This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-15042025-262445

CG-DL-W-15042025-262445

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-15042025-262445

CG-DL-W-15042025-262445

xxxGIDExxx

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 12] नई दिल्ली, मार्च 30—अप्रैल 5, 2025, शनिवार/चैत्र 9—चैत्र 15, 1947

No. 12] NEW DELHI, MARCH 30—APRIL 5, 2025, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 9– CHAITRA 15, 1947

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 523.—राष्ट्रीयकृ त बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 और 1980 के पैरा 3 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कं पनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन और अंतरण) अधिनियम, 1970 और 1980 की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (ग) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कॉलम (2) में विर्निर्दष्ट व्यक्तियों के स्थान पर उक्त सारणी के कॉलम (3) में विर्निर्दष्ट व्यक्तियों को कॉलम (1) में विर्निर्दष्ट बैंकों के बोर्ड में तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक, निदेशक नामित करती है:-

क्रम सं.	(1)	(2)	(3)
1	ब ैंक आफ बड़ौदा	श्रीमती पार्वती सु ंदरम	श्री मनोरंजन मिश्रा (जन्म तिथि: 28.9.1964)

1999 GI/2025

(1363)1364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2	पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक	श्री के . पी. पटनायक	श्री विवेक श्रीवास्तव (जन्म तिथि: 15.9.1967)
3	स ेंट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया	श्रीमती चारुलता कर	श्री मनोरंजन दाश (जन्म तिथि: 28.5.1965)

[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

संजय कु मार मिश्र, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2024

S.O. 523.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and 1980, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 and 1980, the Central Government hereby nominates the persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Director on the Board of the Banks specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (2) of the said table, with immediate effect and until further orders:-

S. No.	(1)	(2)	(3)
1	Bank of Baroda	Smt Parvathy Sundaram	Shri Manoranjan Mishra (DOB: 28.09.1964)
2	Punjab & Sind Bank	Shri K. P. Patnaik	Shri Vivek Srivastava (DOB: 15.09.1967)
3	Central Bank of India	Smt Charulata Kar	Shri Manoranjan Dash (DOB: 28.05.1965)

[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2024

का.आ. 524.—भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की धारा 20 की उप-धारा (1) के साथ पठित धारा 19 के खण्ड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के उप प्रबंध निदेशक श्री राम मोहन राव आमरा (जन्म तिथि: 13.2.1968) को कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक (एसबीआई) में प्रबंध निदेशक के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 2/1/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कु मार मिश्र, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2024

S.O. 524.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rama Mohan Rao Amara (DoB: 13.02.1968), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India as Managing Director in State Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 2/1/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1365

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 525.—बैंककारी कं पनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन और अंतरण) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री अशोक चन्र (जन्मतिथि 16.12.1968) कार्यपालक निदेशक, के नरा बैंक को कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(i)/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कु मार मिश्र, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2025

S.O. 525.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ashok Chandra (DoB: 16.12.1968), Executive Director, Canara Bank as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Punjab National Bank, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(i)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 526.—बैंककारी कं पनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन और अंतरण) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री बिनोद कु मार (जन्मतिथि 01.01.1971) कार्यपालक निदेशक, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक को कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(ii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संजय कु मार मिश्र, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2025

S.O. 526.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints Shri Binod Kumar (DoB: 01.01.1971), Executive Director, Punjab National Bank as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Indian Bank, for a period of three years with effect from the date of his assumption of charge of the post, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(ii)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च, 2025

का.आ. .—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय

सरकार पंजाब नै"ानल बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक

1366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चंडीगढ़.II के पंचाट (03/2014) प्रकाि"ात करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/15/2014- आई आर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27 March, 2025

S.O. 527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/15/2014- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).

ID No.03/2014

Registered on:-22.04.2014

Sh. Sham Lal S/o Sh. Pala Ram, C/o Sh. R. K Singh Parmar, Working President Punjab INTUC, 211-L, Village Brari, PO Pratap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Ropar, Punjab.

-------- Applicant

Versus

Punjab National Bank, Regional Collection Cetnre, 2nd Floor, Railway Raod, Jalandhar City, Punjab.

----Management

Present:- Ms. Rana Ghuman, AR for applicant.

Sh. Anshul Pareek, AR for management.

Award : 18.02.2025

Central Government vide Notification No.L-12012/15/2014 (IR(B-II)) Dated 04.04.2014, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ID Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether action of termination of service of Sh. Sham Lal w.e.f. 01.10.2013 by the management

of Punjab national Bank, Jalandhar is legal, just and valid? What relief the workman is entitled

to and from which date?"

1.Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the he served w.e.f. 01.01.1993 to 30.09.2013 with the management as Cheque Collector and used to collect and deliver the daily dak and cheques in the branch offices as directed by the management. On 01.10.2013, the applicant reported for duty as usual but denied to duty and was told verbally that in his place, management had engaged new hand and his services are not required henceforth without giving him in writing. The management had recommended time and again to continue the applicant in service along with the others to the Head office as according to the branch office, his services were required and his work and conduct was quite satisfactory and there was no complaint against the work and conduct of the applicant. The applicant was drawing Rs.15000/- per month as wages on the date of his termination. The salary was paid to the applicant in his bank account by the management. Neither charge- sheet was served, nor any show cause notice and inquiry was held against the applicant, which is against the provisions of natural justice. The management had retained juniors to the applicant in service and who are[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1367 continuing in service in violation of Section 25-G of the ID Act. The applicant had rendered more than 240 days in each completed year of service proceeding the date of termination. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the applicant. It is maintained that termination is illegal, void and bad in law and it is prayed that he be reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

2.Notice of the claim petition was also given to the management, who filed reply thereof, maintaining therein that the present reference is without jurisdiction on the ground that the present matter does not all fall within the ambit of Section 2-A of the ID Act. It is denied that the applicant was serving w.e.f.24.09.1992 as cheque collector with the management. The services of the applicant were utilized purely on need basis for providing courier service at Regional Processing Centre, Jalandhar (hereinafter called as RPC), at a consolidated mutually agreed amount of Rs.7133/-, which was increased later in view of the price rise. The arrangement was made locally by the incumbent of RPC. The persons providing the courier services were being paid auto rickshaw charges for the purpose. Different persons were providing services as courier during the past at agreed rates. No records of such persons have been maintained by the management. The applicant was told around the middle of August by the incumbent of the RPC to bring auto rickshaw as was agreed by him, the applicant showed his inability to do so. Accordingly, his contract was not renewed further. Thus it was the voluntary decision of the applicant to discontinue the arrangement. It is also submitted that the non renewal of the contract does not amount to retrenchment. There was no question of recommending the name of applicant to the head office or to any other office. It was upto the incumbent of RPC to make arrangement for collection of cheques from branch and return of the same with whosoever was prepared to render the service at the agreed rates. There was no need of serving charge-sheet, show cause notice or conducting inquiry against the applicant or paying him retrenchment compensation, earned leave, medical leave or deduction of EPF and there was no question of violation of Section 25-G of the ID Act as the applicant was not in the employment of the management and no employer-employee relationship ever existed between respondent and management. It is prayed that the reference be dismissed with cost.

Evidence of the parties:-

3.In order to prove case, applicant filed his affidavit WW1 along with documents W1 (statement of account) and W2 (identity card) and closed his evidence on 03.07.2019. Thereafter, respondent have examined Sh. Vijay Kumar Asija, Senior Manager, Circle Office, Jalandhar as MW1, who tendered his affidavit as MW1/A and thereafter, ld. counsel for management closed evidence on 09.09.2019 on behalf of management and the matter was fixed for arguments.

Submissions of Applicant:

4.While arguing the case, ld. counsel for the applicant contended that applicant was working as cheque collector since 01.01.1993 till 30.09.2013. He reported on 01.10.2013, but was told verbally not to continue with the management and at that time, he was drawing salary of Rs.15000/- per month, which was paid in his bank account. He also contended that this fact has been even admitted by the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that the contractor of applicant was not renewed as he has not brought auto rickshaw, in which he was doing courier work. Applicant has also placed on record passbook Ex.W1 and ID card Ex.W2, which proves that he was in the service of management and was retrenched without retrenchment of compensation. Ld. counsel for applicant placed on record written arguments.

Submissions of Respondents:

5. On the other hand. ld. counsel for respondent contended that in this case, workman was serving w.e.f. 01.01.1993 as cheque collector with the bank management and he used to collect and deliver the daily dak till 30.09.2013. His services were utilized purely on need basis and initially he was paid Rs.7133/- per month, which was increased from time to time. When he was asked to bring auto rickshaw, for which payment was being made to the applicant, applicant showed his inability, accordingly, his contract was not renewed, thus it was the voluntary decision of the applicant to discontinue his contract. Hence, the case of the applicant does not fall under Section 2A of the ID Act. Management has also placed on record written arguments prepared by ld. counsel for management.

6.I have given due consideration to the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties.

Findings:

7.First this Tribunal is to decide is whether the applicant comes within the definition of "workman" as is defined in Section 2(S) of the Act. It is mentioned here that applicant was in service of bank w.e.f. 01.01.1993 and continuously worked till 30.09.2013 as cheque collector. In plain words the claimant was performing his duties as labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only administrative post requiring him to perform only administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(S)1368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh V/s Municipal Council, Sanaur AlR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:-

"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms and 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

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 causal employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."

8.Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time or part time or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in employee plain language of Section 2(S) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed 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. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling, in my considered opinion, the claimant herein admittedly falls within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(S) of the Act.

9.The payment of salary by the management is admitted by the respondent in its written statement as well as in the affidavit of filed by Sh. Vijay Kumar Asija, Senior Manager, Circle Office, Jalandhar, wherein he categorically stated that workman worked on different dates as mentioned in his affidavit and was paid initially Rs. 7133/- per month, which was increased from time to time. As per applicant, he was retrenched from service on 01.10.2013. If we take one year prior to 01.10.2013 as stated by the respondent, then he had completed 240 days in the preceding year as per written statement filed by respondent in this case.

10. Admittedly, the respondent is an industry and there was non- compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman has already been able to prove that he worked continuously for a period of 240 days prior to his termination of his services by respondent on 01.10.2013 as he was receiving regular wages from 1993 till 2013 is proven as per statement of workman WW1. It is added here that the applicant worked as cheque collector w.e.f. 01.01.1993. Admittedly, in this case, applicant was not paid retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the ID Act. As per own case of the respondent, the contract of workman was not renewed. The said argument of the ld. counsel for the respondent is not having any force as respondent has failed to produce on record any document showing that workman was engaged on the basis of some contract. Attracting his retrenchment on the basis of completion of contract as per Section 2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act.

11. Admittedly, there is violation of Section 25-F of the Act and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.Vs Man Singh,_2012(1)_SCT 641, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement has to be given as a matter of right. Reliance can also be placed upon Jasbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, 2009(3) SCT 790, under which it has been held that in the legal position and the Court had recent past, there had been a shift in consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may he wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation, even though termination Of an employee was in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement was held to be the prudent relief to meet the ends of justice. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as District Development Officer & Anr. V/s Satish Kantilal Amrelia, Civil Appeal Nos. 19857-19858 of 2017; decided on 28 November , 2017 has held as follow:

"that the reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious, It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstatement such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose".

In view of above discussed above workman entitled for compensation as he was working on temporary basis intermittently.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1369

12. Learned counsel for the workman has also argued that for rendering one year service workman should be granted Rs.1 lac per year and since the workman has worked for about 20 years and therefore compensation of Rs.20 lac be awarded to the workman in view of the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts.

13. It is added here that in the present case workman has intermittently worked for about 20 years as cheque collector as is itself stated by the respondent and keeping in view the above discussed circumstances and case law titled as Hemant Babruvahan Parchake versus Social Welfare Officer, Somalwar Bhavan, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur and others 201 (4) AIR BomR 781, wherein for 18 months, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted as compensation, workman is granted Rs. 3,33,000/- as compensation.

14. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च, 2025

का.आ. 528.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार निदेशक, सीएसआईआर - राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरण इंजीनियररंग अनुसंधान संस्थान (नीरी), नेहरू मार्ग, वर्धा रोड, नागपुर, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और महासचिव, नीरी कं त्रति कामगार संघ, नागपुर, के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट कें रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या (Case No.CGIT/NGP/01/2024) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल - 42025-07-2025-76-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 27th March, 2025

S.O. 528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Case No.CGIT/NGP/01/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director, CSIR – National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nehru Marg, Wardha Road, Nagpur, and The General Secretary, NEERI Kanrati Kamgar Sangh,Nagpur, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.03.2025.

[No. L-42025-07-2025-76-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/01/2024 Date: 05.03.2025.

Party No.1: The Director,

CSIR – National Environment Engineering

Research Institute (NEERI), Nehru Marg,

Wardha Road, Nagpur - 440020

V/s.

Party No.2: The General Secretary,

NEERI Kanrati Kamgar Sangh,

Madhugandh' 5/2, Somvari Peth,

Budhvar Bazar Road, In Front of

ESIC Hospital, Nagpur - 4400201370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Dated: 05th March, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of CISR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur and their workmen, for adjudication, as per letter No. 24(56)/2023-IR dated 11.01.2024, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research

Institute (NEERI), Nagpur through its Director in terminating the contract workers from their job

through contractors on attaining the age of 60 years without giving notice even though they are

healthy is legal and justified in the eye of law or not? If not, what relief the workmen of the union are

entitled to?"

2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that notices to the General Secretary NEERI and Director CSIR- National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) have been served but after service of notices, both the parties are not present since very beginning of the case. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till date. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to establish his claim. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute

(NEERI), Nagpur through its Director in terminating the contract workers from their job through contractors

on attaining the age of 60 years without giving notice even though they are healthy is legal and justified in the

eye of law. The workmen do not entitled to any relief.

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च, 2025

का.आ. 529.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार उप महाप्रबंधक, बीएसएनएल, प्रधान महाप्रबंधक, दूरसंचार, जीरो माइल्स, नागपुर ; उप मंडल अभियंता, बीएसएनएल, प्रधान अभियंता, जीरो माइल्स, नागपुर , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री अजय, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट कें रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर,पंचाट(संदर्भ संख्या (Case No.CGIT/NGP/35/2016-17) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल - 40012/21/2016- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 27th March, 2025

S.O. 529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Case CGIT/NGP/35/2016-17) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Dy. General Manager, BSNL, O/o Principal General Manager, Telecom, Zero Miles, Nagpur ;The Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL, O/o Principal Engineer, Zero Miles, Nagpur, and Shri Ajay, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.03.2025.

[No. L-40012/21/2016- IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/35/2016-17 Date: 13.03.2025.

Party No.1: 1) The Dy. General Manager, BSNL, O/o Principal General Manager, Telecom,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1371 Zero Miles,

Nagpur.

2) The Sub Divisional Engineer,

BSNL, O/o Principal Engineer,

Zero Miles,

Nagpur.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sh. Ajay S/o Arun Sonwane

r/o Plot No. 26, Uttam Nagar, Gorewada Road,

Nagpur - 13

AWARD

(Dated: 13th March, 2025)

"Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Nagpur through its Dy. General Manager

(Administration) & Sub Divisional Engineer, in terminating the services of workman namely Sh. Ajay s/o Arun

Sonwane r/o Nagpur w.e.f. 01.01.2009 is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman entitled to?"

2. Case called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent is present before the Court. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 29/10/2020. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively but no evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim till date. Petitioner is not appearing before the Court since long back. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of BSNL, Nagpur through its Dy. General Manager (Administration) &

Sub Divisional Engineer, in terminating the services of workman namely Sh. Ajay s/o Arun Sonwane r/o

Nagpur w.e.f. 01.01.2009 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च, 2025

का.आ. 530.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार महाप्रबंधक, फिनले मिल्स, अमरावती रोड, अचलपुर, अमरावती, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और सचिव, गिरनी कामगार संघ, सह विलास बी चावरे, महाराजपुरा, अचलपुर, अमरावती, के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट कें रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या (Case No. CGIT/NGP/34/2021-22) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल - 42011/73/2022- आई आर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 27th March, 2025

S.O. 530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Case CGIT/NGP/34/2021-22) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager, Finlay Mills, Amravati Road, Achalpur, Amravati, and The Secretary,1372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Girni Kamgar Sangh, C/o Vilas B. Chavre, Mahirabpura, Achalpur, Amravati , which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.03.2025.

[No. L-42011/73/2022- IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/34/2021-22 Date: 06.03.2025.

Party No.1: The General Manager,

Finlay Mills, Amravati Road, Achalpur, Amravati – 444805.

V/s.

Party No.2: The Secretary, Girni Kamgar Sangh, C/o Vilas B. Chavre, Mahirabpura, Achalpur, Amravati – 444806.

AWARD

(Dated: 06th February, 2025)

"Whether the demands of Girni Kamgar Sangh, Amravati vide letter dated 30.04.2021 against the

management of Finlay Mills, Achalpur, District Amravati, Maharashtra for opening of Finlay Mills and

payment of salary/wages without deduction to the workers are proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what relief

the Union is entitled and what directions are necessary in the matter?"

2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. Both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since 05/08/2022. One application dated 28/04/2022 has been moved by the respondent for grant of permission to engage legal practitioner on behalf of the respondent but none is present to press this application today in the Court. Hence this application is hereby rejected being not pressed. Despite of several opportunities given to the petitioner for filing statement of claim, petitioner is failed to file his statement of claim till date. No other evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove his claim. Petitioner is not attending the Court since long back. It appears that he does not want to contest the case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The demands of Girni Kamgar Sangh, Amravati vide letter dated 30.04.2021 against the management

of Finlay Mills, Achalpur, District Amravati, Maharashtra for opening of Finlay Mills and payment of

salary/wages without deduction to the workers are improper, illegal and unjustified. The workman/Union is

not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च, 2025

का.आ. 531.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय

सरकार निदेशक, महात्मा गांधी ग्रामीण औद्योगिकीकरण संस्थान, मगनवाड़ी, रामनगर, पवनार, वर्धा (एम.एस.), के[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1373 प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री वासुदेव अरुणराव साटोन, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट कें रीय सरकार

औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर,पंचाट(संदर्भ संख्या (Case No.CGIT/NGP/39/2013-14) को

जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है,प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल - 42012/29/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 27th March, 2025

S.O. 531—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Case CGIT/NGP/39/2013-14) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director, Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization, Maganwadi, Ramnagar, Pavnar, Wardha (M.S), and Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.03.2025.

[No. L-42012/29/2013-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/39/2013-14 Date: 28.02.2025.

Party No.1: The Director, Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization, Maganwadi, Ramnagar, Pavnar, Wardha (MS) – 442001.

V/s.

Party No.2: Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone Ward No. 2, At & PO: Pavnar, Wardha (MS) -442001/

AWARD

(Dated: 28th February, 2025)

"Whether the action of the management of Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization

Wardha in terminating the services of Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone from 21.12.2011 from the post of

Attendant is just fair & Legal? To what relief the applicant is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. In regard to which the petitioner/claimant filed statement of claim and management filed written statement.

3. Today the case called out. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Ms. Gargee Bhai holding for Advocate Aathle is present before the court. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the court. Petitioner is not responding and attending the court since 15.05.2020 i.e. from last five years. Petitioner has filed rejoinder. From perusal of record it is also apparent that petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has not come to the court to prove the contentions of the affidavit as well as the contentions of the statement of claim. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. As the petitioner is not coming to the court it appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case and do not want to proceed with the reference, so it is closed.

The case of the petitioner is not proved.

1374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization Wardha in

terminating the services of Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone from 21.12.2011 from the post of Attendant is just

fair & Legal. The applicant Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone is not entitled to any relief.

(Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 532.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (a1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय के पंचाट (ं20/2014-15) प्रकाि"ात करती है।

[सं. एल - 41011/64/2014- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.20/2014-15) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Railway Board their workmen.

[No. L-41011/64/2014- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/20/2014-15 Date: 06.03.2025.

Party No.1: The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

V/s.

Party No.2: Shri S.K. Shukla, Executive Vice President, All India Guards Council, 69-R.P.T.S. Road, Surendra Nagar, Nagpur-440015.

AWARD

(Dated: 06th February, 2025)

"Whether the action of the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi in denying in granting grade pay to

Traffic Running Staff, is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?"

2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. One order has been passed by this Court on 19/11/2019, in which, authority is directed to adduce the documents on record but after 19/11/2019 neither petitioner nor respondent is responding and attending the Court. Respondent has not placed the documents on record till date. Simultaneously,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1375 petitioner is not coming to the Court to contest the case. Although petitioner as well as respondent have filed their statement of claim and written statement respectively. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has not come to the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as contents of the claim petition. No other evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi in denying in granting grade pay to Traffic

Running Staff, is just fair & legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

(Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 533.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय के पंचाट (42/2011-12) प्रकाि"ात करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/38/2011-आई आर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.42/2011-12) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra

their workmen.

[No. L-12012/38/2011- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/42/2011-12 Date: 03.03.2025

Party No.1: The Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Amravati Region, Lahanuji Nagar, Near Atul Mangal Karlaya Amravati

V/s.

Party No.2: Shri Rajesh S/o Vishwanath Gudadhe, R/o At and Post – Chandrapur Tehsil – Daryapur, District - Amravati

AWARD

(Dated: 03rd March, 2025)

1376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Whether the action of management of Bank of Maharashtra, Amravati Branch is proper & justified

in terminating the service of Shri Rajesh S/o Vishwanath fudadhe w.e.f. 01.04.2009 in spite of

completion of 240 days in a year without observing the procedure laid down under Sec. 25-F of the ID

Act,? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. Both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since 20/03/2020. Only on 06/12/2021 and 28/12/2021 Counsel for the management was present but petitioner was still not present on that dates. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner has also filed an affidavit in support of his contents alleged in statement of claim. It is also alleged that party no. 2, workman was never been appointed as Part Time Sub Staff on permanent basis. Therefore, question does not arise for termination of his service, either orally or in writing. It is submitted that he was engaged as Part Time Sub Staff. Party no. 2 was engaged on temporary basis and as such on completion of the temporary work, his services are automatically comes to an end. Party no. 2 has not even completed more than 240 days continuous service with the bank during period of 12 months preceding the date of termination. Therefore he is not entitled for reinstatement in service but contrary to it, it is alleged by the petitioner that he worked at Chandikapur Branch of Bank of Maharashtra as part time sub staff from 11/04/2007 to April 2009. He has also alleged that there was a permanent vacancy of part time sub staff at Chandikapur Branch and appointed as permanent staff. It is also alleged that he has joined this duty from 02/02/2008 and his name was entered on Muster roll after the name of one Shri. Swarge. It is also alleged that due to his experience in the bank working from 01/07/2007 to 31/01/2008 and after his name sponsored through employment exchange and subsequent selection after due interview, he was appointed in the bank from 01/02/2008 to fill in permanent vacancy of part time sub staff. But in his cross examination witness Shri. Rajesh has stated that he worked at Chandikapur Branch of Bank of Maharashtra during period from 01/07/2007 to 01/04/2009 i.e. near about one year & nine months but he has admitted that in his representation Exhibit W-XII does not show the acknowledgement of any of the authority of the Bank in acknowledgement of receipt of the same. He has also admitted in his cross examination that it is a fact that Exhibit W-III is an office order regarding his temporary appointment as PTS from 04/10/2007 to 30/10/2007. It is a fact that in Exhibit W-III, it has been mentioned that after 30/10/2007, his engagement will be terminated automatically. It is a fact that in Exhibit W-IX also, it has been mentioned that he was appointed as waiting PTS. He has admitted that it is true to say that on the date of filing his statement of claim he had already crossed the age of 33 years.

From perusal of evidence adduced by both the parties it is apparent that workman Mr. Rajesh has clearly admitted in his cross examination that he worked with party no. 01, Bank at their Chandikapur Branch for the period from 04/10/2007 to 30/10/2007.

Learned Counsel for the management has stated in his written notes of argument that one Gyneshwar Mahadeorao Nimkar of Tarapur quarreled with him. The factual position was that party no. 02 demanded Rs.500/- from Gyneshwar Mahadeorao Nimkar towards collection and payment of cheque under Indira Awas Gharkul Yojana, thereafter, lodged a police complaint against party no. 02. Thereafter the preliminary enquiry was conducted against party no. 02 and he was found guilty. Due to such action of party no. 02 he tried to spoil the image of the Bank and Bank lost confidence in him. Party no. 02 was not permanent employee. There was no necessity to issue him notice of 30 days or notice pay in lieu of notice and other compensation, as contemplated under Section 25-F of ID Act. Party no 01 has filed his evidence on affidavit, however, the witness of the management was not cross examined by the party no. 02 and as such the submission of the party no. 01 went unchallenged.

Petitioner, party no. 02 himself has admitted that his employment was temporary. It is also admitted by him that after 30/10/2007 his engagement/appointment will be terminated automatically. He had already crossed the age of 33 years. He is unable to establish that he has worked for 240 days continuously uninterrupted and his appointment was regular appointment in lieu of permanent vacancy of Part Time Sub Staff. Therefore, there is no need of termination of his services either orally or in writing. He was engaged on temporary basis and such on completion of the temporary work his services are automatically comes to an end. Petitioner has not given any other evidence to establish his claim. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. In view of the above, party no. 02 is not entitled for reinstatement and back wages as he is in gainful employment.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of management of Bank of Maharashtra, Amravati Branch is proper & justified in

terminating the service of Shri Rajesh S/o Vishwanath fudadhe w.e.f. 01.04.2009 in spite of completion of 240

days in a year without observing the procedure laid down under Sec. 25-F of the ID Act. The workman is not

entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1377

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 534.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय के पंचाट (ं19/2014-15) प्रकाि"ात करती है।

[सं. एल - 41011/63/2014-आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2014-15) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Railway Board their

workmen.

[No. L-41011/63/2014- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/19/2014-15 Date: 06.03.2025.

Party No.1: The Chairman,

Railway Board,

Rail Bhawan,

New Delhi-110001.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Shri S.K. Shukla, Executive Vice President,

All India Guards Council, 69-R.P.T.S. Road,

Surendra Nagar, Nagpur-440015.

AWARD

(Dated: 06th February, 2025)

"Whether the action of the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi in denying additional allowance to

Passenger Guard, is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?"

2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. One order has been passed by this Court on 19/11/2019, in which, authority is directed to adduce the documents on record but after 19/11/2019 neither petitioner nor respondent is responding and attending the Court. Respondent has not placed the documents on record till date. Simultaneously, petitioner is not coming to the Court to contest the case. Although petitioner as well as respondent have filed their statement of claim and written statement respectively. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has not come to the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as contents of the claim petition. No other evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi in denying additional allowance to Passenger

Guard, is just fair & legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer1378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 535.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 ;ं1947 का 14 द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में

केन्द्रीय सरकार के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय के पंचाट (18/2014-15)

प्रकाि"ात करती है।

[सं. एल -41011/62/2014- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.18/2014-15) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Railway Board their

workmen.

[No. L-41011/62/2014- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/18/2014-15 Date: 06.03.2025.

Party No.1: The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

V/s.

Party No.2: 1) The General Secretary, All India Railwaymen Men's Federation, New Delhi.

2) The Office Secretary, National Federation of Indian Railwaymen, 3,Chelmsford Road, New Delhi-110055.

3) Shri S.K. Shukla, Executive Vice President, All India Guards Council, 69-R.P.T.S. Road, Surendra Nagar, Nagpur-440015.

AWARD

(Dated: 06th February, 2025)

"Whether the action of the management of Railway Board, New Delhi in denying the claim of Union of

All India Guards Council, Nagpur for fixing Millage rates paid to running staff working Indian Railways as

per recommendation of Bhalla Committee is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the running staff is entitled

to?"

2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. One order has been passed by this Court on 19/11/2019, in which, authority is directed to adduce the documents on record but after 19/11/2019 neither petitioner nor respondent is responding and attending the Court. Respondent has not placed the documents on record till date. Simultaneously, petitioner is not coming to the Court to contest the case. Although petitioner as well as respondent have filed their statement of claim and written statement respectively. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1379 not come to the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as contents of the claim petition. No other evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Railway Board, New Delhi in denying the claim of Union of All India

Guards Council, Nagpur for fixing Millage rates paid to running staff working Indian Railways as per

recommendation of Bhalla Committee is just fair & legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

(Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 536.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय के पंचाट (ं08/2020-21) प्रकाि"ात करती है।

[सं. एल 12011/13/2020- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 536—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.08/2020-21) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of IDBI Bank Ltd. their workmen.

[No. 12011/13/2020- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/08/2020-21 Date: 06.03.2025.

Party No.1: 1) The Executive Director, IDBI Bank Ltd, Head Office, IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 440005

2) The General Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd, Zonal Office, Salasar Prestige, 1st Floor, Plot No. 1/A, WHC Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur – 440010.

V/s.

Party No.2: The General Secretary, IDBI Bank contract Employee's Association, Maharashtra, Chandrakant Dhuru Wadi, V.S. Marg, Agar, Bazar, R.No. 7, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028.

AWARD

(Dated: 06th March, 2025)

1380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Whether the demand of Union IDBI Bank Contract Employee's Association, Maharashtra, for

regularization of 35 workers (list enclosed) working with management of IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai, is

legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. Case called out. Both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since long back i.e. 13/07/2021. From Perusal of record, it is apparent that after registration of the case, notices have been sent to the parties. After service of notices, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner but some time Counsel for the respondent has come to the Court. Petitioner as well as respondent have not filed their respective statement of claim and written statement. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he does not want to contest the case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The demand of Union IDBI Bank Contract Employee's Association, Maharashtra, for regularization

of 35 workers (list enclosed) working with management of IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai, is illegal and unjustified.

The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

(Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 537.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (ं06/2015) प्रकाि"ात करती है।

[सं. एल - 12012/92/2012- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.06/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Chandigarh-1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

Patiala their workmen.

[No. L-12012/92/2012- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam.

ID No.06/2015

Registered On: 05.05.2015

Veer Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Ram, C/o Office BMS, HE 1232, Phase-1, Mohali, Distt-Mohali, Mohali (Chandigarh).

...........Workman Versus

Assistant General Manager-I(P), State Bank of Patiala, Branch Zonal Office, Patiala (Punjab).

........Management[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1381

AWARD

Passed On: 05.02.2025

1. The present case had arisen on a reference dated 30.04.2015 received from Ministry of Labour Government of India as follows:

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/92/2012-IR(B-I) dated 30.04.2015, 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), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in terminating the services of Shri Veer Singh

w.e.f. 20.4.11 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to"

2. During the hearing of the present case a settlement was arrived between the workman Sh. Veer Singh and the management of State Bank of Patiala (Since merged with State Bank of India) on 25.09.2024 and as per said settlement management had agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs and Fifty Thousand only) as lump-sum full and final compensation subject to approval by the competent authority. Since, settlement on 25.09.2024 the case was pending for due approval from the competent authority which has been finally done. Today a bank demand draft No.452759 dated 03.02.2025 issued by State Bank of India, RBO-3, Patiala for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) has been submitted before this Court, which has been received by the workman Sh. Veer Singh personally. In token of presenting the draft by the Management and receiving the same by the workman short statements of Sh. Rajesh Mishra (Deputy Manager) for Management and Sh. Veer Singh (Workman) is also taken down and same has been kept on record.

3. Since the matter is settled now there remains nothing to be decided on merit and therefore the present Industrial Dispute arisen out of Reference No. L-12012/92/2012-IR(B-I) dated 30.04.2015 stands disposed off in terms of settlement between the parties.

4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947.

B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 538.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कें रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय -II के पंचाट (ं279/2021) प्रकाि"ात करती है।

[सं. एल - 12025/01/2025- आई आर (बी-I)-42]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 279/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. - II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public

Work Department and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR(B-1)-42]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM –

LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

ID No. 279/2021

Sh. Mohan Prakash vs. C.P.W.D.

Sh. Mohan Prakash Singh, S/o Sh. Rati Ram Singhal, Through- The president Sh. Hukum Chand, CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex, Shop No.-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

…Applicant/Claimant1382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Versus

1. The Director General,

Central Public Work Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.

2. The Director of Personal, P.W.D.,

12th Floor, MSO Building (P.W.D. H.Q.) I.T.O., New Delhi-110002.

…Managements/respondents

Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: None for the claimant.

For Managements/ Respondents: Sh. Lalit Mohan, representative for the management.

Item No.- 31

I.D. No. 279/2021

13th February 2025

Present:

None for the claimant.

Sh. Lalit Mohan, UDC for management.

The representative present on behalf of the management has produced the documents in regard to the contract for the year 2017-18 for providing services of Data Entry Operators, messengers, Staff car drivers, M.T.S. etc., which was awarded to Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. He submits that the claimant was engaged through the contractor only for a year. Thereafter, a regular driver from the department replaced him.

Record perused. The claimant had moved an application U/s 2-A of I.D. Act, 1947 submitting that he had worked for Director General C.P.W.D. and Director of personal (P.W.D.). He further submitted that he had requested the management to regularize his services, but the management got annoyed with the request and terminated his services.

On 02.09.2024, AR for the claimant had admitted upon enquiry that the claimant's salary used to be paid through the contractor. However, he didn't implead the contractor in this matter.

Considering the fact that the claimant has not appeared thereafter to pursue his claim, the matter stands dismissed due to lack of prosecution. The award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. The file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer Dated 13.02.2025

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 539.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मेसर्स पी.एस.एच.एल.टी. (कांट्रेक्टर); भुबनेश्वरी ओएसपी ऑफ़ एमसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री गोबिंदा तिरिअ के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुबनेश्वर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 22/2017) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-20]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 539.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1383 cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s P.S.H.L.T. (Contractor); Bhubaneswari OSP of MCL and Shri Gobinda Tiria which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-20]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 22/2017

Date of Passing Order – 24th December, 2024

Between :-

1. The Manager, M/s. P.S.H.L.T. (Contractor), At./Po. Dera, Talcher, Dist. Angul, Odisha.

2. The General Manager, Bhubaneswari OCP of MCL, At./Po. Dera, Talcher, Dist. Angul (Odisha).

… 1st Party-Managements.

(And)

Gobinda Tiria, At./Po. Gobara, P.S. Bikrampur, Talcher, Angul, Odisha.

… Applicant-Workman.

Appearances:

None. … For the 1st Party-Managements.

None. … For the Applicant-Workman.

ORDER

The applicant-workman has filed an application under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein- after referred as an act).

2. The case of the applicant-workman as per his statement of claim is as follows:-

He had worked for more than 13 years as a high skilled worker as an Heavy Vehicle Driver uninterruptedly and continuously under the direct control of the Management No. 2 through vendor contractor. His work was being supervised by the officials of the Management No. 2. He was getting less wages than the minimum wages prescribed from time to time. He was never paid bonus throughout his service period although he was legally entitled to. The 1 st Party-Management No. 1 was always irregular in making payment to him. The Managements always reluctant to provide minimum facilities. He had insisted for payment of wages at par with counterpart on regular roll, the 1 st Party-Management No. 2 illegally and arbitrarily retrenched him on dated 14.06.2016 without giving any prior notice and retrenchment benefits. He raised a dispute before the labour machinery and when the conciliation proceeding was delayed, he preferred the present application under section 2-A(2) of the Act.

He has prayed for direction to the Managements to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other benefits applicable under law.

3. The 1st Party-Management No. 2 appeared and filed its written statement denying entire averments of the applicant-workman.

1384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The 1st Party-Management No. 2 in its written statement has taken a stand that the present case is not maintainable in law more particularly against them. There is no relationship of employer and employee between them and with the applicant -workman. The applicant was never recruited through any recruitment process and no appointment letter was issued. The Management No. 2 never paid any wages to the applicant workman directly as he was the employee of the contractor. The Management No. 2 has also submitted that the contractor Management No. 1.

The Management no. 1 has not appeared and has not filed any written statement in this case.

4. Applicant-workman is asked to prove his case. However, despite providing a number of opportunities, applicant-workman has not turned up to prove his claim. As the applicant-workman has not turned up for proving his case, his claim stands dismissed.

5. Order is passed accordingly.

6. A copy of this order is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947. File is consigned to record room.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 540.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मेसर्स नालको लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और नालको एम्प्लाइज संघ के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुबनेश्वर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 03/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -43011/03/2018-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 03/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s NALCO Limited and NALCO Employees Sangh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. L-43011/03/2018-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 03/2019

Date of Passing Order – 24th December, 2024

Between :-

The General Manager (S&P), M/s. NALCO Ltd., P.O. Nalco Nagar, District – Angul (Odisha) – 759 145

… 1st Party-Management.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1385

(And)

The General Secretary, Nalco Employees

Sangh, Post – Nalco Nagar, District – Angul,

(Odisha) – 759 145.

… 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None. … For the 1st Party-Management.

None. … For the 2nd Party-Union.

ORDER

In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-43011/03/2018 – IR(M), dated 21.12.2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the following schedule:-

"Whether the enquiry proceeding by the management of National Aluminium Co. Ltd., Odisha against the workman Shri Krushna Singh Junka is vitiated? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?" 2. In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

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

4. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Union on 21.01.2020, 16.03.2020, 03.04.2023 and lastly on dated 08.05.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-Union, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2 nd Party-Union is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

5. Since the 2nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.

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

7. Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 541.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मेसर्स इंडिया सीमेंट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री वीरभद्रप्पा के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 63/2014) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -29011/65/2013-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 63/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in1386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] relation to M/s India Cement Limited and Shri Veerabhadrappa which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. L-29011/65/2013-IR(M]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 22nd day of January, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 63/2014

Between:

Sri Veerabhadrappa Vill. & Post: Karankote, Tandur-Mandal, Ranga Reddy-dist.

..….Petitioner

AND

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Ch. Shyam Sunder Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: Shri Niranjan Rao, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-29011/65/2013 (IR(M)) dated 29.07.2015 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. India Cements Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the General Manager, India Cements Ltd., Malakapur, Ranga Reddy- Dist. And their contractors in terminating the service of Sri Veerabhadrappa and Sri Sridhar Gaud (contract workers) is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to?'

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 63/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. In the present matter. The claim statement was filed by the petitioner to challenge his termination order from service by the Respondent. Although petitioner has filed chief statement affidavit of the witness but witness was not produce for cross examination. In the absence of cross examination the evidence of witness is revenant & admissible. Thus the claim of the petitioner is not substainted any evidence. Therefore, "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 22nd day of January, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1387

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 542.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार जीटीसी ऑयलफिल्ड र्सर्वसेज लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री यासीन अहमद के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 29/2024) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-23]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2024) 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 GTC Oilfield Services Limited and Sri Yasin Ahmad which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-23]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of February, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 29/2024

Between:

Shri Yasin Ahmed,

Crane Operrator, Madansing Petal

Jampet, Rajahmundry, East Godavari,

Andra Pradesh-533101.

..….Petitioner

AND

GTC Oilfiled Services Ltd.,

Rep by Shri Santosh Kumar Singh,

Project Coordinator, Srinija Shelters,

Door No. 80-4-12, Room No.501,

Sai Nagar, JN Road, Rajahmundry,1388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: Sri C. Sridhar, advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/17/2024-B1 dated 29.05.2024 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 GTC Oilfiled Services Ltd.,and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of GTC Oilfiled Services Ltd.,

Rajahmundry in terminating the services of its workman Shri Yasin Ahmed, Ex-Crane operator Rajahmundry is justified or not? It not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 29/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Notice sent by petitioner at his given address. It seems petitioner don't want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in the absence of claim statement by petitioner '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 17 th day of February, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 543.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मेसर्स ऑयल एंड नेचुरल गैस कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड (ओएनजीसी); मेसर्स साई बालाजी लॉजिस्टिक्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और कु रति श्रीनिवास के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 3/2022) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-24]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1389

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 3/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC); M/s Sai Balaji Logistics, and Kurati Srinivas which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025- IR (M)-24]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 10th day of February, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 3/2022

Between:

Kurati Srinivas, Aged about

37 years, S/o Veeraju,

D.No. 4-2-3/1, Occ: Truck Driver,

Y.N.K.V. Hall Veedhi,

Narsapuram-534275. ..….Petitioner

AND

1. M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC)

Represented by its Excutive Director,'

Base Complex, Rajahmundry,

East Godavari Dist-533106.

2. M/s Sai Balaji Logistics,

Represented by its proprietor,

Mini Truck Contractor,

3-7-7- Ramnagar,

Nidadavolu, Dist-534301. … Respondents Appearances:

For the Petitioner: T. Koteswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: K. Venumadhava, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Kurati Srinivas, who worked as Truck 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 Respondents No. 2 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 06.06.2021, as the same is violative of section 25F/25M of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service of 2 nd Respondent, or with any other contractor came in the place of the 2nd Respondent by virtual change in the contract with all consequential benefits including the continuity of the service of back wages till reinstatement into service and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Petitioner absent. Respondent refused to adduce any evidence. Perused the record. Present claim statement has been filed by petitioner challenged his termination order dated 06.06.2021 passed by respondent as the same being in violative of section 25F of ID act. Although petitioner has filed the affidavit of WW1 in evidence but despite sufficient opportunity could not produce the witness for cross examination. No other evidence has been1390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] adduce by the petitioner in support of averment of claim statement. Therefore the claim of petitioner is not found substantiated by any evidence. Hence, '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 10 th day of February, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 544.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय

सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री डी. रमेश के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 56/2014) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/45/2013-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 56/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri D. Ramesh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. L-17012/45/2013- IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 21st day of January, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 56/2014

Between:

Shri D. Ramesh

S/o Venkateswara Rao,

D.No. 13-17, Kaza Post,

M.M. Palli, Movva (M),

Krishna District.

..….Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /चैत्र 15, 1947 1391 AND

1. The Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Officer, Kennedy Road,

Machilipatnam(AP).

2. The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Officer, Kennedy Road,

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Shri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent: Shri Venkatesh dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/45/2013 (IR(M)) dated 04.03.2014 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 LIC of India, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the removal from service of Shri D. Ramesh, Ex-Temp. Class-IV, LIC of India, Machilipatnam Divisional Office w.e.f. 21.1.2013, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 56/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner has filed the memo to withdraw the present ID case stating that he don't want to pursue his case. Respondent has no objection. Memo allowed. Petition is disposed of with order, "Dismissed as withdrawn".

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 21st day of January, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 545.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्रीय सरकार मेसर्स वेदांता लिमिटेड के यर्न ऑयल; श्री वेंकटेश्वर कं स्ट्रक्शन; श्री बालाजी कं स्ट्रक्शन; श्री राम उद्यम; श्री डी. सत्य साईं बाबा; श्री रामन्जनेय उद्यम; श्री वरसिद्दी विनायक कं स्ट्रक्शन; वेंकटलक्ष्मी उद्यम; श्री साई राम उद्यम; श्री सत्य राजा उद्यम; श्री सुब्रह्मण्येश्वर उद्यम; श्री अंजनेय एंटरप्राइजेज; श्री सप्तगिरी एंटरप्राइजेज; शिरडी एंटरप्राइजेज; श्री वेंकट सत्य गौरी एंटरप्राइजेज; श्री आर एस सुरक्षा; सोडेक्सो कै टररंग र्सर्वसेज इंडिया प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों1392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] और जनरल सेक्रे टरी, रव्वा कॉन्ट्रैक्ट एम्प्लाइज यूनियन के बीच अनुबंध में र्निर्दष्ट के न्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं

श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 44/2024) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है

जो के न्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-25]

दिलीप कु मार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 44/2024) 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 Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil; Sri Venkateswara Constructions; Sri Balaji Contructions; Sri Ram enterprises; Sri D. Satya Sai Baba; Sri Ramanjaneya enterprises; Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Constructions; Venkatalaxmi enterprises; Sri Sai Rama enterprises; Sri Satya Raja enterprises; Sri Subrahmanyeswara enterprises; Sri Anjaneya Enterprises; Sri Sapthagiri Enterprises; Shirdi Enterprises; Sri Venkata Satya Gowri Enterprises; Shri R S Security; Sodexo Catering Services India Pvt. Ltd. and General Secretary, the Ravva Contract Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025- IR (M)-25]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 30th day of January, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 44/2024

Between:

The General Secretary,

The Ravva Contract Employees Union,

D.No. 2-302, S. Yanam Post, Uppalaguptam

Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema

Dist.-533213. ..… .Petitioner AND

1. Sri Venkateswara Constructions,

C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham