla House, Nehru Place, New Delhi

Care Health Insurance Limited

Through its HR Head, 5^th Floor,19

Chawla House, Nehru Place, New Delhi

Care Health Insurance Limited

Through its Territory Head, Sidhi, M.P.

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 10^thday of January-2025)

The Workman has filed petition under Section 2(A) (2 & 3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1949 (in short

the Act), against termination of his services by the Management with a case that, he had joined the Management as

Senior Area Manager-Digi-Connect on 13.02.2020 at an Annual Package of Rs. 5,25,000/-. His Monthly Salary was

494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

around Rs. 39,958/-, Gross Salary around Rs. 44,819/- and Net Salary around Rs42,239/- as per last pay slip of July

21, 2021.He had been working with honesty, sincerity and dedication and was appreciated by his seniors in May

2020, June 2020, and July 2020 for his out-sanding performance and was ranked among the Top- 30 Area Managers

in February 2021 and April 2021 as well Top Second in May and June 2021 for achieving maximum targets. On July

16, 2021 he received a communication from HR Department of Company informing him that his performance was

below average and was required to improve his work to meet Minimum Performance Benchmark of MTD 50% by 15

August, 2021. On 19.08.2021, he received a call from HR Manager,asking him to resign with immediate effect

without any show-cause notice or prior intimation as mentioned in the terms and conditions in his appointment letter.

On 20.08.2021, he received letter from Management, wherein he was informed that his performance was weak and to

his surprise, he received the order of termination on 23/08/2021 invoking the Clauses 18 and 19(J) in the

Appointment Letter by the Management, stating that this order was with reference to show-cause notice dated

20.08.2021 whereas the Communication dated 20.08.2021 did not required him to show-cause. He raised a dispute

with the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central, Shahdol in this respect which cannot be conciliated within 45 days,

hence this petition. According to the Petitioner, the action of Management in terminating his services is un-just, illegal

and arbitrary without following the principles of Natural Justice and in contribution to terms and conditions

mentioned in his Appointment Letter dated 13.02.2020. He has thus prayed that, setting aside the order of

Management terminating him from services dated 23.08.2021. He be reinstated with all back-wages and benefits and

be deemed in continuous service of Management.

In its written statement to the petition,the Management has taken a case that due to his non-performance, a

Performance Improvement Plan was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.07.2021, wherein he was

asked to seek necessary guidance and inputs from his superiors and was excepted to meet the minimum performance

benchmark by 15 August, 2021. On 20.08.2021, he was issued a show-cause notice informing him that his

performance during the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) period has been a concern for the Management.

Thereafter, due to his consequent non-performance, his appointment was terminated by cancelling the contract of

Appointment on 23.08.2021 under Clause 18 and 19(J) of his Appointment Letter. According to Management, the

action of Management in terminating him from his services is just illegal. In evidence, the petitioner has filed and

proved photocopy of his letter by appointment, pay slip for July 2021, List of 30 top Area Managers, Letter of

Management dated 16.07.2021, which are Exhibit W-1 to W-5 he has filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief.

Management has cross-examined him on his affidavit.

Management has filed and proved Letter of Appointment, Letter of Management dated 16.07.2021 and

20.08.2021, Letter of Termination dated 23.08.2021, Exhibit M-1 to M-4. Management has also filed affidavit of its

Witness as his examination-in-chief,who has been cross-examined by the Workman.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Agrawal for the petitioner and Mr. K.B. Singh for

Management. I have gone through the record as well.

The first argument of Learned Counselfor Management is that the petitioner is not a Workman as

defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and secondly, there is no illegality committed by Management in terminating

services of petitioner in the light of his appointment contract.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner has replied the First argument on the ground that it is nowhere pleaded

nor is proved by Management that the petitioner is not a Workman as defined under the Act. And Secondly, from the

evidence on record which is almost not disputed, it is established that action of Management is arbitrarily unjust and

illegal.

Form the perusal of the record in the light of aforesaid arguments, following issues arises for

determination:

1. Whether the petitioner is workman as defined under Section 2(S) of the Act.

2. Whether the action of the Management in terminating services of the petitioner is stigmatic and is

arbitrary.

Issue No. 1.

Section 2(S) of the Act, which defines Workman, is being reproduced as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

dispute, but does not include any such person—

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

Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

495

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

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem

or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him,

functions mainly of a managerial nature.

Learned Counsel for Management has relied on judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of

Union Carbide (India) Ltd. V.s. Ramesh Kumbla and Others reported in MANU/MH/0073/1999 and

another judgment of the same High Court in the case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. V.s. D. Samuel

and Others reported in MANU/MH/1713/1998. In these two cases, after analyzing the judgment of various

High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Single Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court has summarized

the principles on the basis of which it is to be decided whether the Workman is in supervisory capacity or

not. These tests mentioned in Para 34 and 35 of the Judgment are being reproduced as follows:

Para-34. In so far as the Apex Court is concerned, some of the tests laid down are:

(1)

Designation is not material but what is important is the nature of work.

(2)

Find out the dominant purpose of employment and not any additional duties the employee

may be performing.

(3)

Can he bind the Company/employer to some kind of decisions on behalf of the

Company/employer.

(4)

Has the employee power to direct or oversee the work of his subordinates.

(5)

Has the power to sanction leave or recommend it; and

(6)

Has he the power to appoint, terminate or take disciplinary action against workmen.

Para-35. From the judgment of this Court and the other High Courts some of the tests apart from

what the Apex Court has stated are:

(a) Whether the employee can examine the quality of work and whether such work is performed in

satisfactory manner or not;

(b) Does the employee have powers of assigning duties and distribution of work;

(c) Can he indent material and distribute the same amongst the workmen;

(d) Even though he has no authority to grant leave does he have power to recommend leave;

(e) Are there persons working under him;

(f) Has he the power to supervise the work of men and not merely machines;

(g) Dos he mark the attendance of other employees;

(h) Does he write the confidential reports of his subordinates.

Now analyzing the evidence in the casein hand on the basis of tests laid down in the aforesaid Judgment it

comes out that the role and duties of the Applicant/Petitioner have not been defined in his letter of Appointment. In

his cross-examination, he has stated that Agents used to work under him on commission basis, he used to supervise

their work and organize Field Meetings. Also that he used to process claims as well that he had made total 85 agents

out of which 20 to 25 used to work regularly with him. Learned Counsel for Management has stated that this is a clear

admission by the Petitioner that he worked in Supervisory Capacity. On the other hand, it has been submitted on

behalf of the Workman by his Learned Counsel that his responsibilities were to work closely with the agents, provide

assistance to them and work on equal footing with agents. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in which

he has stated that the Agents engaged by him for selling insurances policies were paid commissions by Management

and the Appointment Letters were issued by Management to the Agents. The job of the petitioner was only to forward

the names of the persons willing to work as Agents. All power to terminate, suspend, supervise or management was

with the Management. It is also stated in the supplementary affidavit that the services conditions as well engagement

of the Agents were not regulated by the petitioner rather these were regulated by Management. His job was only to

engage more and more Agents on commission basis, also it has been stated that the petitioner and the agents fully

associated each other in fulfilling their targets. This supplementary affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner in

compliance of order of this Tribunal dated 27.09.2024 in which petitioner was directed to file supplementary affidavit

on the points mentioned in the order. The Copy of this affidavit has been served on the Management. The

Management has not opted to cross-examine the petitioner on this rather has filed a counter affidavit to this

supplementary affidavit on behalf of the Management wherein it has been stated that in fact, it was the petitioner

which used to sanction leave, initiate disciplinary action, transfer employees under him and regulate agents which was

496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

within his powers. This affidavit is also has uncross-examined. If the petitioner used to appoint agents under his

signature or used to issue transfer orders or in-state disciplinary action there must have been documents in this respect

with the Management which the Management could produce to corroborate their case. As has been stated earlier, the

role and responsibility of the petitioner has not been defined in his Appointment Letter or by any Office Order or

Circular of the Management. Hence, in absence of any other evidence for corroborating the case of Management that

the Petitioner used to work in a supervisory capacity as mentioned by Management. The case of the Management

that Petitioner is not a workman under Section 2(S) of the act is held not proved.

Hence, on the basis of above action the petitioner is held to be a workman as defined under Section

2(S) of the Act.

Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2

It is undisputed that the petitioner received complements and felicitation by Management in February,

April, May and June 2021 and he was ranked either first or second in his group. This is also not disputed that first

time he was informed about his below average performance by the Management on 16.07.2021 and was put under

Performance Improvement Plan(PIP) requiring him to the meet the minimum performance benchmark of MTD 50%

by 15.08.2021. The case of Management is that due to his non-performance a formal Performance Improvement Plan

was communicated with the petitioner vide letter of Management dated 16.07.2021 wherein he was asked to seek

necessary guidance and inputs from his superiors and was expected to meet the minimum performance benchmark by

15.08.2021. Due to his non-performance, a show-cause notice dated 20.08.2021 was served on him informing him

that his performance during the Performance Improvement Plan period has been a matter of concern for Management

and thereafter on 23.08.2021 he was terminated from services by way of terminating the contract of his appointment

under Clause 18 and 19(2)(J) of the appointment letter.

Clause 18 and 19 (2) (J) are being reproduced as follows:-

The letter dated 20.08.2021 which is show-cause notice according to Management has been proved as

Exhibit M-1, it reads as follows:-

“Akhilesh”

Considering your consistent non-performance you were put under a formal Performance Improvement

Plan (PIP) which was initiated on 16^th July, 2020.

We hereby reinstate that your performance during PIP period has been a cause of concern for us which has been

communicated to you.

Thereafter, Management has issued letter dated 23.08.2021 to the petitioner which is letter terminating his

services. This letter is Exhibit M-4. The relevant portion of this letter is being reproduced as follows:-

This is in continuation to the PIP letter that was issued to you on 16^th July 2021 basis your AMJ’21

performance, it has been found that you have failed to achieve your PIP targets. Also you have been using

threatening and foul language with other colleagues in the organization which is against the code of conduct. As

per clause no. 18 & 19 (J) of your appointment letter dated 13^th February, 2021, company has a right to end your

services by giving 30 days notice period.

With reference to the show-cause notice issued to you on 20^th August 2021 and the above mentioned

clause, the Company has ended your contract and you will be paid salary in lieu of your notice period in your full

& final settlement.

Perusal of this letter (Exhibit M-4) reveals two things. First, there is a charge that the petitioner has been using threats

and foul language with his Colleagues which is against code of conduct. And Secondly, the letter dated 20.08.2021

(Exhibit M-3) was show-cause notice with respect to his non performance. The letter dated 20.08.2021 (Exhibit M-3)

which Management claims to be show-cause notice, does not say so and a petitioner has not been required by

Management to show-cause by this notice letter dated 20.08.2021. Secondly, using foul language by petitioner is new

charge leveled first time by Management in the letter of termination of his termination (Exhibit M-4).

As it is established that grounds of termination of services of Petitioner by Management has been two

fold, Firstly his non-performance though he was in their First or Second ranked in his group till June, 2021 and

Secondly, use of foul language towards Colleagues, both these charges are stigmatic. Settled provisions of law in this

respect is that, when termination of services is awarded to an Employee on the basis of charge which is stigmatic. In

such a situation, it will be deemed as stigmatic, then workman must be given an opportunity to explain it. In this case,

it is not been done by Management. Hence, the action of Management in terminating the services of the

petitioner in the case in hand being stigmatic is held unjust, illegal and arbitrary.

Issue No. 2 answered accordingly.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

497

On the basis of findings on issues mentioned above, the petitioner is held to be entitled to be reinstated

in service of Management on the post and the capacity held by him on the date of letter of termination of his

services ie; 23.08.2021 and is held entitled to back-wages along with all the benefits from the day of his

termination, deeming him to be in appointment of Management. He is also held entitled to litigation cost

quantified at Rs. 25,000/- from Management. Management is under obligation to comply with the award within

90 days from the date of this order/Award failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till

payment. Petition stands disposed accordingly.

DATE:-10/01/2025

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 184.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार मेससड मोिन कुमार; ए रृोटड अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री िीृक रिक के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.- सीिीआईटी/एलटी/-आरसी/64/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 10.02.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर (एम)-7]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2025

S.O. 184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. CGIT/LC/-RC/64/2019) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to M/s Mohan Kumar; Airport Authority of India and Sri Deepak Rajak which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.02.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-7]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/64/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Deepak Rajak,

S/o Shriram Rajak,

R/o. Airport Colony, Khajuraho,

Dist. Chhatarpur (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

M/s Mohan Kumar,

Contractor, R/o Bunglow No.14,

New Colony, Jagarnathpur,

Dhruva, Ranchi, (Jharkhand) – 834004

498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Airport Director,

Airport Authority of India, Civil Aerodrome,

Khajuraho, Dist. Chhatarpur (M.P.)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 09^th day of January-2025.)

As per letter dated 15/10/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number J-1(2-

7)/2019-IR dt. 15/10/2019. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Mohan Kumar, Contractor of Airport Authority of

India, Civil Aerodrome, Khajuraho, Dist. Chhatarpur (Madhya Pradesh) in terminating the services

of Shri Deepak Rajak S/o. Shriram Rajak, Ex-Sr. Supervisor w.e.f. 03.07.2017 is fair, legal and justified?

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

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service

of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written

statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did

he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 09/01/2025

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 185.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार भारती एएक्सए लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सुनील िर के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 45/2010)

को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 10.02.2025 को

प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल – 17012/20/2009-आईआर (एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2025

S.O. 185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 45/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited and Sri Sunil Dhar which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.02.2025.

[No. L-17012/20/2009-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

499

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 45/2010

Registered on:- 13.07.2010

Sh. Sunil Dhar son of Sh. T N Dhar,R/o 56 A, Bhawani Nagar, Janipur, Jammu-180007.

----Applicant

Versus

1. Chief Executive Officer, Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, 601-602, Sixth Floor, Raheja

Titanum, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East) Mumbai.

2. Director H R, Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, 601-602, Sixth Floor, Raheja Titanum, Off

Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East) Mumbai.

3. Regional Sales Manager, Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, 601-602, Sixth Floor, Raheja

Titanum, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East) Mumbai.

4. Mr. J C Goel, Assistant Regional Sales Manager, M/s Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited,

SCO 28-29-30, Sector 9D, Chandigarh.

-----Respondents

Present:-

Sh. Rahul Dev, AR for applicant.

Sh. Chetan Gupta, AR for Respondents.

AWARD

Passed On:-10.01.2025

1. Central Government vide Notification No.L-17012/20/2009 (IR(M) dated 30.06.2010, under Clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the ID Act),

has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether Shri Sunil Dhar, Branch Sales Manager in Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh is

workman as defined under ID Act, 1947?

If so, whether the action of the management of M/s Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company ltd. in terminating the

services of Sh. Sunil Dhar w.e.f. 23.07.2009 is justified? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to and

from which date?”

2. It has been averred by the applicant that he was appointed by respondent no.2 as Branch Sales Manager on

08.07.2008 and was posted in Jammu Branch under the direct control of respondent no.3. He was the best performer

of the company and even received certificates and letter of appreciation from his seniors even during the peak de-

growth period for the whole north zone II. Respondent no.4 started grudging against the applicant as he was the best

performer and achiever. As per policy of the company, respondent no.4 honored counterpart of the applicant namely

Sh. Shashi Katoch by visiting his house, but he never visited in the house of the applicant to honor him. Respondent

no.4 started victimizing the applicant due to his success and achievement. His counterpart Sh. Shashi Katoch was

given annual increment of Rs.38,000/-, whereas the applicant was given annual increment of Rs.13,000/- only on the

asking of respondent no.4. On 25^th May, 2009 applicant was telephonically informed that his April 2009 review has

been done and as sales are low, so is being put up on Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for 15 days and had to

complete his target of April and May 2009 in the remaining 5 days of May 2009, which was an unrealistic target

given by the company. Just after two days i.e. on 27^th May, 2009, a recruit advertisement was posted on naukri.com

for the post on which the applicant was working at Jammu Headquarters. On 8^th July, 2009, Mr. Vishesh Dimri ZM

HR sent a mail and directed him to come to Jalandhar on 14^th July 2009 to have a discussion with the respondent no.2

to 4. On 14^th July, 2009, he met with respondent no.2 to 4 at Jalandhar, where they asked the applicant either to opt

for transfer to Karnal or opt for a lower post on lower salary. On 15^th July 2009, the applicant sent a mail to the

respondents conveying his willingness to join at Karnal. The respondent instead of sending the transfer letter to him,

served termination notice on his personal email id on 23^rd July, 2009. The applicant also approached the respondent

no.2 and 3 and pleaded them to at least withdraw the above said impugned order regarding termination, which was

disgraceful bolting the doors for his appointment elsewhere, but they refused to listen to his appeal.

3. Thereafter, applicant approached the Regional Labour Commissioner Jammu (hereinafter called as RLC,

Jammu). Demand notice dated 24.08.2009 was issued to the respondents. After receiving the notice, respondents

appeared before the RLC Jammu and filed their reply. Rejoinder dated 26.10.2009 was also filed by the applicant.

500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. The respondents gave undue importance to the fact that the performance of sales of applicant is below target, but

till April 2009, the applicant was the best performer of the company. The respondents gave undue importance to the

fact that the rate of dishonor of cheques is high. The cheques dishonor is a common feature in the financial market

and most so in Insurance Industry. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 23.07.2009 terminating the applicant

from service be quashed being in violation of the ID Act and he be reinstated into service with all consequential

benefits including full back wages, seniority and further promotion to the next higher post inter alia on the grounds as

mentioned in the claim petition.

5. The management filed written statement raising objection that application is not maintainable in view of the fact

that the applicant does not fall within the ambit and definition of the term workman as defined under Section 2 (S) of

the ID Act. It is submitted that the workman was appointed as Branch Sales Manager and his remuneration/salary was

fixed at Rs.6,75,000/- per annum. His duties were to procure business and to organize and develop the business within

the allotted area. His status was that of a manager discharging functions of managerial nature and thus cannot be

nomenclature as a workman. It is further submitted that the management company dealing in Insurance Sector would

not fall within the definition of Industry, to which the ID Act is applicable. The applicant was terminated on account

of his poor performance. The applicant did not improve his performance despite giving various opportunities and was

negligent in performance of the same. The applicant was indulged in fraudulent ways to achieve business target by

sourcing policies to his relatives and friends and subsequently such policies would get lapsed due to non-payment of

premium. The company terminated the services of the applicant by strictly complying with the provisions of the

Contract of Employment, which were accepted and signed by the applicant with the company. Moreover, being a

contract of personal service, the applicant cannot claim any reinstatement or other benefits before this Tribunal. It is

submitted that the respondent was the senior officer in the hierarchy of the Company. The appreciation certificates are

handed over to the employees of the company as a matter of routine. The work and conduct of the applicant was not

satisfactory. The applicant is trying to hide his incompetence and below average performance by casting aspersion on

his superiors by raising false and self created submissions. It is denied that there was any grudge or bias against the

applicant for grant of increments and rating is formulated in accordance with the company’s policies and the

performance of the employees. The applicant was put on performance investment plan, which was accepted by him in

writing and in spite of repeated opportunities, the applicant failed to improve his performance and hence his services

were terminated on 23.07.2009. The applicant himself opted for transfer to Karnal for a lower post, but the said offer

was never accepted by the respondents. It is submitted that the impugned order is totally legal and justified. The

respondent duly appeared before the RLC, Jammu and filed reply to the demand notice issued by the applicant. The

applicant’s actual premium collection targets were low. The applicant presumed premium collection targets achieved

is appearing on higher side because of logging monthly premium new business, which would subsequently got lapsed

or cancelled because of the non-payments of premiums. The applicant was handed over a cheque no.097532 dated

31.08.2009 for Rs.1,02,249/- towards full and final settlement in the office of RLC, Jammu, which the applicant

deliberately refused to accept. It is prayed that the reference may be declined.

6. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

7. The applicant has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.A/1 along with documents

C1 to C10 and has been cross-examined by the learned authorized representative of management.

8. The management has filed affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar s/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, working as Channel Operation

Executive at Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 208-209, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, who filed his affidavit

in evidence as Ex.MW1/A along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-10 and has been cross-examined by the learned

authorized representative of applicant.

9. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties.

10. While arguing the case, ld. counsel for applicant contended that applicant falls under the definition of the

workman as he was working as Sales Manager along with his team mates. He was designated as Branch Sales

Manager because of the fact that he was elder among all and a better performer. He was not appointing or punishing

authority and he falls under the definition of the workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act, which read as

follow:-

2 (s) ["workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,

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

express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes

any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that

dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i)who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957

(62 of 1957); or

(ii)who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

501

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or

exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions

mainly of a managerial nature.]

11. He further contended that the applicant being workman was terminated from service without following the

procedure given in Section 25 F of the ID Act. So he is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

12. On the other hand, ld. counsel for respondent contended that the applicant was working as Branch Sales Manager

and 8 to 10 persons were working in his team and he does not fall under the definition of workman. To support his

view, he placed reliance upon the judgment in Civil Appeal No.5187 of 2023 titled as M/s Bharti Airtel Limited

versus A S Raghavendra, wherein it has been held that mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold

disciplinary inquiries against other employees, would not and could not be the sole criterion to determine whether the

person is workman or not. The employee holding any high ranking position, but without powers to appoint, dismiss or

hold disciplinary enquiry would be included under the umbrella of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. He

further contended that since applicant is not a workman, so his claim is not maintainable and his reference be

declined.

13. The question which arises for consideration is whether the establishment is an industry. The Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36) FLR 266 dealt at length with

the ambit and scope of expression “industry” as defined in Section 2(J) of the ID Act, and has laid down triple test for

determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where (a) systematic activity (b)

organized by cooperation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is commercial (c) for

the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes prima facie is an

“Industry” in that enterprise. Coming into the case in hand, the work assigned to the workmen relates to selling of

policies of different nature for commercial purposes with the cooperation of workers and management and in this

way, distribution of service is being done by the respondent no.1 to satisfy the human wants and wishes and thus it is

an Industry as it fulfill triple test as given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on India in Banglore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board (supra).

14. Next question which arise for consideration is whether the applicant is workman as defined under Section 2(s) of

the ID Act. To my mind, the claimant is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. In this regard,

reliance can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011

Supreme Court 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(s) of the ID Act

which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service,

the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any

distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the

plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person

employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on

fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.”

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or

contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a

person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Thus, nature of

appointment or source of appointment is not relevant to be a "workman" within the ID Act.

15. So far as the case law titled as M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra) cited by ld. counsel for management is concerned,

in the said case, applicant A S Raghavendra was held not to be workman in view of the fact that he was discharging

managerial duty and was getting numerous benefits as perks such as special allowance, car hiring charges, petrol and

maintenance, driver’s salary etc. Under these circumstances, he was held to not to be workman. However, in this case,

perusal of appointment letter Annexure W-1 reveals that no such facility was provided to applicant, rather applicant

was working with the cooperation of other workmen. Even perusal of cross examination of management witness

namely Sh. Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Ashok Kumar reveals that no power was assigned to applicant and applicant

was not appointing authority of his co-workers and he cannot even sanction any leave. Under these circumstance, he

is held to be workman and the case law cited by the ld. counsel for management is not applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

16. There is no dispute about the preposition of law that onus to prove that applicant was in the employment of

management is always on the applicant and it is for the applicant to adduce evidence to prove factum of his

employment with the management. Such evidence may be in the form of receipt of salary of wages for 240 days or

record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240

days or more in a calendar year preceded his termination. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Co-Op.

Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Sowaran Singh (2005) 8 supreme Court cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated

Division versus Bhikubhai Meghajubhai Gadva (2012) 1 SCC 47.

502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17. Now the question arises whether the workman has completed 240 days prior to his termination and he was issued

retrenchment compensation or salary in lieu of his retrenchment as per Section 25 F of the ID Act. in this regard, it is

pointed out that the workman has categorically stated in his affidavit that he worked continuously from July, 2008 till

termination and this fact has not at all been controverted by the respondent in his written statement or in the

deposition of statement of Sh. Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Ashok Kumar, who appear on behalf of the management.

Thus it is presumed that the workman has worked 240 days prior to his termination preceding one year from the date

of his termination and thus his termination was against the provisions of Section 25 F of the ID Act. It is added here

that during the course of argument as well as in the written statement, respondent has taken the stand that workman

was given one month salary during the conciliation proceedings before the RLC Jammu vide cheque no.097532 dated

31.08.2009. Giving a cheque during the conciliation proceedings would not make compliance of the Section 25 F of

the ID Act as the amount as per Section 25 F of the ID Act should have been given prior to his retrenchment. The said

act of tendering cheques by the management cannot done away the wrong done by the respondent. Hence, there is

non-compliance of provisions of Section 25 F of the ID Act and thus applicant was entitled for re-instatement.

18. Now the residual question is whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back

wages and/or reinstatement with continuity of service. It is proved on record that the workman has worked from

08.07.2008 to 23.07.2009 as Branch Sales Manager and his services were dispensed with vide termination letter dated

23.07.2009(Annexure W-7) without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act.

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya"

reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:-

"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal

rule.

ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is

required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance-that

he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full

back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully

employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is

so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a

positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact.

Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and

prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of

termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the

mandate of Section 25-F of the ID Act. Sometimes it has been termed as void ab initio sometimes as illegal per se,

sometime as nullity and sometimes as non-est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that

termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one

month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering

the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not

terminated. (Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).

21.

A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited y.

Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80, held that relief of reinstatement with

continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the

employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of

contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of her earnings. lf thus the act of employer is found to be totally

illegal and arbitrary, in that eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common

sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workman must ordinarily lead to the

reinstatement of the services of the workman along with payment of back wages.

22.

However, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported

as 2005 SCC (L&S)_716 observed as under :-

"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of

service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the

manner and method of selection appointment i.e. whether after proper and advertisement of the vacancy or inviting

applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage,

temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and

balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into

consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has

rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or

partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

503

position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small,

the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our

experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot

be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.

23. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the facts, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the

claimant/workman has been terminated without following the procedure laid down under Section 25 F of the ID Act.

It is pertinent to mention that he has specifically not pleaded that he is not working anywhere. Moreover, nothing has

been asked from this witness regarding his employment/termination as such, it cannot be decided conclusively with

respect to his future employment after the alleged retrenchment/termination. Hence, the claimant/workman is entitled

for reinstatement into service on the same post from the date of his termination with 50% back wages inasmuch as

termination of claimant/workman is per-se illegal.

24. However, the applicant has attained the age of 58 in the year 2022, as applicant appeared in the witness box on

13.11.2014 and has deposed on oath that he was 50 years on that date. So he has attained the age of 58 years in the

year 2022 and as per the appointment letter, the date of his retirement is on attaining of age of 58 years. Therefore, he

cannot be reinstated, however, he is entitled for 50% back wages along with other benefits as per policy of the

management.

25. The reference is answering in favor of the applicant as stated above. Let copy of this award be sent to the

appropriate Government as required under Section 17(1) of the Act for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 186.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन मए 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री

सरकार एंड्र ू ूल एंड कंृनी जलजमटेड, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री समरेन् र ना मु िी, कामगार, के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िडि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल ,कोलकाता, ृंचाट (संिभड सं्‍ ा REF.

No. 39 OF 2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

सा 11.02.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल – 42011/100/2013-आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2025

S.O. 186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. No. 39 OF 2013) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to Andrew Yule & Company Limitted, and Shri Samarendra Mukherjee, Worker, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.02.2025.

[No. 42011/100/2013 -IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

REF. NO. 36 OF 2013

REF. NO. 37 OF 2013

REF. NO. 38 OF 2013

REF. NO. 39 OF 2013 AND

REF. NO. 43 OF 2013

504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Andrew Yule & Company Limited

1. Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty,

2. Sri Mihir Koley,

3. Sri Joydeb Chatterjee,

4. Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee, and

5. Sri Subhas Chandra Naskar

Appearance:

On behalf Andrew Yule & Company Limited: Mr. Sushil Kumar Karmakar, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of Five workmen: Mr. Saibal Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate.

Dated: 21st January, 2025

AWARD

This common award disposes all the above mentioned five reference cases as issues involved in all those

cases are exactly same and parties are five workmen who have alleged to have been illegally terminated from their

permanent regular service by their employer Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., on their attaining the age of 58 years.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order Nos. L-42011/103/2013 –IR(DU) dated 25-07-

2013: No.L-42011/102/2013-IR(DU) dt.25-07-2013; No. L-42011/101/2013-IR (DU) dt. 25-07-2013; No. L-

42011/100/2013-IR (DU) dt.29-07-2013 and No L-42012/59/2013-IR (DU) dt. 12-09-201, in exercise of power

conferred sub-section 1(d) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the

following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

1. (Ref. 36/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of Sri

Naresh Kumar Chakraborty w.e.f. 01-01-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of

enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries

& Public Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no.10 (23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011,

with immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. (Ref. 37/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of Sri Mihir

Koley w.e.f. 01-01-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of enhanced age of

superannuation, from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public

Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no. 10(23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011, with

immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

3. (Ref. 38/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of Sri

Joydeb Chatterjee w.e.f. 01-02-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of enhanced age

of superannuation, from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public

Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no. 10(23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011, with

immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

4. (Ref. 39/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of Sri

Samarendra Nath Mukherjee w.e.f. 01-07-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of

enhanced age of superannuation, from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries

& Public Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no. 10(23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011,

with immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

5. (Ref. 43/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of Sri

Subhas Chandra Naskar w.e.f. 01-01-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of

enhanced age of superannuation, from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries

& Public Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no. 10(23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011,

with immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

505

That contents of their separate claim statements appear to be exactly same save and except their date of

joining, category of service to which they joined the establishment of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., their date of birth and

their date of superannuation.

Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty, in his written statement has alleged that he joined the establishment of

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. as a clerical staff (Typist) on 16-08-1979 on probation and later his service was confirmed

on 16-02-1980 and all along he was posted at Head Office at Kolkata.

Sri Mihir Koley, in his written statement has alleged that he joined the establishment of Andrew Yule &

Co. Ltd. as a Subordinate Staff (Driver) on 20-03-1980 on probation and later his service was confirmed on

20-09-1980 and all along he was posted at Head Office at Kolkata.

Sri Joydeb Chatterjee, in his written statement has alleged that he joined the establishment of Andrew Yule

& Co. Ltd. as a Typist on 01-09-1987 and all along he was posted at Head Office at Kolkata.

Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee, in his written statement has alleged that he joined the establishment of

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. as a Durwan on 05-07-1990 and all along he was posted at Head Office at Kolkata, and

Sri Subhas Chandra Naskar, in his written statement has alleged that he joined the establishment of

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. as a Clerk on 01-10-1985 and all along he was posted at Head Office at Kolkata.

However, they all have alleged that when they joined the establishment of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., their

age of superannuation was fixed at 60 years. That company was declared as a sick industry in the year 2001 and as

such their age of superannuation was rolled to 58 years with the approval of the Cabinet.

But later, Central Govt. had taken a decision to increase the age of superannuation of Board Level and Below

Board Level employees of Central Public Sector Enterprise from 58 years to 60 years vide D.P.E. O.M. No. 18 (6)/98

–GM-GL-002 dated 19-05-1998.

Further, when the sick CPSEs started making profit after 2004, then those CPSEs requested the concerned

Ministry/Department to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years. That

D.P.E. approved the proposal to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years on fulfilment of certain

conditions by issuing memorandum No. 18(1) / 2007- GM-GL-80 dated 20-04-2007.

On receiving such memorandum Board of Directors of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. called a meeting on 27-07-

2011 and decided to enhance the age of superannuation of its all employees from 58 to 60 years and sent a proposal to

that effect before Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India for approval of proposal w.e.f. 01-04-2011. Further, the

management sent a proposal letter no. AY/CMD /31 dated 03-08-2011 to the Dept. of Heavy Industries, Ministry of

Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, for enhancement of retirement age of its all employees from 58 to 60 years.

That management further vide letters dt. 30-09-2011 and 05-10-2011 to the Ministry of Heavy Industries, appraised

that enhancement of age of retirement from 58 to 60 years will not be applicable to the unionised employees in the

workmen category placed at the tea garden of the company and who are governed by Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and

workmen placed at the factories of the company, who are governed by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)

Act, 1946.

Accordingly, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Deptt. of Heavy Industry vide memo no.

10(23)/-2011/PE.1 dated 03-11-2011, accorded approval for enhancement of the retirement age from 58 years to 60

years in respect of Board and Below Board Level and employees of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. governed by DPE

guidelines with immediate effect. But such enhancement will not be applicable to the employees of Andrew Yule &

Co. Ltd. who are governed by Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 or Plantation Labour Act, 1951.

On receiving such memo, the management of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. issued an Administrative Circular

No. 2012/07 dated 01-03-2012 enhancing the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years for the Board Level and below

Board Level Officer and Assistances on the Roll of the company on or after 03-11-2011.

Now, all the five workmen have alleged that all along they were posted at the Head Office of Andrew Yule

& Co. Ltd. at Kolkata and which is governed by West Bengal Shops & Establishment Act and DPE guidelines. The

Head Office is neither a tea garden governed by Plantation Labour Act,1951 nor a Factory being governed by the

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It has also been alleged that there was a tripartite settlement

dated 04-02-2011 under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in between the management of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. and its

workmen posted at the Head Office for compliance of retirement age fixed by the Ministry.

They have alleged that in violations of memo no. 10(23)/-2011/PE.1 dated 03-11-2011 issued by Ministry of

Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industry, they have been retrenched from their respective

services on their attaining the of 58 years. That they have raised objection in writing against their premature

retirement before the management of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. in the year 2012 itself but of no avail. Then they made

a complaint before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata, but who failed to resolve their dispute and

referred their matter to the Ministry for making reference before Industrial Tribunal.

506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

That they have alleged that due to premature retirement they have suffered financial loss and they have

claimed the losses suffered due to premature retirement and other consequential financial benefits.

The management of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. contested the claim of all those five workmen by filing five

separate written statements and where it has taken the same stand and alleged that all those five workmen were

members of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. Workmen’s Union (Calcutta Region) and they being unionised employees of

the company are governed by tripartite settlement or bipartite settlement executed between the management and their

unions. They are not governed by D.P.E. guidelines. That there was tripartite settlement executed between the

management of the company and the unions on 04-02-2011 and where it was settled that retirement age of unionised

workmen would be 58 years and they would superannuated on the last working days on their attaining the age of

superannuation in terms of their date of birth recorded in their Service Books. Such tripartite settlement was in force

at the time of retirement of those employees.

It has also alleged that in Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. there are four categories of employees namely (1) Officer

Category, (2) Non-unionised Staff, who are exclusively governed by DPE guidelines, (3) Unionised Staff other than

tea garden employees who are governed by tripartite agreement arrived at the intervention of Labour Commissioner

and (4) Tea Garden workers governed by Plantation Labour Act, 1951. That Memo no. 10(23)/ 2011-PE-1 dated 03-

11-2011 issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprise, Govt. of India was/ is applicable to the

employees of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. who comes within the purview of DPE guidelines and those who were /are

Board Level, below Board Level and Assistance and not to those employees who are governed by the Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and unionised workmen.

Further, it has alleged that all the employees were intimated about the date of their retirement in advance by

issuing notices to them. That all those employees on receiving such retirement notices made application for final

withdrawal of their provident fund. That they were paid their provident fund, leave encashment and gratuity on the

date of their superannuation and which they accepted without any objection and that too by issuing receipts to that

effect. So, it has alleged that all five case are barred by principle of acquiescence, estoppel and not maintainable. It

has prayed for dismissal of all five reference cases.

The concerned workmen have filed rejoinder and where they have invariably reiterated what they have

alleged in their claim statements.

All five workmen to prove their cases have filed their evidence in chief on affidavit. That they have tendered

their evidence on affidavit and cross examined by the management of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

The management of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd too has produced Mr. Satyendra Kumar Pandey, Dy. Manager

(Personnel & Administration) as M. W.1 and who was extensively cross examined by all the five workmen.

Parties have produced same set of following documents and which have been marked as exhibits.

Following documents have been filed from the side of workmen and exhibited:-

1) Appointment letters of Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty dt. 13-08-1979 as a Typist, Appointment letters

of Sri Mihir Koley dt. 19-03-1980 as a probationer Driver, Sri Joydeb Chatterjee dt. 28-08-1987 as a

Typist, Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee dt.05-07-1990 as a Durwan and that of Sir Subhash Chandra

Naskar dt. 30-09-1985 as a Clerk.

2) Confirmation letters dt.14-02-1980 and 12-03-1982 of Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty and Sri Mihir Kr.

Koley.

3) Copy of DPE guidelines dt. 19-05-1998 whereby retirement age of below Board Level employees of

Central PSEs was raised from 58 to 60 years but on certain conditions,

4) DPE guidelines dt.20-04-2007 whereby retirement age of Board and below Board Level employees of

profit earning Central Public Sector Enterprises was enhanced from 58 to 60 years on fulfilment of

certain conditions,

5) Extract of minutes of meeting of Board of Directors of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. held on 27-07-2011,

6) Copy of letter dt. 03-08-2011 of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. in respect of revision of pay scales of Board

Level and below Board Level Executives and non-unionised Supervisors and enhancement of retirement

age from 58 to 60 years of the employees of company,

7) Copy of company’s letter dt.30-09-2011, 25-07-2013 to Deptt. of Heavy Industries, where it was

clarified that retirement age of unionised employees in the workmen category, placed at the Tea Gardens

of the company being governed by the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and workmen placed at the factories

of the company governed by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 was/ is fixed at 58

years and had enclosed a chart depicting the age of Officers and Assistances of the company with their

date of retirement year-wise.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

507

8) The letter dt. 03-11-2011 of Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Govt. of India addressed

to Chairman & M.D., Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., whereby the retirement age of the employees of Andrew

Yule & Co. Ltd. belonging to Board Level and below Board Level and those employees governed by

DPE guidelines was enhanced from 58 to 60 years and such benefit was not extended to those

employees of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. who are governed by the Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act, 1946 and those governed by Plantation Labour Act, 1951.

9) Administrative circular dt. 01-03-2012 issued by Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. increasing the age of

retirement from 58 to 60 years only to Board Level and below Board Level and Assistance and not to

the other categories of its employees,

10) The memorandum of settlement dt. 04-02-2011 executed in between management of Andrew Yule &

Co. Ltd. and their unions before Regional Labour Commissioner (C ), Kolkata,

11) Copy of notices of retirement dt. 13-10-2011 issued to Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty, to Sri Mihir

Koley who were going to attained the age of superannuation on 31-12-2011, to Sri Joydeb Chatterjee on

22-12-2011 who was going to attain age of superannuation on 31-01-2012, to Sri Samarendra Nath

Mukherjee on 26-04-2012 who was going to retire on 30-06-2012 and to Sir Subhash Chandra Naskar

on 13-10-2011 and who was going to retire on 31-12-2011.

12) Copy of joint petition dt. 06-07-2012 submitted by Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty, Sri Subhash Naskar,

Sri Mihir Koley, Sri Joydeb Chatterjee and Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee to the Director (Personnel),

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., Kolkata,

13) Copy of petition dt.20-07-2012 of Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty to Dy. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry

of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises,

14) Copy of reply dt. 26-09-2012 by Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. to Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty,

15) Copy of complaint dt.23-05-2012, 30-11-2012, and 04-04-2013 of Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty and Sri

Mihir Kr. Koley to R.L.C/ A.L.C, Kolkata,

16) Copy of letters of Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty, Sri Mihir Kr. Koley, Sri Joydeb Chatterjee, Sri

Samarendra Nath Mukherjee and Sir Subhash Chandra Naskar to Director, Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. dt.

26-11-2012 and 04-02-2013

17) Copy of self-prepared list by Sri Naresh Kr.Chakraborty, Sri Mihir Kr. Koley, Sri Joydeb Chatterjee, Sri

Samarendra Nath Mukherjee and Sir Subhash Chandra Naskar, projecting names of those workmen of

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. posted at Head Office and who have been retained beyond the age of 58 years.

18) Copy of letter of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. dt. 18-02-2013 to ALC(C), Kolkata,

19) Copy of proceeding before ALC (C), Kolkata dt. 20-03-2012 and 02-05-2013,

20) Copy of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.’s letter dt.05-10-2011 addressed to Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Heavy

Industries showing details of no. of employees of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. in the category of Officer

governed by DPE guidelines, non-unionised staff governed by DPE guidelines, unionised staff other

than tea garden governed by tripartite settlement and tea garden workers governed by Plantation Labour

Act, 1951.

On the other hand following documents have been exhibited from the side of management:-

1. Copy of letter dt.03-08-2011 of Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Deptt. of Heavy

Industry addressed to Chairman-Managing Director, Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. with regard to

enhancement of age of retirement from 58 to 60 years in respect of certain categories of the employees

of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

2. Copy of letters of settlement of P.F. account dt.20-12-2011, 12-12-2011, 27-12-2011, 21-06-2012 and

12-12-2011 submitted by Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty, Workman No.607, Tea Division, Sri Mihir Koley,

Sri Joydeb Chatterjee, Workman no.660, Tea Division, Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee, Workman

No.376 and Sir Subhash Chandra Naskar , Workman No.630 to the Trustee of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

Provident Fund Instn. for the Indian Clerical Staff.

3. Copy of mandate forms along with a receipts showing payment of Rs.1,85,656.49, Rs.5,20,847/-,

Rs.3,38,350.86P and Rs.3,00,905.12P towards provident fund to Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty , Sri Mihir

Koley, Sri Joydeb Chatterjee and Sir Subhash Chandra Naskar on 30-12-2011, 31-01-2012 and on 30-

12-2011.

508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. Copy of receipts issued by Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty, Sri Mihir Koley, Sri Joydeb Chattrerjee,

Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee and Sri Subhash Chandra Naskar acknowledging receipt of

Rs.2,70,230.33P towards leave encashment for 358 days, Rs.1,71,616/- towards leave encashment for

320 days, Rs.2,62,323.80P towards leave encashment Rs.1,69,630.93P towards leave encashment for

338 days and Rs.2,05,393.60P towards leave encashment for 330 days. It further shows that

Rs.4,18,061.54P, Rs.2,97,027.69P, Rs.2,95,836.92P, Rs.1,91,095.38P and Rs.3,05,040/- towards

gratuity to them on 30-12-2011, 31-01-2012, 29-06-2012 and on 31-12-2011.

5. Copy of retirement notices dt. 13-10-2011 addressed to Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty, Employee no.607

and Sri Mihir Koley, Employee No.288, informing them, their date of retirement on 31-12-2011, Copy

of retirement notice dt. 22-12-2011 addressed to Sri Joydeb Chatterjee, , informing him, his date of

retirement on 31-01-2012, to Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee dt.26-04-2012 informing him his date of

date of retirement was on 30-06-2012 and copy of retirement notice of retirement dt. 13-10-2011 to Sir

Subhash Chandra Naskar informing him his date of retirement to be on 31-12-2011.

6. Copy of Andrew Yule’s letter dt. 24-04-2013 to ALC (C), Copy of ALC’s letter dt. 05-04-2013 to

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

7. Copy of complaint petition of Sri Mihir Koley to RLC dt.02-04-2013,

8. Copy of letters dt.05-10-2011, 30-09-2011, 19-08-2013, 25-07-2013, 10-07-2013 addressed to Jt.

Secretary, Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Deptt. of Heavy Industry by Andrew Yule & Co.

Ltd. regarding revision in respect of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years and pendency of

Industrial Disputes on the date of retirement of the concerned workmen

9. Copy of appointment letter of Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty dt.13-08-1978,

10. Copy of confirmation letter dt. 14-02-1980 addressed to Naresh Kr. Chakraborty,

11. Copy of Memorandum of settlement dt. 04-02-2011.

12. Copy of failure reports dt. 17-05-2013 of ALC to Ministry of Labour & Employment.

13. Copy of letter dt. 30-12-2011, 31-01-2012, 28-06-2012 and 30-12-2011 addressed to Sri Naresh Kr.

Chakraborty, Sri Mihir Koley, Sri Joydeb Chatterjee, Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee and Sir Subhash

Chandra Naskar by Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. disclosing the statement of their deposit in provident fund,

14. Copy of joint petition dt. 06-07-2012 submitted by Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty, Sri Subhash Naskar,

Sri Mihir Koley, Sri Joydeb Chatterjee and Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee to the Director (Personnel),

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., Kolkata,

15. Copy of letters of Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty, Sri Joydeb Chatterjjee, Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee

and Sir Subhash Chandra Naskar dt. 26-11-2012 and 04-02-2013 addressed to the Director (Personnel),

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

16. Copy of complaint of Sri Naresh Kr. Chakraborty, Sri Joydeb Chatterjee and Sir Subhash Chandra

Naskar to R.L.C, Kolkata dt.30-11-2012 and on 02-04-2013,

17. Copy of letter of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. dt. 18-02-2013, 24-04-2013 to ALC(C), Kolkata,

18. Copy of letters dt. 10-07-2013, 05-10-2011 of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. to Ministry of Heavy Industries

& Public Enterprises , Govt. of India,

19. Copy of notice of retirement dt. 13-10-2011 issued by Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. to Sri Naresh Ch.

Chakraborty,

20. Copy of administrative circular dt. 01-03-2012 issued by Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

21. Copy of wage policy of Board Level posts and below Board Level posts including non-unionised

Supervisors in Public Sector Enterprises w.e.f. 01-01-1997,

22. Copy of letter dt. 26-11-2008 of Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Deptt. of Public

Enterprises with regard to revision of scales of pay w.e.f. 01-01-2007 in respect of Board Level and

below Board Level Executives and non-unionised Supervisors,

23. Office memorandum dt.19-07-2007, 20-04-2007 and 26-11-2008 of Ministry of Heavy Industries,

24. Copy of wage policy w.e.f. 01-01-1997,

25. Copy of appointment letter of Sri Joydeb Chatterjee dt. 28-08-1987,

26. Administrative circular dt. 01-03-2012 issued by Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. increasing the age of

retirement from 58 to 60 years only to Board Level and below Board Level and Assistance and not to

the other categories of its employees,

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

509

27. Copy of letter dt.03-11-2011 of Ministry of Heavy Industries to Chairman, Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

28. Copy of petition dt.12-12-2011 of Sir Subhash Chandra Naskar for payment of his P.F. due before 31-

12-2011 i.e. prior to his date of superannuation addressed to the Trustee Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

29. Copy of ALC’s letter dt.05-04-2013 to Sir Subhash Chandra Naskar.

Both sides have also filed their written notes of arguments.

Gone through the oral evidence of all the workmen and that of management witness Mr. Satyendra Kumar

Pandey filed in the form of affidavit as well as that have been recorded by the Tribunal along with the documents that

have been filed by workmen and management and from where it appears the only issue that need to be decided in the

present five reference cases is “whether the age of superannuation of concerned workmen in the category of Typist,

Clerk , Driver and Durwan of Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. posted at Head Office, Kolkata was 58 years or 60 years as

claimed by them”?

The appointment letters and confirmation letters of those five workmen which have come on record do not

disclose what their age of superannuation was at the time of joining the establishment of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

However, M.W.1 in his evidence recorded by the Tribunal under oath has admitted that when those five workmen

joined the establishment of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., their age of superannuation was 60 years. Further, both sides

have admitted that when Central Public Sector Enterprises were declare sick, then Cabinet roll back the age of

superannuation of the employees of such sick CPSEs from 60 years to 58 years in respect of all categories of

employees duly approved by the Board of Directors of such CPSEs in the month of August, 2001. Such decision was

reviewed in April,2005 and decided to enhance the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years only in respect of those

employees working in those CPSEs who have started making profit for last three years continuously with positive net

worth for last three years as per annual audited report, that CPSEs did not avail any budgetary support during the last

three years and who will not avail budgetary support in future and left the decision for the Board of Directors of the

CPSE concerned.

Further, the exhibited documents show that Ministry of Heavy Industries by issuing memo no. 10(23)/2011-

PE1 dt.03-11-2011 allowed Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. to enhance the retirement age from 58 to 60 years only in

respect of Board Level, below Board Level and those employees who comes within the purview of DPE guidelines,

but not to those employees who are governed by Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 or Plantation

Labour Act, 1951. Therefore, here it is necessary to find out who are the employees who fall in the category of Board

Level, Below Board Level and those governed by Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 or Plantation

Labour Act, 1951.

It is undisputed fact Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., a Central Govt. Public Sector Enterprise/Undertaking under

the ownership of Heavy Industries, Govt.of India. The majority of products and service offered by it and its

subsidiaries are related to heavy industry and engineering and it also owns tea gardens/ tea estates including Hooghly

Printing. It comes within the definition of an industry as defined in section 2(j) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

as the establishment where more than 50 employees are engaged. Further, in view of provisions of section 2 (s) any

person working in such industry and employed to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or

supervisory work for hire or reward and those Supervisors who draw less than Rs.10,000/- per month and who does

not discharge managerial nature of job comes within the definition of workman. The Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 applies to employees in industrial establishment with 50 or more employees. The Act

regulates the condition of employment for these employees.

It is a matter of common sense, a person holding Board Level position in a Public or Private Sector

Undertakings indicate such person who holds the position such as Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director, or

such person who takes decision on behalf of the Corporation or the person who holds highest level of hierarchy in any

organisation or who are part of the Board of Directors of the company.

A Below Board Level employee is an employee in Central Public Sector Enterprises who is not a member of

Board of Directors but who holds managerial post and those who do not come within the definition of workman as

provided in section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The present five persons being employees of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. in the capacity of Clerk, Typist,

Driver and Durwan squarely falls within the definition of workman. It is also admitted by all those workmen in their

cross examination that they are the members of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. (Calcutta Region) Workmen’s Union i.e.

unionised employees.

It has also come on record that there was a settlement between the different unions of Andrew Yule & Co.

Ltd. and the management before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata on 04-02-2011, under

provisions of section 12 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is noted that two of the workmen namely Sri Naresh Chakraborty

and Sri Subhas Chandra Naskar, being the Assistant Secretary and Vice President of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. and its

Group (Calcutta Region) Workmen’s Union, were present and were the signatories of the said settlement. By

510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

executing such settlement it was agreed and settled that the superannuation age of unionised workmen of Andrew

Yule & Co. Ltd. will be 58 years on and from the closing of business of the last working day of the English Calendar

month in which the incumbent attains the age of superannuation in terms of his/her date of birth recorded, admitted

and incorporated at the end of the Company at the time of commencement of employment is a Service Condition/

terms for employment for all practical purposes and for all times to come in supersession/ cancellation/ abrogation/

discontinuance of all past practices, systems, procedures, circulars, notices, orders, understanding, settlement/s etc.

However, Orders from the Ministry, if any, to be complied with. Provisions in respect of retirement age as contained

in the Standard Office Procedure applicable for staff and sub-ordinate staff placed at the Registered Office of the

Company stands superseded for all practical purpose.

Permanent employees appointed on any date prior to September 01, 1984, will retire and accordingly the

contract of employment by an between the Company and the concerned employee will stand terminated on attaining

the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years in terms of the date of birth recorded, admitted and incorporated at the end of

the Company at the time of commencement of employment on and from the closing of business of last working day of

the English calendar year the incumbent attains the age of superannuation. However, in case there is a change in the

age of superannuation, the concerned employees will retire on and from the closing of business of the last working

day of the English calendar month in he or she attains the age of superannuation according to the date of birth

recorded, admitted and incorporated at the end of the Company at the time of commencement of employment

provided the date of birth is other than 1^st day of the English calendar month. In case, the date of birth is 1^st day of the

English calendar month the incumbent will retire and accordingly the contract of employment by and between the

company and the concerned employee will stand terminated on and from the closing of business of the last working

day of the previous calendar month. Date of birth in respect of each permanent employee/ workman recorded,

admitted and incorporated at the end of the company at the time of commencement of employment shall remain

unaltered for all practical purposes for all times to come.

It is true that Ministry of Heavy Industry by issuing memo no. 10(23)/2011-PE1 dt. 03-11-2011 had

enhanced the retirement age of the employees of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. i.e. after the execution of the above

settlement on 04-02-2011, but the above memo of Ministry of Heavy Industries has clearly provided that retirement

age of Board Level, Below Board Level employees and those employees who are governed by DPE guidelines would

be enhanced from 58 to 60 years but such benefit was not extended to those employees of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.

governed by Industrial Employment( Standing Order) Act, 1946 and Plantation Labour Act, 1951.

Further, Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. by issuing an administrative circular no. 2012/07 dt. 01-03-2012 in

pursuance of memo no. 10(23)/2011-PE1 dt. 03-11-2011 issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries had extended the

benefit of enhancement of age of retirement only to the Board Level, Below Board Level Officers and Assistance on

the Roll of the company and not to any other categories of employees of the company.

The present set of workmen not being Board Level, Below Board Level or Assistance, but who belong to the

category of workman as defined in section 2(s) of I.D. Act, being unionised employees bounded by tripartite

settlement dt. 04-02-20211 and employees governed by Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are not

covered by the benefit of memo no. 10(23)/2011-PE1 dt. 03-11-2011.

Further, nothing has come on record to show that legality of memo no. 10(23)/2011-PE1 dt. 03-11-2011

issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries and the Administrative Circular no. 2012/07 dt. 01-03-2012, issued by

Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. were challenged by the present set of workmen or by any employees of Andrew Yule & Co.

Ltd. before any Court of Law. Thus, as per unchallenged memo dt. 03-11-2011 of Ministry of Heavy Industries and

the administrative circular no. 2012/07 dt. 01-03-2012 issued by Andrew Yule Co. Ltd., the present set of workmen

have no locustandi to claim benefit of memo dt.03-11-2011 of Ministry of Heavy Industries and Administrative

Circular dt.01-03-2012, which exclude them from benefit of enhanced age of retirement being workman category of

employees.

Further, the workmen have failed to produce any subsequent settlement executed between the management

of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. and unions, extending the benefits of memo no. 10(23)/2011-PE1 dt. 03-11-2011 and the

administrative circular no. 2012/07 dt. 01-03-2012 issued by Andrew Yule Co. Ltd., superseding the settlement dt.

04-02-2011, where the retirement age of the workman category employees of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. was fixed at

58 years and by which they are bounded.

That apart, from the above mentioned exhibited documents, it is seen that all the five workmen were served

with notice of their retirement 2/3 months prior to their actual retirement on their attaining age of 58 years by the

company. It has come on record that none of those workmen who retired after December, 2011 have raised any

objection against notices of retirement served upon them alleging that their retirement age was already enhanced to 60

years by virtue of memo no. 10(23)/2011-PE1 dt. 03-11-2011 issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries. It is very

interesting to note that all workmen have accepted their retirement on attaining the age of 58 years without any

qualms and by withdrawing their Provident Fund, accepting leave encashment and gratuity from the management of

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. on the day they retired from the service. Then, a question may arise, how a workman who

has received provident fund, leave encashment and gratuity from the employer can raise a dispute alleging that they

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

511

have been illegally retrenched /terminated from the service by the employer on their attaining the age of 58 years as

contended by them in their claim statements or their retirement was premature as contained in order of reference.

Further, those five workmen have failed to produce any official record and other independent witnesses to

prove and corroborate that employees of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. in the category of unionised workman posted at

Head Office were extended the benefit of memo no. 10(23)/2011-PE1 dt. 03-11-2011 issued by Ministry of Heavy

Industries, post their retirement and as shown by them in their self-prepared list and which have been exhibited by

them.

In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of view all the five workmen being unionised workmen,

governed and bounded by the tripartite settlement executed in between the management and unions on 04-02-2011.

They being employee in the category of a workman as defined in section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, and

governed by Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are not entitled to get the benefit of memo no.

10(23)/2011-PE1 dt. 03-11-2011 issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries and which has been given effect only to

Board Level, Below Board Level and Assistance by Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. by issuing administrative circular no.

2012/07 dt. 01-03-2012. Further, all workmen who have honourably acknowledged their age of superannuation on

completion of age of 58 years and who have withdrawn all their deposit in provident fund and accepted leave

encashment and gratuity from the employer, the day they superannuated from the service are barred by the principle

of estoppel and acquiescence in raising the dispute alleging that they have been prematurely terminated from their

services. In fact, this Tribunal holds the dispute raised by all the five employees claiming termination by way of

premature retirement without extending the benefit of memo no. 10(23)/2011-PE1 dt. 03-11-2011 issued by Ministry

of Heavy Industries to be speculative.

Hence, this Tribunal holds the claims of all five workmen are not maintainable. Accordingly Reference No.

36 of 2013, Reference No. 37 of 2013, Reference No.38 of 2013, Reference No. 39 of 2013 and Reference No. 43 of

2013 in respect of ex-workmen namely Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty, Sri Mihir Koley, Sri Joydeb Chatterjee, Sri

Samarendra Nath Mukherjee, and Sri Subhas Chandra Naskar of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. are dismissed and an award

to that effect is passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2025

का.आ. 187.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्री सरकार

एंड्र ू ूल एंड कंृनी जलजमटेड, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री नरेि कुमार चक्रवती, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िडि केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल ,कोलकाता,ृंचाट(संिभड सं्‍ ा REF. No. 36 OF

2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा

11.02.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल – 42011/103/2013-आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2025

S.O. 187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. NO. 36 OF 2013) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to Andrew Yule & Company Limitted, and Shri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty, Worker, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.02.2025.

[No. L-42011/103/2013-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

REF. NO. 36 OF 2013

REF. NO. 37 OF 2013

REF. NO. 38 OF 2013

REF. NO. 39 OF 2013 AND

512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2025/MAGHA 26, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REF. NO. 43 OF 2013

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Andrew Yule & Company Limited

1. Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty,

2. Sri Mihir Koley,

3. Sri Joydeb Chatterjee,

4. Sri Samarendra Nath Mukherjee, and

5. Sri Subhas Chandra Naskar

Appearance:

On behalf Andrew Yule & Company Limited: Mr. Sushil Kumar Karmakar, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of Five workmen: Mr. Saibal Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate.

Dated: 21st January, 2025

AWARD

This common award disposes all the above mentioned five reference cases as issues involved in all those

cases are exactly same and parties are five workmen who have alleged to have been illegally terminated from their

permanent regular service by their employer Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., on their attaining the age of 58 years.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order Nos. L-42011/103/2013 –IR(DU) dated 25-07-

2013: No.L-42011/102/2013-IR(DU) dt.25-07-2013; No. L-42011/101/2013-IR (DU) dt. 25-07-2013;

No. L-42011/100/2013-IR (DU) dt.29-07-2013 and No L-42012/59/2013-IR (DU) dt. 12-09-201, in exercise of

power conferred sub-section 1(d) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the

following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

1. (Ref. 36/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of Sri

Naresh Kumar Chakraborty w.e.f. 01-01-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of

enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries

& Public Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no.10 (23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011,

with immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. (Ref. 37/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of Sri Mihir

Koley w.e.f. 01-01-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of enhanced age of

superannuation, from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public

Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no. 10(23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011, with

immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

3. (Ref. 38/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of Sri

Joydeb Chatterjee w.e.f. 01-02-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of enhanced age

of superannuation, from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public

Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no. 10(23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011, with

immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

4. (Ref. 39/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of Sri

Samarendra Nath Mukherjee w.e.f. 01-07-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of

enhanced age of superannuation, from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries

& Public Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no. 10(23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011,

with immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

5. (Ref. 43/2013)

“Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Company Limited in terminating the service of

Sri Subhas Chandra Naskar w.e.f. 01-01-2012 by way of premature retirement without extending the benefit of

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : फरवरी 15, 2025/माघ 26, 1946

513

enhanced age of superannuation, from 58 to 60 years and implementing the orders of the Ministry of Heavy Industries

& Public Enterprises, Dept. of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India vide memo no. 10(23)/2011-PEI dated 03-11-2011,

with immediate effect is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

That contents of their separate claim statements appear to be exactly same save and except their date of

joining, category of service to which they joined the establishment of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., their date of birth and

their date of superannuation.

Sri Naresh Kumar Chakraborty, in his written statement has alleged that he joined the establishment of

Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. as a clerical staff (Typist) on 16-08-1979 on probation and later his service was confirmed

on 16-02-1980 and all along he was posted at Head Office at Kolkata.

Sri Mihir Koley, in his written statement has alleged that he joined the establishment of Andrew Yule &

Co. Ltd. as a Subordinate Staff (Driver) on 20-03-1980 on probation and later his service was confirmed on 20-09-

1980 and all along he was posted at Head Office at Kolkata.